ATF seeks to reclassify pistol braces as NFA items

[Tom Servo]

The notice is published in the federal register here, along with instructions for sending comments.

The GCA and NFA generally regulate “firearms” and not individual components and, as such, ATF does not classify unregulated components or accessories alone. However, components or accessories can affect the overall classification of a firearm because: (1) How a component or accessory is actually used may be relevant in assessing the manufacturer's or maker's intent with respect to the design of a firearm; or (2) the design of a component or accessory may result in a firearm falling within a particular statutory definition. Stabilizing braces are one such component or accessory that ATF has encountered.

[Bill DeShivs]

Why doesn't some smart lawyer write us a comment letter that we all could cut and paste?

[JERRYS.]

if you have an arm brace on your AR pistol, you will have to pay another $200 and spend some time in purgatory to keep it so.

[Chipperman]

Telling them to pound sand would probably be counterproductive.

Might still be fun though...

[HiBC]

As it is the brace and not the AR pistol that apparently is the issue,I took mine off. Just the receiver extension /buffer tube now.
Should be "No Heartburn" At least for now. Thanks for the "Heads Up"

[JERRYS.]

a slick way to get you to register your AR15 pistol as ------ with the batfe.

[Bill DeShivs]

EVERYONE and their relatives should submit comments on this!

[Bill DeShivs]

"ATF 2020R-10 serves no purpose, other than to infringe on the right to bear arms.
BATF has previously ruled that pistol braces were legal and not covered by the NFA. Now, they change their minds due to political winds changing direction.
I am opposed to this proposed rule. It will have no effect on crime, other than to make many law abiding citizens criminals."

Feel free to cut/paste my comment if you do not want to compose your own. Be sure to add your name and full address in the body of the comment.

[44 AMP]

One more in a long history of the ATF changing its mind.

and our tax dollars are paying for it...

[Nathan]

I commented....thanks for the heads up.

[JERRYS.]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

"ATF 2020R-10 serves no purpose, other than to infringe on the right to bear arms.
BATF has previously ruled that pistol braces were legal and not covered by the NFA. Now, they change their minds due to political winds changing direction.
I am opposed to this proposed rule. It will have no effect on crime, other than to make many law abiding citizens criminals."

Feel free to cut/paste my comment if you do not want to compose your own. Be sure to add your name and full address in the body of the comment.

done, thanks.

[rickyrick]

The only reason that I have a brace is so the the pistol can stand up with the other firearms in a gun safe... never used the brace to shoot the thing, so I’ll just take it off.

Seems to me, for safety reasons, a firearm should be allowed to be made as stable as possible.

[Sharkbite]

Consequently, following issuance of this notice, ATF and DOJ plan to implement a separate process by which current possessors of affected stabilizer-equipped firearms may choose to register such firearms to be compliant with the NFA. As part of that process, ATF plans to expedite processing of these applications, and ATF has been informed that the Attorney General plans retroactively to exempt such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes if they were made or acquired, prior to the publication of this notice, in good faith.

So, no $200 tax stamp and a process that is “expedited”.

If this comes to be reality, i will go ahead and put mine into the NFA registry. Ive already got a small stamp collection. A few more isnt going to change anything.

With the way they are looking at accessories being used by the second hand as classifiers and optics constrained for one handed use, id rather just SBR the darned things and be free to use em as i want.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Can they do the same thing for the ShockWave and TAC-14?

[Sharkbite]

Can they do the same thing for the ShockWave and TAC-14?

Those are not classified as “pistols” so its a different animal. BUT, BATFE has a track record of reclassifying guns to suit political climates.

I wouldnt put it past em...

[JERRYS.]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

So, no $200 tax stamp and a process that is “expedited”.

If this comes to be reality, i will go ahead and put mine into the NFA registry. Ive already got a small stamp collection. A few more isnt going to change anything.

With the way they are looking at accessories being used by the second hand as classifiers and optics constrained for one handed use, id rather just SBR the darned things and be free to use em as i want.

a few guys at work have already done this, I might also.

[krunchnik]

Have commented although I do not own an AR with this type stock but think everyone else should be able to without the ATF needing another couple of tax dollar's.

[Metal god]

I think it’s as simple as .... “ have you ever shouldered your pistol with an “arm brace “ ... if so , you are the problem and why this regulation has come to be . Every time I see a video of some tacticool guy shouldering his “pistol” I just shake my head . It is you guys that brought this on your selves and screwed the rest of us like just about every law and or regulation is passed . It just takes a few to effect everyone negatively. Maybe if our team stopped cheating we wouldn’t have as much to complain about .

[Bill DeShivs]

No, the problem is an over-reaching federal bureaucracy that should be disbanded.

[Metal god]

Lmao , ok I think I’ll try shouldering my glock since shouldering a “pistol” is some how doable . If you hold it like a rifle don’t be surprised if it’s treated like one . The most telling is The incredibly low percentage of videos I’ve seen with people actually using the brace as intended and the overwhelming percentage of people shouldering the brace .

If it looks like and can be used as , it doesn’t matter if you call it something else . I’ve said this before this is not about the brace it’s about the NFA . If you’re gonna make an argument make the right one .

[zeke]

What confuses me about this is who actually classifies the item in question according to the "guides" they would set up? Taken literally, the smaller pistol calibered items with wrap around the forearm braces may qualify as exempt, if their lop is short enough. I can easily shoot one with one hand.

[44 AMP]

What confuses me about this is who actually classifies the item in question according to the "guides" they would set up?

The ATF does the classification. Their technical department determines that.

As I understand it (and please, do correct me if I'm wrong) someone wanting to make a firearm or certain accessories submits their design to the ATF.

The ATF reviews it, and decides where the item fits under existing law, thereby "classifying" it.

the problem we are having is that we feel this should be a one time and done thing, and it isn't. The ATF may re-review and re-classify things when they feel like it, provided they follow the established procedure for that.

Which is, (I think) the proposed rule change is published in certain documents (Federal register???) with a request for comments to be submitted, for a set period of time. After that, the ATF reviews the comments, and decided to make the change, or not. (supposedly based on the input recieved, but you and I know how the world works, so what they actually base their decision on could be something else...)

There is a general perception that the ATF is out to get us, and while there may be individuals with that as their personal agenda the Agency's mission if to enforce compliance with the law. Not to judge the law, but to enforce compliance with every stupid, twisted confusing part of the various laws.

They don't hate us, but they don't give us the benefit of the doubt very often, either. If you want to blame anyone for an "out of control" agency, blame the out of control CONGRESSes (past, current, and most likely future) for giving them the authority and the tools to work with.

And, of course also the Executive Branch (which they are part of) for their specific marching orders...

And, yes, we are partly to blame, as the children amongst us can't seem to help but stir up crap that is better left alone.

I Have a TINY bit of sympathy for the ATF in this matter, simply because that while they ruled on Braces based on the maker's intent (which is not shouldering the brace) countless morons on internet Video showing that people are actually ignoring the maker's intent and using then AS STOCKS puts the ATF in a bit of a tough spot.

Using it as a stock without it being registered as a stocked pistol is against the law. but they can hardly be busting people in the act, congratulations, you were legal, but if you allow this thing to touch your shoulder now you're a federal felon (as soon as we can get you to court) is hardly something that goes over well with the American public.

the people doing those videos, like the people bragging about "ghost guns" quite literally created the problem, by sticking out their tongues, sticking their thumbs in the ears and waggling their fingers DARING the ATF to do something about it.

Well guess what kids, the ATF IS doing something about it.

And you don't like it...

[raimius]

So, the letter to clarify and propose objective standards doesn't list standards and makes things more confusing...thanks ATF (sarcasm)

[HiBC]

If you carefully read the 2017 (???) BATF "letter of guidance" the the BATF, said "How a part or accessory is used does not re-engineer or redesign the part or accessory" Thats from memory not a direct quote.

They further said "incidental or occasional use" of a brace against the shoulder was not a problem.

Mine has no brace on it so this is moot,but this issue is the reason mine has no brace.

A while back I started a thread about assembling an AR pistol in 300 Blackout.

I included some steps I took for myself based on my interpretation of the BATF memo.
I paid attention to the part about the gun not being engineered to be shoulder fired.

That,IMO,meant paying attention to factors like eye relief..A short eye relief scope could be construed as engineering the gun to be shoulder fired.

I was not telling anyone what to do,I was not telling anyone their gun was wrong.
I was just sharing my experience and considerations.

I could not believe the amount of negative crap I got for it.

I did not get any "Hmmm,thanks! I had not thought about that"

Could be its not about the guys who built pistols with legit braces.(No matter how they hold them) It might be
about guys who designed and built the gun to be an SBR with the minor workaround of a brace instead of a buttstock.

You guys who gave me the most negative posts.
I'd give you some honest feedback now,but the Mods would tell me I'm not supposed to talk that way.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...+pistol&page=2

[Sharkbite]

None of my AR pistols have magnified scopes with short eye relief and i can see that being an indication of being shoulder fired.

Truthfully, i never considered a forward handstop or angled foregrip as a sign of the same. Now that it has been pointed out, it makes sense. If the gun is designed to be fired with one hand...why install a place to put a second hand.