ATF to Institute Rulemaking Regarding Stabilizing Braces and Require Registration of Currently Owned Braces

[Charles L. Cotton]

I knew I should have stayed out of this thread. It quickly went from a factual post to ranting, faulty analogies, insinuations of apathy and insults to a whole class of gun owners. If you can't stick to facts and leave the emotion out of the discussion, then just ignore this thread.

Apathy and/or Inaction:
As I've said twice, I won't say what the NRA is or is not doing on this issue. However, as I posted earlier, any efforts on this issue must proceed with the knowledge of the SCOTUS case that held the BATFE's opinions are not relevant to whether a person has violated the NFA. It will focus on whether the weapon at issue is a SBR or a pistol. Yes, I'd like to see the BATFE reverse it's position and "approve" all pistol braces. This would make it less likely that most LEO agencies would arrest someone for having a braced pistol. It would make it less likely that most DAs would accept charges. However, there are jurisdictions where agencies would make the arrest and the DAs would be happy to prosecute. Then, the honest citizen who relied upon the BATFE decision would very possibly find himself/herself in the same position the straw-man defendant (Uncle) did when he also relied upon the BATFE's website disclosures.

So what are the only safe and reliable fixs to this problem? Removing SBRs and SBSs from the NFA, along with suppressors, is one way. Even the rank and file BATFE agents want this done. However, with an anti-gun Democrat majority in the House and a rabid anti-gun President/Vice-President about to be inaugurated next month, that isn't going to happen. This leads us to the second fix. This will require a favorable decision from the SCOTUS. First, we need a broad decision on semi-auto rifles (a/k/a "black rifles" or "assault rifles.") Then we need a favorable decision on the NFA. That decision probably would not include machine guns and destructive devices, but SBRs, SBSs, suppressors and possibly AOWs might be stricken from the list. At this point, this is just a theory, but it's the type of fix that would truly protect citizens. I don't want a symbolic victory, much less one that gives honest people a false sense of security.

Bump-stocks - A terrible analogy or comparison:
Trying to compare the bump-stock issue to pistol braces is a classic apples to oranges comparison. I've discussed this before so I'll be brief. The United States has never had any mass shooting that comes close to the Law Vegas incident. Fifty-eight people died from gunfire; 411 people were wounded by gunfire while 456 where injured fleeing the scene. Thus, total casualties were 925!!!! This generated a tsunami of anti-gun pressure on elected officials. I cannot and will not go into detail, but pro-gun members of Congress begged for a way to stop an all-out semi-auto rifle ban. People who argue that bump-stocks were "thrown under the buss" are intentionally or unintentionally arguing that it would have been better to have semi-auto rifles banned than to dump the issue back on the BATFE. Of course, they won't admit it, but those are the facts. We came closer to losing "assault rifles" than most people know and some people will never believe. You can believe this or not, but it's a fact. I know what I'm talking about; as Elmer Keith's book was titled, "Hell, I was There!"

Chas.

[srothstein]

So,as I understand what is happening now, compared to what happened before, much of the storm is a tempest in a teapot situation. The ATF is reviewing its decision on pistol braces (which actually would apply to any pistol but is most commonly used on AR pistols). They are deciding whether or not a pistol brace is actually a short stock, thus making the weapon a short barrelled rifle. The ATF cannot currently give us a hard and fast rule on what will be decided to be a brace and what will be decided to be an SBR. This situation was, at least in part, brought on by users of AR pistol braces to get around the law on SBRs. The actual law says it is a pistol if it is designed to be fired with one hand. Most people use two hands to shoot an AR pistol, even with a brace, raising the question of whether it really is a pistol or not.

The good news is that there is a SCOTUS case where the ruling included saying that they would not rely on ATF opinions. This is good because, to compare it to another agency, the IRS will not even rely on their own opinions but at least ATF will (so far).

This has happened at least three times before that I know of. The ATF reversed its previous opinion on bump stocks and effectively made them illegal. People were using bump stocks to get around the ban on full auto firearms. As a result of the one crime where they are known to have been used, there was enough public uproar to pass a new "assault rifle" ban that a compromise was effectively reached that kept all of our rifles intact if you did not have a bump stock. But the bump stock ban is just and ATF opinion and the law actually defines what a machine gun is.

The time before that there was an uproar about "assault rifles" being used in crimes, especially gang drive by shootings. There was a ban on these assault rifles proposed. It was fought hard, but it was going to pass no matter what. A compromise was reached to remove some of the opposition by requiring the instant background check system, the effectiveness of the ban to be studied and reported to congress, and the ban to expire in ten years unless extended. The end result was that we now have an official congressionally accepted report that assault weapon bans do not materially affect crime rates and the ban is gone. This makes it much harder to institute new assault rifle bans at the federal level. That is a good thing.

The time before that was a drive towards major gun control. There was also a counterpush against it. The end result was the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. As gun owners, we gained the legal ability to travel with firearms in most cases. The compromise made us give up the right or ability to buy any new fully automatic firearms. This did not affect our legal ability to buy existing full-auto stuff, though it did drive up their prices.

So now we need to know what to do with the current push. I believe we have a clear cut path to remedy the current ATF opinion. First, we have time to make comments on the proposal that may force the ATF to at least make the criteria more clear for the determination. Second, we have several suggestions which can prove useful, including registering the weapons for free as SBRs, which would let you make other changes to improve the weapon. Third, we can use the courts to argue against the ATF decision. We would have to show that the braced AR pistol is commonly shot from a one handed position. We can add to the court case how many people fire all pistols using two hands. This would show that the use of a support hand on the AR pistol is not uncommon. That brings the question down to making sure that pistol owners do NOT shoulder the brace and use it as a miniature stock. If people keep shouldering the braced pistol, then the ATF opinion is correct and we will not win in court.

I do not know anything about what the NRA is or is not doing. I have no contact with the management more than any other member. But this case looks like it has been set up for us. Using the free registration option lets a lot of people get what they wanted without having to jump through the previous hoops. And having a SCOTUS case against the ATF opinions means we just nee to find the right plaintiff to file a lawsuit. There are some tricks in the case and I will be the first to admit that any court case is a crap shoot when it comes to a decision, but it seems possible to me. I think a good case could be made against the bump stock ban also. I happen to think that a case can be made against freezing the NFA registry also. Not being a lawyer, I could be wrong on this. But this is my opinion on how to fight this.

Full disclosure: I have never owned a rifle with a bump stock. I don't think the average person has any use for full auto or the simulation of it. I do love to shoot full auto because it is a blast, but I know it has very limited tactical application other than suppressive fire. I have never cared for AR pistols, with or without braces. I have tried one one time, and felt that it was kind of fun but I could not see a use for it at all. I would rather use my 1911 for any time I need a pistol (or lately, my Springfield XDM-10). But I also believe that my seeing a need for them is irrelevant. My interpretation of the Second Amendment says if you want it, you don't need to justify it to me.

[Soccerdad1995]

Why don't we ask the ATF the question: "Do you have any direct evidence that SBR or "Brace Pistols" are used in a majority of gun crimes?" What percentage? Why do we have a SBR NFA law?

The ATF is not the organization to ask "Why do we have ____ law?" Congress is who you should be asking.

I would agree with this if the ATF didn't take it upon themselves to effectively rewrite laws through "creative" interpretations like they did when they defined bump stocks as machine guns even though bump stocks do not meet the legal definition of a machine gun.

The fact is that the ATF IS creating new laws, for all practical purposes.

[Soccerdad1995]

I'm thinking about the "one hand" thing w/r/t pistols. The fact is that I do not own a single pistol that I would intentionally fire with only one hand. In fact, in 25+ years of firing guns, the only time I have ever fired a pistol with one hand is when I was either competing in, or preparing for, an IDPA event that included that requirement. So if the fact that people do not actually fire a particular gun with only hand automatically means that it is not a pistol, then I guess I have never owned any pistols, and almost no guns would actually be a pistol.

But the fact is that I do own alot of guns that are designed in such a way that they can be fired with one hand, even if doing so is less effective than using 2 hands. This would include 1911's, Glocks, and yes, AR pistols. The fact is that all of these guns are designed to be able to be fired with only one hand, but in reality almost no one regularly fires any of these guns with only one hand.

[MaduroBU]

You can fire a Browning M2 with one hand. You can fire an M777 Howitzer with one hand. You could fire a "pistol M700" with one hand. There isn't a clear line, which renders the effort to delineate between a firearms that can legally have <16" barrels and firearms that cannot practically impossible. Further, the longstanding recognition of the utility of short, handy guns means that such weapons have been common for well over 150 years. The practical distinction never existed. Finally, ownership of a rifle and a chop saw, lathe, or even a hacksaw in the case of a shotgun is constructive possession.

The SBR provision of the NFA is so vague as to be unenforceable. The suppressor portion is ludicrous and should also be struck, but at least it can be legally defined.

[bagman45]

Let's see; what was the quote? Something about COLD DEAD HANDS????

[K.Mooneyham]

I knew I should have stayed out of this thread. It quickly went from a factual post to ranting, faulty analogies, insinuations of apathy and insults to a whole class of gun owners. If you can't stick to facts and leave the emotion out of the discussion, then just ignore this thread.

Apathy and/or Inaction:
As I've said twice, I won't say what the NRA is or is not doing on this issue. However, as I posted earlier, any efforts on this issue must proceed with the knowledge of the SCOTUS case that held the BATFE's opinions are not relevant to whether a person has violated the NFA. It will focus on whether the weapon at issue is a SBR or a pistol. Yes, I'd like to see the BATFE reverse it's position and "approve" all pistol braces. This would make it less likely that most LEO agencies would arrest someone for having a braced pistol. It would make it less likely that most DAs would accept charges. However, there are jurisdictions where agencies would make the arrest and the DAs would be happy to prosecute. Then, the honest citizen who relied upon the BATFE decision would very possibly find himself/herself in the same position the straw-man defendant (Uncle) did when he also relied upon the BATFE's website disclosures.

So what are the only safe and reliable fixs to this problem? Removing SBRs and SBSs from the NFA, along with suppressors, is one way. Even the rank and file BATFE agents want this done. However, with an anti-gun Democrat majority in the House and a rabid anti-gun President/Vice-President about to be inaugurated next month, that isn't going to happen. This leads us to the second fix. This will require a favorable decision from the SCOTUS. First, we need a broad decision on semi-auto rifles (a/k/a "black rifles" or "assault rifles.") Then we need a favorable decision on the NFA. That decision probably would not include machine guns and destructive devices, but SBRs, SBSs, suppressors and possibly AOWs might be stricken from the list. At this point, this is just a theory, but it's the type of fix that would truly protect citizens. I don't want a symbolic victory, much less one that gives honest people a false sense of security.

Bump-stocks - A terrible analogy or comparison:
Trying to compare the bump-stock issue to pistol braces is a classic apples to oranges comparison. I've discussed this before so I'll be brief. The United States has never had any mass shooting that comes close to the Law Vegas incident. Fifty-eight people died from gunfire; 411 people were wounded by gunfire while 456 where injured fleeing the scene. Thus, total casualties were 925!!!! This generated a tsunami of anti-gun pressure on elected officials. I cannot and will not go into detail, but pro-gun members of Congress begged for a way to stop an all-out semi-auto rifle ban. People who argue that bump-stocks were "thrown under the buss" are intentionally or unintentionally arguing that it would have been better to have semi-auto rifles banned than to dump the issue back on the BATFE. Of course, they won't admit it, but those are the facts. We came closer to losing "assault rifles" than most people know and some people will never believe. You can believe this or not, but it's a fact. I know what I'm talking about; as Elmer Keith's book was titled, "Hell, I was There!"

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I appreciate the information. In fact, what you wrote made me think about it in a different light. I took the assumption that it would be (primarily) BATFE arresting folks for having an improperly braced/stocked pistol. However, now I understand that it could indeed be some other agency that arrests someone and thus even if that person followed what they thought the BATFE published on the subject, it very well might not help that person in court. In other words, the person might not fall afoul of the BATFE's "rules" on the subject, but still get in trouble despite that. I don't like the thought of it, but I have no doubt that the possibility exists.

[extremist]

I thought of another insidious possibility of consequences with allowing ATF to implement this rule and that is the following:

- by "allowing" us to register the brace equipped firearm now as a Title II weapon regulated by the NFA, it becomes less "transferrable" because now you can't just sell it to anyone, as a private sale and such. It has to be transferred so in effect, regulating the sale of private property without government permission. Easier to keep track of them don't you know.
- it's not too much of a stretch to imagine them doing this scheme next with the new "Assault weapons ban". Yes you can keep them as long as you register them for free. But now you can't buy and sell without permission.
- and the logical conclusion to both is them saying, "well now in the interest of public safety, you can no longer transfer them.

And that is how you eliminate private gun ownership in a generation or two.

[jason812]

I thought of another insidious possibility of consequences with allowing ATF to implement this rule and that is the following:

- by "allowing" us to register the brace equipped firearm now as a Title II weapon regulated by the NFA, it becomes less "transferrable" because now you can't just sell it to anyone, as a private sale and such. It has to be transferred so in effect, regulating the sale of private property without government permission. Easier to keep track of them don't you know.
- it's not too much of a stretch to imagine them doing this scheme next with the new "Assault weapons ban". Yes you can keep them as long as you register them for free. But now you can't buy and sell without permission.
- and the logical conclusion to both is them saying, "well now in the interest of public safety, you can no longer transfer them.

And that is how you eliminate private gun ownership in a generation or two.

The first step in confiscation is registration.

[powerboatr]

I thought of another insidious possibility of consequences with allowing ATF to implement this rule and that is the following:

- by "allowing" us to register the brace equipped firearm now as a Title II weapon regulated by the NFA, it becomes less "transferrable" because now you can't just sell it to anyone, as a private sale and such. It has to be transferred so in effect, regulating the sale of private property without government permission. Easier to keep track of them don't you know.
- it's not too much of a stretch to imagine them doing this scheme next with the new "Assault weapons ban". Yes you can keep them as long as you register them for free. But now you can't buy and sell without permission.
- and the logical conclusion to both is them saying, "well now in the interest of public safety, you can no longer transfer them.

And that is how you eliminate private gun ownership in a generation or two.

The first step in confiscation is registration.

DITTO

[madwildcat]

I thought of another insidious possibility of consequences with allowing ATF to implement this rule and that is the following:

- by "allowing" us to register the brace equipped firearm now as a Title II weapon regulated by the NFA, it becomes less "transferrable" because now you can't just sell it to anyone, as a private sale and such. It has to be transferred so in effect, regulating the sale of private property without government permission. Easier to keep track of them don't you know.
- it's not too much of a stretch to imagine them doing this scheme next with the new "Assault weapons ban". Yes you can keep them as long as you register them for free. But now you can't buy and sell without permission.
- and the logical conclusion to both is them saying, "well now in the interest of public safety, you can no longer transfer them.

And that is how you eliminate private gun ownership in a generation or two.

Isn't this essentially similar to what Canada has already done for many of these types of guns?

[KC5AV]

I thought of another insidious possibility of consequences with allowing ATF to implement this rule and that is the following:

- by "allowing" us to register the brace equipped firearm now as a Title II weapon regulated by the NFA, it becomes less "transferrable" because now you can't just sell it to anyone, as a private sale and such. It has to be transferred so in effect, regulating the sale of private property without government permission. Easier to keep track of them don't you know.
- it's not too much of a stretch to imagine them doing this scheme next with the new "Assault weapons ban". Yes you can keep them as long as you register them for free. But now you can't buy and sell without permission.
- and the logical conclusion to both is them saying, "well now in the interest of public safety, you can no longer transfer them.

And that is how you eliminate private gun ownership in a generation or two.

Isn't this essentially similar to what Canada has already done for many of these types of guns?

I don't know. I was in Saskatchewan last year, and you could buy short-barrel shotguns and rifles at Canadian Tire, but not a pistol in sight.

[powerboatr]

looks like i need to send a letter to my rep lance gooden. he was absent from the letter.