Our dear friends at the ATF chose Friday the 13th in the run-up to next week’s SHOT show to announce their final rule on the use of pistol stabilizing braces. Basically…you (mostly) can’t. Maybe what we love the most is the firearms regulators’ assiduous use of scare quotes around the term “stabilizing braces” to let us know that wink-wink these things are really stocks and we’re lucky they haven’t just outlawed them altogether a la bump stocks.

You can read the full rule here.

We haven’t had a chance to read through it in detail yet (it’s 293 pages long) to determine in what limited instances stabilizing brace use will be deemed acceptable. But from a quick skim and a look through the examples of firearms that are now — with a waive of the ATF’s regulatory magic wand — officially considered to be short-barrel rifles, the number of covered firearms the rule excludes is far more extensive than indicated by the guidance that was provided last year.

See them here. And here.

In other words, almost any AR and AK-style pistol — even if only equipped with iron sights…forget optics with long eye relief — appears to be covered here, requiring either registration as a short-barrel rifle, removal of the brace (and rendering it unusable) or removing the current barrel and replacing it with one that’s at least 16 inches long.

NOTE: During the 120-day period that begins when the rule is published, those choosing to register their newly deemed short-barreled rifles will be able to do so without being required to buy the $200 tax stamp.

Oh, and, to be clear, the rule doesn’t just apply to AR and AK type pistols.

That’s one of Black Collar Arms’ bolt action Pork Swords (disclosure: Black Collar is co-owned by our own Jeremy S.). It’s now considered a short-barrel rifle too, as long as it has a stabilizing brace attached. The same with similar brace-equipped bolt guns such as those from Remington, Q, and Christensen.

Also, note this bit of wonderfully contradictory word salad the ATF crafted in its statement announcing publication of the rule (full statement below) . . .

This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. However, if the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

The rule should be published in the Federal Register in the next few weeks. Here’s the ATF’s full statement . . .

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

The rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” (or other rearward attachment) to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act. The rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as listed in the definition, indicate the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. However, if the firearm with the “stabilizing brace” is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

This rule is effective the date it is published in the Federal Register.  Any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register; or the short barrel removed and a 16-inch or longer rifle barrel attached to the firearm; or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; or the firearm is turned in to your local ATF office. Or the firearm is destroyed.

Please note that this is the text of the final rule as signed by the Attorney General, but the official version of the final rule will be as it is published in the Federal Register. The rule will go into effect once it is published in the Federal Register. 

Again, you can read the ATF’s newly announced rule here.

EDIT: this is the most relevant summary we’ve come across in the document so far (still reading, though):

All previous ATF classifications involving “stabilizing brace” attachments for firearms are superseded as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. As such, they are no longer valid or authoritative, and cannot be relied upon. However, firearms with such attachments may be submitted to ATF for reclassification.

This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other factors are:

(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;
(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method) that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;
(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;
(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;
(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.

We haven’t yet come across what ATF means by “consistent with,” what they consider enough surface area to function as a stock, what “indirect marketing” means, or how they plan to hold a manufacturer accountable for the “likely use of the weapon in the general community” if that use is contrary to the manufacturer’s design intention, marketing, and stated purpose.

Stay tuned.

EDIT: Under this guidance, there are no pistol grip shotgun-style firearms that are acceptable with a brace, as none of those firearms are intended under the definitions of the Gun Control Act to be fired from one hand and, therefore, the brace has no purpose. These guns are now viewed as Short Barreled Shotguns, which are NFA-regulated. Needless to say, in our opinion just because these shorty, stockless “shotguns” fall into a catch-all definition of “firearm” under the Gun Control Act and that definition doesn’t state “designed to be fired from one hand” doesn’t mean a disabled user who must fire it only from one hand cannot benefit greatly from the employment of a stabilizing brace. Anyway, here’s the relevant text from the doc:

The NPRM explained that the proposed criteria and worksheet did not apply to firearms commonly referred to as “pistol grip shotguns,” as they were never designed to be held and fired using one hand (e.g., Mossberg Shockwave, Remington Tac-14).72 See also 86 FR at 30828–29.

As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, these firearms are specifically designed to be fired with two hands. ATF has always classified these weapons as “firearms” under the GCA, and not as “shotguns,” because they do not incorporate a shoulder stock and are not designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder like a shotgun. Nor has ATF classified these weapons as “pistols,” as they are not designed to be held and fired in one hand like a pistol. Thus, the addition of a “stabilizing brace” does not assist with single-handed firing, but instead provides surface area that allows for firing from the shoulder. Therefore, a “pistol grip shotgun” equipped with a “stabilizing brace” and a barrel of less than 18 inches is an NFA “firearm,” i.e., a short-barreled shotgun.

 

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

135 COMMENTS

    • they keep doing things to remind us they’re still around….and that…somehow…there’s a justification for their existence…they’re a lot like that annoying little kid who keeps tugging at your pant leg…..

      • They cite the 1968 Gun Control Act as their source of power…Power reminiscent of the military wing of the democRat Party known as the kkk used to enforce Jim Crow Gun Control and even worse the Gun Control of nazi germany.

        The question for Gun Owners who have been dead silent when it comes to defining Gun Control according to its history of rot…How does it feel to be a wee bit Black and Jewish?

    • Come on, man! I have Hunter’s ex-wifie’s stabilizer, stock thingy locked up next to the not so classified docs by my Vet. I’m a Vet man, always been a Vet man from the time I served in the sand, like the sandy color of my leg hair…

      • And the SBR myth has been busted by all of the rifle caliber pistols being sold. That’s why they had to do this. That, and they just like to come up with ways to screw with gun owners and the industry in general.

  4. Unfortunately like bump stocks this will get caught up in court for years. It was nice to see the courts tell the ATF they do not have law making capability unfortunately they still appear to be at it.

    • Don’t think so. My guess is there’ll be a temporary injunction in place long before 120 days after publication, and the whole rule will likely be struck down within the year.

      What I think we’d really like to see is the head of ATF held in contempt, for clearly defying the SCOTUS in passage of this, contrary to precedent established with the bump stock rulemaking and subsequent injunctions.

      • That would be nice if there was an injunction, though not holding my breath on it. In the meantime I guess SB tactical braces are gonna be pretty cheap if you can only put them on SBRs.

        • “I guess SB tactical braces are gonna be pretty cheap if you can only put them on SBRs.”

          This ruling really screws over the people braces were initially made for, the handicapped.

          There is no way the ATF could not have seen how people without handicaps would use these items to own ‘SBRs’ and not have to go through the pain of NFA registration and evade paying the $200 tax stamp.

          Or maybe they were so dumb they didn’t think braces would become as popular as they have.

          I’m surprised they haven’t come up with the threat of intentional tax evasion.

        • From the publication as noted in the article above:

          “This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock.”

          So I’m confyoozled. The AFT provides a photo showing what appears to be a carbine length AR (16″+ barrel) equipped with an SBA3 stock, arguably the most common pistol brace. The AFT labels it as an SBR. Yet in the related text, they state this rule doesn’t apply if the product was objectively designed and intended […] for use by individuals with disabilities.

          Rather contradictory, IMHO. If an average reader (the legal term is “reasonable person”) cannot make sense of this, then the rule is defunct and void due to vagueness. There is ample court precedence for this.

        • The photo clearly shows a 16″ barrel but the JBT define it as an SBR. A special kind of stupid (perhaps Biden dumb).

      • Unlikely. The bump stock rulemaking pushed the envelope way too far, but you still had had three circuit courts uphold it (albeit the Seventh Circuit’s doing so was by the narrowest of possible margins), and right now there is an unresolved circuit split on the issue.

        This one is going to be much easier for courts to uphold. Yes, BATFE told everyone for years that it was A-OK, but it’s been the law forever that the gov’t can indeed change its mind. (Ask the inventor of the Atkins Accellerator about that.)

        And let’s be honest . . . the whole “stabilizing brace” thing has been a workaround for doing an SBR without a stamp.

        Could this be a basis for going after the NFA’s regulation of SBR’s? Maybe, but I think it’s a bridge too far until we get some caselaw on the books knocking down “assault weapon” bans and perhaps the Hughes Amendment.

        • Terrible terrible take LKB.

          You want to “be honest”, the whole “SBR stamp” thing has been a workaround to the Second Amendment of the Constitution and God given Natural Rights.

          Period. Full Stop.

        • LKB, it will not be upheld. The ATF is generally getting it’s ass handed to it in court lately. The Texas suppressor case will move for summary judgement (and I really love the ATF’s argument that a suppressor is not a “firearm”, except in the GCA (oops!)). The chevron defense is basically moot, according the 5th circuit and their bumpstock case. This case is similar as, yes, they were both workarounds to stupid laws, but it also involves flip-flopping of ATF opinions. If they were smart, which they clearly are not, they should have held off on this until they see how the winds are blowing in their other cases.

        • Dr. J.D.
          Care to place a small wager on that? I’d be happy to lose, but as I read the legal tea leaves, not gonna happen.

        • “objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities“

          It seems what they’re discussing here is the original braces that are split and feature a strap for securing to the forearm.

          “And let’s be honest . . . the whole “stabilizing brace” thing has been a workaround for doing an SBR without a stamp.“

          Correct.

          Say, do you think all those YouTube videos of tacticool operators shouldering their braced pistol had anything to do with this?

  5. “or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached”

    So, they’re outlawing braces without saying they’re outlying braces? Supposedly their rationale is that these are effectively rifle stocks, so they should be treated like any other rifle stock, i.e. legal to own and attach to a rifle, but not to a pistol or SBR without paying for the tax stamp. what a bunch of retards. I’m looking forward to seeing them get told to shove it up their ass in court.

    • Yep, you can have your brace on a rifle. Just not an unregistered short barreled rifle. Because it transforms into a murder tool or something.

      At least millions of people got an idea what having a short barrel is like, now what happens next?

      • But as I stated in an earlier comment above, the AFT provides a photo showing what appears to be a carbine length AR (16″+ barrel) equipped with an SBA3 stock, arguably the most common pistol brace. The AFT labels it as an SBR, not a rifle. So it appears that installing a brace on an actual rifle activates the Elven magic that turns it into an SBR, even though the barrel is rifle length. Because yes. Or no. Or something.

        Void for vagueness, I predict.

  6. welp, we’re all felons now boys. go ahead and throw that magpul ctr and vfg and throw in a lightning link while you’re at it since it makes no difference.

    • and all the people with “Glock switches” apparently aren’t….pretty obvious where their priorities lie….

      • “and all the people with “Glock switches” apparently aren’t….pretty obvious where their priorities lie….”

        The people with glock switches should be *applauded*.

        The inner-cities ARE the forefront of the gun rights battle.

    • Soviet style show-trials here we come!

      I wonder if any states will pass “do not comply” laws and direct local law enforcement to thwart the federal government if they attempt to enforce the law? Because Joe Biden and Democrats have no support outside the large urban cities. They might as well all be renamed Green Zones.

  11. The rule clearly states what they think congress authorized them to do. The real problem is the ATF, itself, ruled the stabilizing braces as legal and manufacturers got letters stating such.

    Now, the ATF is wanting owners to bear the cost of their taking of property, only with the option of registering and paying $200 for each firearm.

    Will they be successful? Of course they would have with a democrat congress and president. Maybe not so successful with a house that has some balance for a lame duck (literally) president.

      • It’s not so much the $200 that concerns me, as the registration does. Registration is forever. Once something is put into a database, it’s never private property again. And in this case, that registration as an SBR means you must then ask permission to move it (or them, if plural) between states, or notify if you move to a new address just down the street. You’re on the radar as long as you own it.

        • “Registration is forever. ”

          Is that before or after the FBI, DHS, and a dozen other agencies started an illegal backdoor gun registery using gunshop records and digital records from the universal background check system?

        • Many people have guns they assembled themselves from 80% receivers and parts kits. Not registered, and not ever processed through unconstitutional BGCs.

  12. Hmmm….tyranny creates creativity. Maybe a line of shooting jackets featuring a shoulder pad with a d-e-e-e-p cushioning pad attached accepting one’s buffer tube…. Not attached to your “pistol” buffer tube. Merely a positioning aid in ensuring proper placement on the shoulder of the stock….er, my bad….on the cheek of the buffer tube. Coming soon….ATF Clothing Regulations.

    • That’s a pretty good idea. Go even further and make it a stock strapped to your shoulder you can just slide the buffer tube in loosely. A+ for spiteful scofflaw compliance.

  13. Ya would think after they got their butts whipped soundly by the court telling them they could not make law they would not try to make law again. But here we are.

    • They were too far along in the process of rulemaking, to back out now. In for a penny, and all that…

      /sarc

  14. Off topic but these #$%^&^%$# need to go.
    Blunt (MO)
    Boozman (AR)
    Capito (WV)
    Collins (ME)
    Cornyn (TX)
    Cotton (AR)
    Graham (SC)
    Inhofe (OK)
    McConnell (KY)
    Moran (KS)
    Murkowski (AK)
    Portman (OH)
    Romney (UT)
    Rounds (SD)
    Shelby (AL)
    Thune (SD)
    Wicker (MS)
    Young (IN)
    Every #$%^&**&^%$# one of them.

    • yeah, I find that odd. If the lower was sold as a pistol, uh…isnt it illegal to attach a stock? And if the braces are now stocks, you can’t attach them to a pistol…I don’t see how you can comply here.

      Will having a short barrel in my residence after replacing with a 16″ barrel mean I have constructive intent to make the SBR I already “illegally” had?

      • Longer barrel. They want it to have a longer barrel, or a tax stamp. Actually, what they really want is for us to give it to them, hang our head in shame, and shuffle away.

      • You may attach a stock to a pistol receiver as long as you attach a barrel longer than 16″. You can still convert it back to the pistol form, but you need to make sure the stock and short barrel aren’t on at the same time. Other SBR rules still apply, such as no vertical grip when in pistol configuration, although it’s ok in rifle configuration. This is not true for receivers that were sold as rifles — they can’t have SBR barrels or overall lengths unless registered as SBRs. For the purposes here, you aren’t making your pistol into a rifle by adding the 16″ barrel, but you might not have to components on hand to change back to a legal pistol configuration.

        It could be considered constructive intent if you possess a short barrel that fits on a rifle, and you don’t gave something it can legal attach to, like another pistol or SBR, or you can’t make a legal pistol configuration.

        • The mere fact that it takes more than one read of your response to understand it (as correct as it may be) shows how dumb these rules are. If it isn’t simple to understand the “rules’ around exercising an enumerated contititutional right, they are null and void, regardless of if they are otherwise ruled constitutional.

  17. how did they get funding for the free tax stamp? It’s claiming amnesty registration. Have to imagine eforms will crash and burn if that’s their plan. Not only that but processing would take over a year…while already in possession of an “sbr”…and sending them a pic of it to prove it with your name and address…and if you kept the brace while the forms were in process post 120 day period you still have an unregistered “sbr”…damned if you do damned if you don’t.

    • I’m also not sure how they can do a post68 amnesty without MGs? If they are offering a amnesty period at all I thought it had to be for all things.

    • More or less my concerns as well. Admit you did something illegal and we’ll be nice to you. Said every dirty cop ever.

  18. I identify as a Chicago yoot therefore none of this applies to me.

    These days it’s the closest thing to being a nation into yourself.

  19. Stabilizing Braces were NEVER going to be accepted by BATFE as a way around the NFA for SBRs! The NFA law is _the problem_ and should be repealed, not having the courts fight over this rule change.

    I have no idea why the reviewers at the BATFE gave their permission in the original ruling letter but I can think that it was someone there that wasn’t with “the program” and was merely trying to help shooters with disabilities or hand weakness or due to age, to use their firearms with the help of a stabilizing brace. Instead Folks of the Gun jumped on this ruling as way around the NFA SBR definitions and the $200 NFA Tax stamp and huge wait period and had a free-for-all SBRs for Everyone heyday abusing the spirit of the ruling which was to help disabled or elderly shooters.

    All my friends started buying up these braces for their rifles and changing their barrels to short ones to have the “new cool toy”, they were so happy to avoid the $200 NFA tax stamp fee. I paid my fee and waited many months but I knew that this “stabilizing brace” era wasn’t going to stick around so I registered my LMT AR-15 with NFA Form 1 through a trust for the receiver and engraved the info as required then bought 3-short (10.5″ 300 BLK, 10.5″ DI, 12″ Piston) and 2-long (16″ Piston, 16″ SS DI) barrels for my AR so I can switch barrels for my needs and wants. Then I got 4-more NFA tax stamps for suppressors for all my calibers and did everything by the book to avoid issues because I knew that this was coming around and the dream of braced SBRs wasn’t going to last. I’m debating if I should get a short 13.5″ barrel for my AR-10 or even a longer barrel than the default 16″ for 6.5 CR for range but I can’t for the life of me justify a reason for either at this time unless its just to have it if I need it ideology.

    Common Sense Check: If you have a firearm with a rifled barrel that shoots rifle caliber and power cartridges that has a less than 16-inch barrel, is it a NFA Short Barreled Rifle (SBR)? (Regardless of any stock, brace, or lack-there-of)

    Common Sense Answer: Short-Barreled-Rifle – It is what is sounds like, a rifle with a short barrel!

    What To Do Now?

    If you have a short barreled rifle or carbine then it falls within the NFA purvue and SBR rules apply, don’t weasel around the definitions or ruling and play circuit court hop-scotch. register your receivers, pay your tax, start the wait now, engrave when approved, and while you’re waiting for the approval reach out to all of your local, state, and federal political critters and tell them you want them to repeal the following laws listed below so that future generations don’t have to deal with this confusing mess.

    – National Firearms Act of 1934
    – Gun Control Acts of 1968
    – Machine Gun ban of 1986

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

    Let’s make the web page below expire and no longer exist:
    https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act

    • I bought what I did because the ATF had decided it was legal. That’s why the manufacturer was allowed to sell it. The ATF was acting in bad faith (surprise!) if they allowed this to happen. This is zero ways different than the bumpstock ban. Legal today, illegal tomorrow, because we changed our minds. That is NOT how our system is supposed to work, especially towards enumerated rights.

      If nothing else, this fight developing may indeed go towards abolishing all the unconstitutional acts prior to this that intruded on the people’s rights. The way the legal system works, dismantling the GCA step by step may be the only way to get it done. Bumpstock ruling was an accomplishment in that regard I think, it’s pretty hard to justify rule changes now, eventually it will get to the point where the mere existence of the GCA will be in question under strict scrutiny. But if it takes one rule reversal at a time, we better go for it.

      I’m optimistic this wont stick. More than I would have been pre-Bruen for sure.

      • Nearly every brace sold in the last 6m was a statement extending the middle finger of friendship to the ATF and their JBT. No other reason.

        • @JakFrost,
          So by your logic we should register every Thompson Center Contender and Encore (and every similar pistol that can take a “rifle” cartridge, whatever that means anymore) simply because it conforms to your hastily thought out “common sense” check? What about a .30-30 American Derringer or one of those god-awful Hizer pocket AK single shots?

          How would you legally define a rifle versus a handgun caliber? Is a .44-40 a handgun cartridge? How about a .221 Fireball? A .500 S&W is larger in diameter and more powerful than many cartridges traditionally used in a deer rifle; is it a rifle cartridge? Think carefully.

          Maybe your choice is to lick boots while other people risk liberty to repeal these laws in court, but that simply isn’t an option for everyone, either due to the law of their particular land or (hopefully) their personal integrity.

    • @Jakfrost,

      …except SBRs and supressors aren’t legal for non-LE to own in CA, regardless that the AFT does on a Federal level. So all Californians who followed the AFT’s previous announcements and (legally) purchased items that were in compliance with those announcements, now have no ability to comply on the State level. That’s loss of property without compensation via diktat.

      Actually, a potential argument for a court case as well.

    • Way to congratulate yourself for cowtowing to a rule you admit is unconstitutional and wrong, while criticizing everyone else for taking advantage of an exception deemed legal for over 6 years. No one who can afford to build or buys these weapons cares about the $200 additional tax. It’s the principle of asking for government permission, combined with the practicality of adding yourself to a database that actively tracks your movements, that people hate about the NFA most. Bully for you that you “followed the real rules,” as it were, by sacrificing your privacy. What’s more, when the NFA was passed, $200 was ment to be an insurmountable cost to nearly anyone in America outside the oligarchs which deems it clearly as unconstitutional as a “poll tax.”

      • Just an aside, you’re living in a fantasy world if you don’t think you (and all of us here) aren’t already on a short list. Yeah some of the people that have registered NFA items may be slightly above you but you can bet your last dollar that the NSA analytics algorithms knows more about you than you can remember about yourself. In fact your post above just caused the algorithm to move you up a few spots.

        The only way that the Feds don’t ultimately try a total confisaction is that the country falls off an economic cliff.

    • “Instead Folks of the Gun jumped on this ruling as way around the NFA SBR definitions and the $2”

      The use of ‘folks’ is always a dead give away of a leftwing gungrabber pandering to conservatives.

      The problem is this entire policy, which is really just open lawlessness, was designed, blatantly, to act as a trap for gun owners.

  20. Interesting, right along with the Biden “top secrete” documents.
    I’m going with this is a distraction.
    Like the bump stocks (In a 13-3 decision, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that despite “tremendous” public pressure to impose a ban, it was up to the U.S. Congress rather than the president to take action.) this will be ruled unconstitutional in time.
    But what’s the left hand doing that we’re not paying attention to?

    • Banning “assault ammo” (NY). Banning “ammo feeding devices” that hold 10rnds or more (NM). And probably a bucket full of other crap we haven’t heard about yet.

  21. If it wasn’t for all the BS related to transporting SBRs across state lines, I’d probably just register them and have the ability to put a regular stock on if I wanted. However, given that I live on a border and transporting is very likely, I’m just going to ignore this and hope the courts do their jobs. I will not comply.
    Slightly off topic, but why can I take my silencers wherever I want, but not an SBR? Doesn’t make sense.

  22. I do hope the lawsuits that will inevitably follow the activation of this cluster of ATF guidance focus on the short term goal of the ATF going on that “bridge too far” where they are making law and being totally inconsistent with the history of this pistol component. There is also the “common use” argument that they themselves have encouraged the use of them and its more than a bit too late to try to get the genie back in the bottle. Wrt the SBRs, that’s actually in the text of law that’s part of the National Firearms Act and, rather than lawsuits, we’d need Congress to act to remove SBRs (and hopefully suppressors too) from list of controlled items in the NFA. That means us lobbying our congressmen and women to either construct legislation or to support the passage of legislation that going to be introduced to that end.

  23. So if you have a legal brace under the new rules, but put an optic on it that requires you to pull it close to your face/put it up against your shoulder, your legal pistol is now a short barrelled rifle. did I get that right?

    And how is John Q. Public supposed read nearly 300 pages of a new regulation and figure out whether his configuration is or is not legal?

    • He’s not. People who reiterate the nonsense like “ignorance of the law is no excuse” enable government abuses. It’s like thinking everything K went through in The Trial was on the up and up.

      Ignorance of the law, especially where no real harm is caused, is a perfectly viable excuse. How the hell is anyone to conclude that a 16″ barrel is perfectly lawful but a 14″ barrel is a felony without being explicitly told so. Even then nobody should be surprised when that individual thinks you’re pulling a joke because why the fuck would any sane, rational, thinking person ever come to the conclusion that 16″ = good, 14″ = bad for “reasons.”

      This government is a clown show. Has been for at least a century.

      • And I’m curious to know what this new rule means for the .300 BLK market, as that cartridge was specifically designed by AAC for optimum performance with a 10″ barrel. It’ll work just fine with a 16″, of course, but it was designed with the 10″ in mind, to be used in conjunction with a suppressor. It’ll be interesting how the AFT will argue that their mid-game change will not adversely affect the market for that popular cartridge, and all the many owners of pistol-length uppers that will now be classed as NFA SBRs.

    • “And how is John Q. Public supposed read nearly 300 pages of a new regulation and figure out… “

      “In criminal law, the rule of lenity holds that where a criminal statute is ambiguous, the meaning most favorable to the defendant—i.e., the one that imposes the lowest penalties—should be adopted.[1] In the US context, Justice John Marshall stated the rule thus in United States v. Wiltberger“

      “During oral arguments for the 2016 case, Lockhart v. United States,[12] Justice Antonin Scalia sua sponte raised the question of the rule’s application:

      “…what I worry about is the rule of lenity. You have these dueling canons, and you have a rule that when the government sends somebody to jail for 10 years, it has to cross sharp corners. It has to dot every i and cross every t. It has to be clear!”[13]“

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity

  24. Their examples of commercial and common designs that are now SBRs are worthless. They don’t explain what the violation is. Some are obvious, like they have a vertical front grip (no-no on pistol, regardless of brace), or you can’t hold the grip while your arm in in the brace (Glock with SBA-3). Maybe some have a length of pull that’s too long, or there are commercial guns that were advertised with the gun mounted to the shoulder, but I can’t tell for sure. Others, like AR-type with SBM4 or MFT BMPSB, I can’t see a violation of the 6 factors that screams violation.

    What’s wrong with the Pork Sword? Pull too long? Can’t hold grip with arm strapped in brace? Somebody got a picture of Jeremy shouldering it?

      • Thar would do it. They take promotional or marketing material showing it shouldered as proof that it’s intended to be shouldered, which makes it a stock.

      • “Is the guy in the pic (shouldering the Pork Sword equipped with brace) Jeremy?“

        So the Obama/Biden ministration’s ATF approved both bump stocks and pistol braces, then hordes of ego-driven tacticool operators just had to post selfies of themselves violating federal law.

        “It is what comes out of your mouth that condemns you… “

        I rest my case.

        Please, hold your applause, you’re too kind…

        • Wow, COOL STORY, bra!!!

          Now explain the 2A compliant reasoning behind that idiot rule. Where, exactly, in the 2A does it say that?’

          Perhaps you should actually learn something, and actually THINK about what you’re saying, before you post stupid comments, MinorLiar.

          Oh, but that would mean that . . . you couldn’t post comments, at all. Because you’ll never do the work to learn anything, and you are incapable of thought.

          Your terms are acceptable. Bye, MinorLiar. I’d like to say ‘It’s been nice knowing you’ – but it hasn’t. How can we miss you, if you won’t go away????

  25. “Stroke of the pen, law of the land”. Just more of the same arbitrarily passing rules/laws to make the subjects toe the mark.

    • Meanwhile in ILLANNOY we’re fighting for our 2-A lives. And you guys think registration of your short barrel gat is a GOOD thing? Or pay $200 & pass go? LOL…

  26. Note that contrary to federal law and guidance the entire rule making and publications use contradictory and confusing language that do not meet plain language standards any common person without in depth understanding of technical information about guns and the law would be clearly confused when the BAFTE notice outright says it is but yet isn’t banning braces.

    • Your reply has no bearig on the legally required public process required for a new federal rule making that impacts millions of citizens.

      I will clarify for you, since you are uninformed of how this rulemaking facially does not remotely meet federally required public engagement guidelines:
      “The Plain Writing Act of 2010 was signed on October 13, 2010. The law requires that federal agencies use clear government communication that the public can understand and use.

      While the Act does not cover regulations, three separate Executive Orders emphasize the need for plain language: E.O. 12866, E.O. 12988, and E.O. 13563.”

      The Biden Administration can talk circles about how it wants to clearly communicate to the public this abortion of a rule making is a clear example of what NOT to do.

  27. Also this piece of comedy gold:

    “FATD advised that it DOES NOT classify weapons based on how a particular individual uses a weapon and that merely firingan AR-type pistol from the shoulder did not reclassify it as a shortbarreled rifle.25 FATD further mentioned that some “brace” designs, such as theSig Stability Brace, had not been classified as a shoulder stock and that, therefore, using those “braces” improperly would not constitute a design change or change the classification of the weapon.26”

    Which is it BAFTE?

      • Jeebus, dude, did you collaborate with MinorLiar to come up with that???

        Point the First: This is a completely different rule, just released by . . . the BIDEN ATF. So your comment is stupid in that regard.

        Point the Second: Direct me to all the comments on this site supporting the original rule. So your comment is stupid in that regard.

        Point the Third: Cite me all the published and peer-reviewed FACTUAL research supporting the need for any such regulation, at all. How many shootings, over the last five years, have been definitively proven to have been accomplished using a braced pistol??

        Do you and MinorLiar share a brain cell??? And if so, would you mind loaning it to dacian the demented occasionally, he seriously needs it.

        • “By late 2020, ATF concluded that: (1) previous ATF classification determinations
          had led to confusion and there was a need to provide clarity to the firearm industry and
          public on how ATF evaluates firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace”;
          (2) manufacturers were adding to the confusion by labeling “stabilizing braces” that ATF
          had not evaluated as “ATF compliant”; and (3) as discussed in section IV.B.1.c of this
          preamble, these “braces” were being used with firearms extensively to create short-
          barreled rifles without following NFA requirements. As a result, ATF first published a
          Notice in the Federal Register titled, “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with
          ‘Stabilizing Braces’” on December 18, 2020.” – Right there on p. 41, but no accompanying illustration for those who have trouble understanding large words.

      • “Original proposed rule was in December 2020“

        Would you stop with your pesky facts!

        “Lombardo served as Acting Deputy Director of ATF from March 2018 until she was formally nominated to serve as Acting Director by the Attorney General, William Barr, on April 24, 2019. Lombardo took office on May 1, 2019, succeeding Thomas Brandon, who was retiring.[3][4][5][6]“

      • According to the ATF the proposed rulemaking was published on June 7th, 2021. This rule wasn’t open for public comments prior to that date.

        “On June 7, 2021, the Department of Justice issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, and during the 90-day open comment period, the ATF received more than 237,000 comments.”

  29. TTAG was referenced in the ATF ruling:

    “stabilizing braces,” including for Shockwave Blade, Strike Industries, and Gear Head
    Works Tailhook, display individuals using firearms marketed as pistols but shouldered as
    short-barreled rifles.97 Additionally, other publications and online videos are available
    regarding the use of various “braces” to fire from the shoulder, further demonstrating that
    firearms equipped with these “braces” were and are being used extensively as short-
    barreled rifles.98
    97 Foghorn, Gear Review: Shockwave Technologies Blade Pistol Stabilizer, The Truth About Guns (Oct. 9,
    2015), https: // www. thetruthaboutguns. com/gear-review-shockwave-technologies-blade-pistol-stabilizer/;

    On page 83.
    https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/factoringcriteriaforfirearmswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/download

    • “TTAG was referenced in the ATF ruling“

      “demonstrating that
      firearms equipped with these “braces” were and are being used extensively as short-
      barreled rifles.98
      97 Foghorn, Gear Review“

      Ego is a terrible thing.

      Cue the Vienna Boys Choir singing:

      “I told you so… “

  30. So are 44 Mag or 500 S&W Revolvers now rifles if you use 2 hands and have optics on them for hunting?
    Most people I know use 2 hands with all firearms. Handgun or Rifle or Shotgun.
    All firearms do the same thing. They contain a loaded cartridge in a chamber. Have a trigger and firing pin used to strike the primer in the Cartridge igniting the gun powder forcing a projectile or projectiles out a rifled or smooth bore barrel.
    The point any politician or bureaucrat misses is that criminals don’t follow the laws they make. These foolish semantics only make honest law abiding citizens criminals. By dictate of agencies that need to be removed.

  31. It was unlikely and judge on SCOTUS had a bump stock.
    It’s a LOT more likely a judge on SCOTUS, or any other judge or LE anywhere have braced firearms.
    This is WAY bigger than bum stocks.
    I bet a bunch of lawmakers have braced firearms also.
    This is going to go bad I predict.

  32. The “Gub-ment” and their Alphabet cronies are out of control! can we all agree on that? Fine. Where will all this lead us? Total ban on ALL firearms and Ammo? because that’s what they want ! Nit-picking PoTG’s to death! Today fine, tomorrow Illegal! Trying to dismantle the Gunm industry, WE THE PEOPLE Left helpless like little sheep ready for the slaughter? I DON’T THINK SO. Where is our line in the sand? Door to door confiscation?, again, I don’t think so, too many LE would die. Good LE, like the one’s against JB Brisket. How the hell have we lost our God given rights to these overstuffed, Overpaid Not-zzee’s? How is the crimes against The Donald CRIMES! and the o’bidden’s same actions NOT CRIMES? Life wasn’t perfect 50 years ago but as a kidd you were taught right from wrong, you do this and you get a spank/smack, you do that and you get a reward. Simple. But today all bets are off because these kids, now supposidly adults shoot anything that moves! You have a nice car? I want it BANG! You have Gunms ? We will take them BANG BANG! I wonder when the Founding Fathers said ENOUGH!!!!! (I know the answer to that it was retorical) Where is our ENOUGH point??? When do the PEOPLE say enough? We have ILLEGAL’s in Hotel rooms and we have VETEREN’s on the streets? WTF! The dim’s p-resident walked the sanitized streets of El Paso and didn’t see the mob’s of illegals because they were HIDDEN from him, so dip-s**t say’s there’s no problem here! how about we ship him a couple of bus loads to Delaware and put them up in his 150 room vacation home! How ’bout that Joe? I know I am ranting and I am sorry. I feel like there is an axe hanging over our heads and these….people are laughing at us and parting it up waiting to make the killer blow. These POS’s are supposed to work for US ! AMIRITE? and busing terrorists all over the country calling them Opressed people is the final insult. Does anyone but me see this is a RED DAWN situation come true? I thought there was going to be repercussions when poopy pants gave the Tali’s all that money and military hardware…what was the response…..nuthin’. Potg’s were pissed but the rest of the sheep must have thought “well, ole joe must have thought that was the best plan for us”…. ARE YOU KIDDING? How did the masses of americans get brainwashed? how does ANYBODY vote dimocrat anymore?

    Is this the end of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA………

  33. ATF is like water…
    It flows (continuously) and SLOWLY wears away, what was…with “Declaration” …like a Lord.
    This IS NOT LAW.

  34. Someone once told me there’s always a silver lining, you just have to look for it. Maybe having a workaround wasn’t really helping us. It just seemed like it was. Let’s be real. It made people complacent. Now people are more fired up about the real issue. So maybe now they’ll do something about it.

      • If you were going to register anyway, you could have picked up a braced pistol and saved a few bucks. The worst part for me is the crossing state lines headache.

  35. 293 pages of hot garbage.

    Ain’t nobody in this mfer give a fuck about your rules. Fuck around and find out.
    *pulls ski mask down

    That’s how I feel. That’s how a lot of us have felt for a long time. Keep pushing mfer and we’ll make it just as personal for you tyrants. 1, by, 1.

    • *pulls ski mask down

      You forgot to add this step

      *pulls Depends up

      If you miss this step you’ll fuck around and and find out you shit urself.

  37. I’d love to see the courts determine that the ATF’s bullshit is so bad, the NFA as a whole falls under “unconstitutionally vague”, but are judges hate the Constitution.

  38. As an individual that has a significant amount of NFA items I am wondering how badly this is going to slow down an already incredibly slow applications process not to mention a very unconstitutional one, so basically at this point the ATF and DOJ can simply go sod off.

  39. Per the new rule:

    “In contrast, material on a firearm that extends the rear surface area of the firearm toward the shooter but is required for the cycle of operations, such as an AR-type pistol with a standard 6 to 6-1/2 inch buffer tube, may be an indicator that the firearm is not be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

    Standard pistol buffer tubes are 7.25” long – Meaning anyone who just de-braces may still have an SBR because LOP may indicate it’s intended to be shouldered? Are they arbitrarily and capriciously defining standard carbine length buffer tubes as stocks?

    Also, re-barreling an imported pistol means a 922R conversion must also be completed. So imported AKs just lose the brace completely.

    AR’s that want to remain pistols should replace the tube with one shorter than the 6-6.5 “overall” length, since they don’t indicate where to measure from. Spikes slick pistol tube is on option less than six inches long.

    Sights? Does a small peep sight turn a pistol into a rifle?

    Finally, congress has some leverage here:

    
    U.S. will hit its debt limit Thursday, start taking steps to avoid default, Yellen warns Congress
    cnbc.com
    (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/13/us-will-hit-its-debt-limit-thursday-start-taking-steps-to-avoid-default-yellen-warns-congress.html)

  40. The solution here seems simple to me.

    Fuck registering it as is. Form 1 it for a real stock and overwhelm the system. Then sue over the delay.

    CB radio provides the blueprint.

  41. The ATF dropped the rule just days before SHOT show, when a large portion of the 2nd Amendment orient community gathers where this is certain to be The topic of discussion.

    This is the same level of genius that has trouble understanding “shall not be infringed.”

  42. So can anyone explain how banning pistol braces makes us safer? What is the underlying reason? Really, because someone may use it like a stock? Oh, I feel safer already. But this is about control and being able to chip away at the 2nd amendment. Rediculous.

  43. So it says the following and the end of rule:
    Who is a licensed possessor, and how does one become a licensed possessor??

    Who is Affected by this Rule?
    Unlicensed Possessors
    Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) not under the NFA as a Class One Importer or Class Two Manufacturer SOT
    FFL Importers or Manufacturers under the GCA that ARE Qualified under the NFA Class One Importer or Class Two Manufacturer SOT
    Certain Governmental Entities

    • It has to be permanently attached. Some companies make those. They don’t trust you otherwise since you could remove the can at any time.

  46. page 9 of this new abomination. They are redefining a statutory term through a CFR – a huge violation of the separation of powers and unconstitutional, the same thing they just got raked over the coals for in the bump stock case.

  47. This is how the anti-gun movement uses the government to take our rights away bit-by-bit. It’s banning something here that very few people use. That’s why we ALL must push back against these infringements. We start with educating people, especially our children.

  48. 6,000 +/- ATF Agents vs. 400,000,000 +/- Gun Owners. Even if only 10% showed up, they’re still outnumbered. I say it’s time to tell they Tyrants to go F**k themselves.
    I’m old and I’m dying, I’d gladly die on that hill.

Comments are closed.