ATF Issues Rules For Stabilizing Braces

[Rucker61]

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

Rules download:

https://www.atf.gov/file/154871/download

Regulatory Impact Analysis.

https://www.atf.gov/file/154876/download

[.455_Hunter]

When the usage of 99.9% of "braces" is as a de facto shoulder stock, this should not be a surprise.

[CS1983]

The ATF specifically states in the test notes "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a "stabilizing braces" for any firearm that achieves an
apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a "short-barreled rifle" and circumvent the GCA or NFA."


There are no rules. This is a de facto ban. Follow the rules? Meh, we're gonna prosecute anyway.

When the usage of 99.9% of "braces" is as a de facto shoulder stock, this should not be a surprise.

If 99.9% of ar-15 rifle owners began using their rifles as crutches, would they be covered under the ADA?

Don't be obtuse.

We all followed the "law" and their random, illogical, and ever-changing edicts, including where they said that shouldering of a brace does not constitute a redesign and thus an SBR.

All they are showing is that the rules don't matter. They do what they want.

[20X11]

The worksheet on pages 16-17 of the second link is MOST helpful.

[kidicarus13]

Dear ATF... I have your "worksheet" right here.

[ManOnTarget]

This seems like a pretty good breakdown of the worksheet (mrgunsandgear).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yEW7Y0JPxo

Though, no mention of what happens to everyone who already has one. Does anyone realisticly think that the ATF can process 10 million SBR applications?!?

[.455_Hunter]

Don't be obtuse.

Understanding why something is occurring is not the same a supporting what is occurring.

If 99.9% of ar-15 rifle owners began using their rifles as crutches, would they be covered under the ADA?

You can argue all you want that the pointed plastic thing in your carry-on bag is an "Executive Letter Opener", but if it looks like a knife, stabs like a knife, and is commonly shown to be used as a knife, the TSA is going to consider it a knife.

Rightly or wrongly, for essentially 80 years the NFA put very tight restrictions on SBR and SBS configurations. I was very surprised when the bureaucratic "ruling" gave an essentially green light to shouldering of braces. I think it was naive for brace owners and brace manufacturers to think such authorization would extend in perpetuity, especially given it's vulnerability to whims of regime politics.

None of this should be a surprise.

[Frac]

Understanding why something is occurring is not the same a supporting what is occurring.



You can argue all you want that the pointed plastic thing in your carry-on bag is an "Executive Letter Opener", but if it looks like a knife, stabs like a knife, and is commonly shown to be used as a knife, the TSA is going to consider it a knife.

Rightly or wrongly, for essentially 80 years the NFA put very tight restrictions on SBR and SBS configurations. I was very surprised when the bureaucratic "ruling" gave an essentially green light to shouldering of braces. I think it was naive for brace owners and brace manufacturers to think such authorization would extend in perpetuity, especially given it's vulnerability to whims of regime politics.

None of this should be a surprise.

I agree. I am staunchly pro-2A, but this whole brace nonsense has been a farce from the start.

I find it hard to believe anyone can keep a straight face when they say this is an arm brace. It?s a gimmick to get around following the law to build an SBR.

[Little Dutch]

Rightly or wrongly, for essentially 80 years the NFA put very tight restrictions on SBR and SBS configurations. I was very surprised when the bureaucratic "ruling" gave an essentially green light to shouldering of braces. I think it was naive for brace owners and brace manufacturers to think such authorization would extend in perpetuity, especially given it's vulnerability to whims of regime politics.

None of this should be a surprise.

I trimmed your reply for clarity on what I'm addressing...

The quote highlights the crux of the issue. The ATF has always been free to create policy unchecked. Their opinions essentially create law, and they change on a whim. Random, illogical, and ever changing is a good description.

A month ago their policy was shouldering a pistol does not make it a rifle. This month you're a felon or something for even owning one. It's not unexpected, but it doesn't make their decisions correct, or even sane.

[brutal]

All your brace are belong to us.