ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

[allen-1]

The argument shouldn’t be “the ATF shouldn’t regulate pistol braces“. Every single time I see someone with an AR pistol brace, they use it to shoulder the pistol and use the brace as a stock. I’ve never seen anyone actually wrap Velcro around their forearm and shoot their pistol with the brace’s intended purpose. You and I both know it if you’re honest with yourselves and each other. Everyone bought braced pistols to skirt NFA and the SBR process. The argument should be NFA is unconstitutional and should be overturned and the ATF and all the other unelected bureaucratic agencies of unelected simps should be gutted.

That's true.

The other factor here is that braced pistols were/are legal, (on a Federal level), and the ATF doesn't have legislative powers - they can't just change the laws in effect by calling them "regulations". If they have their way, what was legal is now illegal, (posession of a braced pistol). They've turned law-abiding citizens into potential felons without the power to do so.

 

[Dennis in MA]

At what point do you say enough? I wore a mask as little as possible. I changed my doctor because of the face diaper rules. I wouldn't shop in stores that require it. If I had an arm brace, I wouldn't comply. We all have a line we won't cross. I guess you haven't gotten to yours yet.

You'd have been SOL in Massachusetts. Doctors offices were under a STATE mask mandate until a few weeks ago. Dentists (think about that one for a second) were under one until I think year-end 2022. Dentists. You wear a mask. . . . to take hte mask off and have someone ROOT AROUND IN YOUR MOUTH. LOL

The argument shouldn’t be “the ATF shouldn’t regulate pistol braces“. Every single time I see someone with an AR pistol brace, they use it to shoulder the pistol and use the brace as a stock. I’ve never seen anyone actually wrap Velcro around their forearm and shoot their pistol with the brace’s intended purpose. You and I both know it if you’re honest with yourselves and each other. Everyone bought braced pistols to skirt NFA and the SBR process. The argument should be NFA is unconstitutional and should be overturned and the ATF and all the other unelected bureaucratic agencies of unelected simps should be gutted.

Shhhjhh. LOL

I concur. I was flummoxed that the ATF allowed it in the first place. I mean, their original ruling is that it's a brace, even if someone happens to shoulder it.

 

[hunt4riches]

You'd have been SOL in Massachusetts. Doctors offices were under a STATE mask mandate until a few weeks ago. Dentists (think about that one for a second) were under one until I think year-end 2022. Dentists. You wear a mask. . . . to take hte mask off and have someone ROOT AROUND IN YOUR MOUTH. LOL




Shhhjhh. LOL

I concur. I was flummoxed that the ATF allowed it in the first place. I mean, their original ruling is that it's a brace, even if someone happens to shoulder it.

THIS

I *can* use a coffee mug as a hammer, if I'm able to pound a nail into a board, it's still a coffee mug, not a hammer. If it breaks, I have a broken coffee mug, not a broken hammer. If the ATF was all butthurt that a brace made a firearm shoulder-fire-able (and didn't like it) then they lobby to CHANGE THE LAW. Now there are bags of dicks everywhere and someone has to suck them...

 

[Parker Schreiber]

If the ATF was all butthurt that a brace made a firearm shoulder-fire-able (and didn't like it) then they lobby to CHANGE THE LAW.

18 USC 921 (the law) reads in part: “The term ‘rifle’ means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

So if a brace remakes a weapon so it’s designed to be fired from the shoulder, and you both agree that many (most?) braces are so designed, then the LAW didn’t need changing to fix the butthurt. The ATF created the loophole with its original rulings, and now ATF is trying to close it.

IMO, it’s a stupid law, and should be repealed and/or struck down, but that’s a different soapbox.

 

[heck ya beaches]

The argument shouldn’t be “the ATF shouldn’t regulate pistol braces“. Every single time I see someone with an AR pistol brace, they use it to shoulder the pistol and use the brace as a stock. I’ve never seen anyone actually wrap Velcro around their forearm and shoot their pistol with the brace’s intended purpose. You and I both know it if you’re honest with yourselves and each other. Everyone bought braced pistols to skirt NFA and the SBR process. The argument should be NFA is unconstitutional and should be overturned and the ATF and all the other unelected bureaucratic agencies of unelected simps should be gutted.

I've used the brace as a brace. I've also seen someone shoulder with just a buffer tube. The argument can be that the NFA just punishes law abiding people AND that the ATF has no place in making up laws.

 

[hunt4riches]

18 USC 921 (the law) reads in part: “The term ‘rifle’ means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

So if a brace remakes a weapon so it’s designed to be fired from the shoulder, and you both agree that many (most?) braces are so designed, then the LAW didn’t need changing to fix the butthurt. The ATF created the loophole with its original rulings, and now ATF is trying to close it.

IMO, it’s a stupid law, and should be repealed and/or struck down, but that’s a different soapbox.

You can shove a pistol up against your shoulder and fire it, if you want to.... The braces are a gray area because they enable shoulder firing, despite not being explicitly designed to do so (yeah, I know... manufacturers be like: 'whistle-whistle' huh I didn't say nuffin...) So back to my original comment. Either 1): Change 18 USC 921 to include under the term 'rifle': "any firearm equipped with or modified by any means such that any attachment, accessory, part, combination of parts, (word salad) and/or (more word salad) that enables said firearm to be fired from the shoulder." -- or -- 2) repeal all sections of the NFA regard SBR's. Between you and me, yes, they function as a go-around to SBR's. It's the norm to use a brace to shoulder fire a pistol regardless of what was intended by manufacturers. Strapping an 8-lb pistol to your arm to shoot single-handed is just plain stoopid... so yeah... the entire point of the braces is to go around the NFA. Since the world didn't end with tens of millions of Americans running around with legal-quasi-SBR's, the "right thing to do" (IMO) is shitcan the NFA....

 

[Tartakovsky]

18 USC 921 (the law) reads in part: “The term ‘rifle’ means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

So if a brace remakes a weapon so it’s designed to be fired from the shoulder, and you both agree that many (most?) braces are so designed, then the LAW didn’t need changing to fix the butthurt. The ATF created the loophole with its original rulings, and now ATF is trying to close it.

IMO, it’s a stupid law, and should be repealed and/or struck down, but that’s a different soapbox.

 

[Tartakovsky]

That's true.

The other factor here is that braced pistols were/are legal, (on a Federal level), and the ATF doesn't have legislative powers - they can't just change the laws in effect by calling them "regulations". If they have their way, what was legal is now illegal, (posession of a braced pistol). They've turned law-abiding citizens into potential felons without the power to do so.

I don't really see it as them changing the law. They never should have said braces were OK in the first place if people use them to shoulder fire a weapon originally made as a rifle and use it "like a rifle".

18 USC 921 (the law) reads in part: “The term ‘rifle’ means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

ATF has law enforcement capabilities enforcing the above and NFA. The problem is NFA is blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[Drix]

The argument shouldn’t be “the ATF shouldn’t regulate pistol braces“. Every single time I see someone with an AR pistol brace, they use it to shoulder the pistol and use the brace as a stock. I’ve never seen anyone actually wrap Velcro around their forearm and shoot their pistol with the brace’s intended purpose. You and I both know it if you’re honest with yourselves and each other. Everyone bought braced pistols to skirt NFA and the SBR process. The argument should be NFA is unconstitutional and should be overturned and the ATF and all the other unelected bureaucratic agencies of unelected simps should be gutted.

I'm one of those guys you never see, but my brace is on a legit pistol.

There's no way I'm registering my edc as a SBR so I need to tell the ATF when I cross a state line for a f***in handgun.

My brace isn't serialized, I'd register that. Why do I own the stupid thing? 99% of the time it's being used for my home defence gun, or fun at the range, but it has ventured out questionable places and for a while it lived in my car.

I brace it legally against my bicep.

 

[Dench]

There's a lot of room between a violation-level ticket for not wearing a mask, and 10 years in federal prison for violating the NFA.

In fairness putting someone in jail for 10 years for having a brace is 100% reasonable and should not be questioned by anyone nor fixed.

ATF is just trying to keep people safe from the enhanced lethality of pistol braces.

 

[hunt4riches]

I'm one of those guys you never see, but my brace is on a legit pistol.

There's no way I'm registering my edc as a SBR so I need to tell the ATF when I cross a state line for a f***in handgun.

My brace isn't serialized, I'd register that. Why do I own the stupid thing? 99% of the time it's being used for my home defence gun, or fun at the range, but it has ventured out questionable places and for a while it lived in my car.

I brace it legally against my bicep.

Can you put a SN on a brace and just register the brace?

 

[Drix]

Can you put a SN on a brace and just register the brace?

If I remember correctly their quick guide directly has my gun in it and says it's a SBR. In order to register you need a picture of the setup and I think they're qualifying based on the firearm saying the pistol is a short rifle because of the brace.

Originally I was going to just get the stamp, but it'll be cheaper for me to throw the brace in the trash.

 

[heck ya beaches]

If I remember correctly their quick guide directly has my gun in it and says it's a SBR. In order to register you need a picture of the setup and I think they're qualifying based on the firearm saying the pistol is a short rifle because of the brace.

Originally I was going to just get the stamp, but it'll be cheaper for me to throw the brace in the trash.

I wouldn't trash it until cases go through the courts. Taking a picture with the brace on the gun and sending it to the ATF to classify as an SBR means you had an SBR before they gave you permission. If it's not a US-made pistol, well, I hope it's 922r compliant once the ATF designates it as a rifle per your request.

 

[Tartakovsky]

 

[Garys]

Dental staff wore masks and face Shields before COVID because they didn't want to get splashed. It was just more MA DPH stupidity to require patients to wear masks.

 

[NHCraigT]

Interesting = Go to 7:00 mark:


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wxKHyNj44Qo

 

[PappyM3]

18 USC 921 (the law) reads in part: “The term ‘rifle’ means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

So if a brace remakes a weapon so it’s designed to be fired from the shoulder, and you both agree that many (most?) braces are so designed, then the LAW didn’t need changing to fix the butthurt. The ATF created the loophole with its original rulings, and now ATF is trying to close it.

IMO, it’s a stupid law, and should be repealed and/or struck down, but that’s a different soapbox.

View attachment 756194

You’d have a point if it weren’t for the fact that the ATF said, at one point, that it was okay if users shouldered the braces.

 

[42!]

You’d have a point if it weren’t for the fact that the ATF said, at one point, that it was okay if users shouldered the braces.

But if you argue that the ATF can't make law, then that original rule is just as invalid as the current rule. You can't say they aren't allowed to make these rules EXCEPT when I like them.
This is not an opinion on either ruling, its just showing the flaw in the argument. Easiest way to lose an argument is for it to contain internal conflicts.

 

[PappyM3]

But if you argue that the ATF can't make law, then that original rule is just as invalid as the current rule. You can't say they aren't allowed to make these rules EXCEPT when I like them.
This is not an opinion on either ruling, its just showing the flaw in the argument. Easiest way to lose an argument is for it to contain internal conflicts.

They said as long as the manufacturer didn’t design or intend for it to be shouldered. Which is a valid enforcement of the (unconstitutional, but codified) law.

If they think a manufacturer designed or intended a particular firearm with a brace to be shouldered, then they can go about and try to prove that intent. But that’s not what they’re doing now.

 

[OnTheRoad]

 

[Golddiggie]

View: https://youtu.be/FXb9uVYSs6g

 

[42!]

They said as long as the manufacturer didn’t design or intend for it to be shouldered. Which is a valid enforcement of the (unconstitutional, but codified) law.

If they think a manufacturer designed or intended a particular firearm with a brace to be shouldered, then they can go about and try to prove that intent. But that’s not what they’re doing now.

Your still looking for that little loophole so you can weasel around an unconstitutional law, and your bias is keeping you from seeing the reality. Look at most of those braces, better yet go shoot 30 rounds with them strapped to your wrist. It's pretty obvious their primary purpose was/is to squeeze past the rule with what they think is plausible deniability.

Stop the BS hypocrisy and be honest, fight the law that is the problem and the rule goes away. Just squeezing past the rule will only result in another rule.

 

[PappyM3]

Your still looking for that little loophole so you can weasel around an unconstitutional law, and your bias is keeping you from seeing the reality. Look at most of those braces, better yet go shoot 30 rounds with them strapped to your wrist. It's pretty obvious their primary purpose was/is to squeeze past the rule with what they think is plausible deniability.

Stop the BS hypocrisy and be honest, fight the law that is the problem and the rule goes away. Just squeezing past the rule will only result in another rule.

I’m from Massachusetts, braces mean nothing to me. I’m not biased towards them.

But it’s not about pursuing a loophole rather than confronting the NFA.

The MASSIVE adoption and popularity of braces has normalized the whole notion of SBRs, making the defeat of the NFA far more likely in the future due to popular opinion.

But my logic is still sound. The ATF can’t blanket claim braces turn a gun into an SBR. They need to prove intent to manufacture/build a gun with a brace for the purpose of shouldering… for each manufacturer or individual builder.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The entire ATF ruling and rules are null and void ! They do NOT make law !!

Creating laws is the U.S. House of Representatives' most important job. All laws in the United States begin as bills. Before a bill can become a law, it must be approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the President

 

[Spartan65]

I’m from Massachusetts, braces mean nothing to me. I’m not biased towards them.

But it’s not about pursuing a loophole rather than confronting the NFA.

The MASSIVE adoption and popularity of braces has normalized the whole notion of SBRs, making the defeat of the NFA far more likely in the future due to popular opinion.

But my logic is still sound. The ATF can’t blanket claim braces turn a gun into an SBR. They need to prove intent to manufacture/build a gun with a brace for the purpose of shouldering… for each manufacturer or individual builder.

Lol until they suggest the jury instructions tell the jury they didn’t actually have to prove it was intent to manufacture an SBR and the leftist judge signs off on it.

 

[hunt4riches]

Dental staff wore masks and face Shields before COVID because they didn't want to get splashed. It was just more MA DPH stupidity to require patients to wear masks.

that and the masks prevented them from coughing into your mouth. Now some of the cute techs - I would personally not require them to wear anything (I mean literally birthday suit nothing)

 

[42!]

The entire ATF ruling and rules are null and void ! They do NOT make law !!

Or at least should be.

Creating laws is the U.S. House of Representatives' most important job. All laws in the United States begin as bills. Before a bill can become a law, it must be approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the President

And this is why you fight the law and not try to wiggle around the rule. Find a way around the rule and they just close that door with another rule. Change the law and you take that option away from them completely.

And it easy for them to prove a brace can and is being used as a stock, heck, the same people who go on about how it's not a stock post videos of themselves using it as a stock. It's not some people's idea of proof but it's more than enough proof for a jury.

 

[drgrant]

You and I both know it if you’re honest with yourselves and each other. Everyone bought braced pistols to skirt NFA and the SBR process.

In a cruel sense of irony at one point there were more or less factions within the ATF that apparently also believed this, because if anyone paid attention to the
chronology of this pistol brace stuff it was like years of: "no. no you can't do that. " a few years later.... " You can do that, but only if you're only using it as a stand for the
gun. You can do that, but not if you are shouldering it like a stock. " A few more years pass. Then suddenly, one year, they get f***ing ambushed with SBR applications (mid 2000s?) and then suddenly the posture is more or less "we don't care if you shoulder a braced gun anymore, do whatever" and it was literally "that" for a few years before they started f***ing whining about it again. So they have nobody to blame but themselves when they could have just kept saying "no". But it was obvious that some faction within ATF thought that the NFA regulating SBRs was just f***ing stupid, so they openly advocated for people to drive around the mess with a "pistol brace".

 

[drgrant]

And this is why you fight the law and not try to wiggle around the rule. Find a way around the rule and they just close that door with another rule. Change the law and you take that option away from them completely.

And it easy for them to prove a brace can and is being used as a stock, heck, the same people who go on about how it's not a stock post videos of themselves using it as a stock. It's not some people's idea of proof but it's more than enough proof for a jury.

Lol in this case the ATF literally invited people (for years, mind you) to practically drive a freight train full of guns around the rule when they started issuing determinations X years ago that basically said "the brace is intended for this, but if you use it to shoulder the pistol like a rifle we don't care, as long as it wasnt primarily designed for that purpose" That was literally prevailing doctrine from the tech branch for YEARS espoused in determination letters and other things. This wasnt some guy attaching pistol braces to guns in his basement either btw, it was the
ENTIRE INDUSTRY, every major AR manufacturer has sold braced pistols in the past however many years, legally.

Also that jury you speak of is gonna be kinda conflicted when the defense shows the jury that the ATF has contradicted itself on this issue no less than 3 times in the past 15-20 years.

Fundamentally, I agree with you, but it wasn't "gun owners trying to get around the lawrs" that actually caused this problem, that was just a side effect. It was the ATF that caused it by reneging on its previously long held, long time positions because it was getting lazy and didn't want to hire people to keep filing Form1s for them.

 

[SIGNES]

• The ATF can't legally invent law.
• This is probably could have been managed in a way that it wasn't so easily framed as an 'invention' of law but they have completely goat-f**cked the management of this at every turn and set themselves up for problems with the courts in a way there is some hope will be comeuppance.
• If you don't follow the rule and they bust you, you're proper f**cked unless and until there's a court case to save you. It probably won't be your court case and you probably can't afford (financially, emotionally, or socially) to have the case be yours.
• Braces have always been an end-run (an admittedly artful one given the 'accessibility' framing) around the definition of an SBR and pretending it's not is disingenuous at best and exactly the kind of B.S. that will make things worse, not better.
• The prohibitions/laws around SBRs are irrelevant to reducing gun violence and a vestige of an early draft of the NFA which tried to also limit handguns and the SBR rules are untidied cruft from when that went off the table.
• Owners should have gone for the free tax stamp because a) Safer for them. b) It'd have swamped ATF in paperwork and the court cases could (and should/would likely) still have proceeded. Why? Because clearly, they already have a 'registry' which is how they're doing knock and talks. That they do have this 'registry' and how they can access and correlate records when no crime has been committed and when there is no reasonable cause to suspect one is a separate but equally (frankly probably more) important legal issue. For as long as this 'rule' stands, it will be effectively used to jam up people who have in some other way attracted attention to themselves where, until this, there was insufficient evidence/pretext for an investigation and this will be how they will get screwed.

All of these things can be, and are true at the same time.

I choose to compulsively follow the rules because I prefer the bare minimum of bullshit in my life and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford the absurd prices and paperwork effort to document the rule following that come with this approach and still have at least some nice toys.

The wins, both legal and political, come not (all but never but not entirely never) from successful defense in a criminal trial but from pro-active legal action like Bruen. You do more good for 2A rights donating to rights groups. (Not gonna tell you which, that's your call) and with your votes than you will sitting in your basement scheming ways to thread some legal needle fantasizing about being the guy who wins in court after you're dragged off and your stuff impounded.

[Edit: To be clear re: "Accessibility framing", braces absolutely can be a benefit to users with disabilities. What I intended to say and oversimplified is that most braces were designed more to be shouldered than to aid accessibility and deliberately so.]