SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    *Alert- Action Required*- ATF Public Comments period on rule change of pistol/ brace evaluation criteria
Page 1 2 3 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
*Alert- Action Required*- ATF Public Comments period on rule change of pistol/ brace evaluation criteria Login/Join 
Member
posted
Just wanted to update an earlier post in case anyone isn't aware of what is going on with the latest ATF case threatening the ban of the pistol brace. ATF has recently published a letter (https://www.scribd.com/document/488431301/Atf) that is explaining it's proposed regulations on pistol stocks. The proposal at this time is somewhat vague, but that could change in an instant.
What they seem to be proposing is that the new regulations concerning pistol braces is going to undergo a 14 day period where they are open to hearing opinions on their new regulations. I would urge everyone to contact their Congressmen, and especially the President himself to express your opinion on this IMO, illegal act by the ATF.
One of the best sources for information on this matter is on youtube from Guns and Gadgets. He has up to date information on this and other 2nd Amendment news, and updates often several times a day as news develops. His latest video on this matter can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfDm5yfdh4Q.

Don't wait until it too late. When the ATF banned the bump stock, that was just the first shot of many planned. Many thought that since they didn't use bump stocks, it didn't really matter, but it seems that was just the first volley. Now the ATF is going after pistol braces and 80% lowers and are working with the possible next administration to those ends. If Biden/Harris do take the WH, then who knows what is next? This latest effort to regulate pistol braces is a way of forcing owners to either get rid of them, or register them as a NFA item, giving them in effect a national registration. If they get away with this, what's to prevent them from forcing people in the future to have to register as a NFA item, all AR's, AK's, etc?
So keep informed and let the WH, the DOJ, and your Congressmen your opinion on this move by the ATF.



It looks like the ATF is quietly looking at ways to ban the use of pistol braces, yes, the same pistol brace that they have approved in the past.

Details are a little vague, but U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz R-FL has penned a letter and has sent it to the DOJ to ask them to review and stop the ATF from trying to limit arm braces. It might be a good idea to start writing/calling your Congressman/Congresswoman and letting them know how you feel about the ATF's actions.

See information on this subject here:
https://gaetz.house.gov/media/hottak...rm-brace-usage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9J4VFwXzP8

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rlbuzz,
 
Posts: 80 | Registered: November 04, 2016Reply With QuoteReport This Post
quarter MOA visionary
Picture of smschulz
posted Hide Post
Thanks for the update.
 
Posts: 18898 | Location: Houston, TX | Registered: June 11, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Husband, Father, Aggie,
all around good guy!
posted Hide Post
Reading news headlines that ATF and Biden are in discussions already on what ATF acting Director sees as priorities.
Apparently pistol braces and 80% receivers are top two.

Looking at stabilizing braces being classified as Class 3 item moving forward.

HK Ag
 
Posts: 2848 | Location: Tomball, Texas | Registered: August 09, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by HK Ag:
Reading news headlines that ATF and Biden are in discussions already on what ATF acting Director sees as priorities.
Apparently pistol braces and 80% receivers are top two.

Looking at stabilizing braces being classified as Class 3 item moving forward.

HK Ag


Don’t doubt that Biden might want to clamp down on braces, but good luck on making them Class 3 items. And before anyone says it, no they can’t just classify them as NFA items like they classified bumpstocks as machine gun. At worst, they might classify braces as stocks, but that only has impact if you’re using it on a pistol. Stocks are perfectly legal to own for use on title 1 rifles.
 
Posts: 2394 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
So, I love a good conspiracy theory like the next guy. But, this who Biden/ATF conspiracy is tired. Will Biden throw the screws to gun owners? Absolutely. Is the leadership at ATF drooling over the thought of Biden being pResident. Maybe. Is there a deep conspiracy already in place? No.

The reason why pistol brace issues are always being debated, redefined, etc is because dumb ass gun owners won’t leave well enough alone. They get a “clarification” letter on this confirmation with that. The ATF issues a non binding opinion. Then the dumbasses ask “well what about this”. Then “what about that”, and when you engage in the activity with any federal agency, eventually the lawyers will paint you into a corner

It’s the sad fact of any bureaucracy.

Stop writing letters for clarification. Stop spinning the federal spot light onto arm braces.




www.opspectraining.com

"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"



 
Posts: 35092 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
ATF is also looking at limiting import of "large format" handguns that are not designed to be held by one hand. Particularly those that are chambered in rifle calibers and have rifle sights. Biden can probably do this by exec order - ban imports, or tariff them to death.

An exec order banning the importation of all "assault weapons" is possible as well, with Biden trumpeting the elimination of these "weapons of war" as a victory for political purposes. We will still have plenty US made stuff to buy though, so arguments about infringement may not get very far.
 
Posts: 2701 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 28, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
quarter MOA visionary
Picture of smschulz
posted Hide Post
quote:
Is the leadership at ATF drooling over the thought of Biden being President.

Maybe.


That is a fucking scary thought. Eek
 
Posts: 18898 | Location: Houston, TX | Registered: June 11, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Misanthropic Philanthrope
Picture of MWC
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jljones:
The reason why pistol brace issues are always being debated, redefined, etc is because dumb ass gun owners won’t leave well enough alone. They get a “clarification” letter on this confirmation with that. The ATF issues a non binding opinion. Then the dumbasses ask “well what about this”. Then “what about that”, and when you engage in the activity with any federal agency, eventually the lawyers will paint you into a corner

It’s the sad fact of any bureaucracy.

Stop writing letters for clarification. Stop spinning the federal spot light onto arm braces.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly! Perfectly executed analysis! Cool


___________________________
Originally posted by Psychobastard:
Well, we "gave them democracy"... not unlike giving a monkey a loaded gun.

 
Posts: 6662 | Registered: June 14, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I can’t seem to find many other sources for this...

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/...tters/#axzz6emLE3lYC

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Tower_Rat,
 
Posts: 12 | Registered: October 28, 2020Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tower_Rat:
I can’t seem to find many other sources for this...

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/...tters/#axzz6emLE3lYC


Guns and Gadgets

Only 2 of SB Tactical braces had ever been approved.

https://youtu.be/IMguU-SPRoA





 
Posts: 8919 | Registered: October 15, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
And ATF refused to consider new braces or provide specific guidance on what is acceptable and what is not. They ruled on the early ones and left it up to the industry "comply".

They said they are not in the business of approving every single brace design. This is nothing new. The generally accepted parameters are having some kind of strap of cuff that can fasten the brace to the forearm, and a length of pull that is short enough that it is not a "stock". LOP less than 13" I think is the bogey.

So now we are in a situation where the ATF on a whim can decide what additional features are allowed or not: exendable within the LOP "limit" on a standard buffer tube? How big the "cuff" has to be? Etc.
 
Posts: 2701 | Location: Indiana | Registered: December 28, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Doin' what I can
with what I got
Picture of Rob Decker
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
And ATF refused to consider new braces or provide specific guidance on what is acceptable and what is not. They ruled on the early ones and left it up to the industry "comply".

They said they are not in the business of approving every single brace design. This is nothing new. The generally accepted parameters are having some kind of strap of cuff that can fasten the brace to the forearm, and a length of pull that is short enough that it is not a "stock". LOP less than 13" I think is the bogey.

So now we are in a situation where the ATF on a whim can decide what additional features are allowed or not: exendable within the LOP "limit" on a standard buffer tube? How big the "cuff" has to be? Etc.


That seems to be in direct contravention to what they've told Q and various industry professionals in the latest kerfluffle.

No wonder folks are confused.


----------------------------------------
Death smiles at us all. Be sure you smile back.
 
Posts: 5451 | Location: Greater KCMO | Registered: May 11, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Da wayz I seez it wit EhTeaEff: a brace represents a cut into their SBR approval 'business', a lost hit of $200 each and every time. OF COURSE they'll limit scope of the damage, because they can...especially with a new administration who's on record as being anti-gun in their corner.

However with THIS incoming White House they'll probably try to ban SBRs altogether. Then the bean counters at ATF will really up the proverbial creek.


-MG
 
Posts: 718 | Location: The commie, rainy side of WA | Registered: April 19, 2020Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The $200 the ATF gets is a minor bump in their budget, and it’s not like many people who now have a brace are going to go SBR if braces get restricted. Don’t want to be in the registry, don’t want to deal with paperwork for going across state lines, SBRs not legal in their state, and many other reasons. They aren’t doing this for the money.
 
Posts: 2394 | Location: South FL | Registered: February 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Paid TNW firearms in Oregon for one of their pistols about a month ago.... I'm hoping they will still ship and my FFL will be able to pass it on to me.... after that, we'll see.
 
Posts: 2212 | Location: Greenville, SC | Registered: January 30, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
If they ban braces, go back to wrapping the tube in foam or buy a cheek rest kit and don’t let the gestapo see you shouldering it at the local range. Ever try shouldering one like that? It’s plenty effective and even more concealable. Hell, just cheek-welding tightly gives a pretty steady hold, even if follow up shots are a little slower.




“We have put together, I think, the most extensive and and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”- Joe Biden
 
Posts: 12545 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Ace31
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
If they ban braces, go back to wrapping the tube in foam or buy a cheek rest kit and don’t let the gestapo see you shouldering it at the local range. Ever try shouldering one like that? It’s plenty effective and even more concealable. Hell, just cheek-welding tightly gives a pretty steady hold, even if follow up shots are a little slower.


No real difference, sleepy joe and and negro hoe are going to attempt to make ALL semi autos (pistols/rifles) and each magazine a NFA item.

Unless of course you hammer them into plowshares comrade.
 
Posts: 2091 | Location: Wherever the voices in my head tell me to go | Registered: April 08, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Dwill104:
They aren’t doing this for the money.


Of course not.

When the antigunners first started their efforts at the Federal level, they generally tried too much: outright bans of certain types of guns such as so-called “Saturday night specials.” They haven’t given up on that, and in fact that type of renewed push can be anticipated in the near future. What they have been much more successful with, though, are efforts that fall short of total bans: limits on how many guns can be purchased in a particular time, waiting periods, magazine capacity limits, requirement for background checks on all transfers, bans on direct purchase of ammunition via the Internet, restrictions on features such as the type of grips or muzzle devices on rifles, “approved” gun lists, etc. Most of those measures don’t even pretend to have any effect on crime or gun safety, and are therefore nothing more than ways of harassing gun owners and making it more difficult for them to own and use guns.

The pistol “brace” ban is simply another way of a bureaucracy’s reminding us that they have the power to arbitrarily regulate a class of products without our having any recourse to challenge their rulings.




“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
— Thomas Paine
 
Posts: 43771 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of FlyingScot
posted Hide Post
Well, let’s see what comes to pass tomorrow. According to Military Arms channel, the DOJ and ATF are filing a letter tomorrow that says braced weapons are SBRs. They are offering to waive the $200 charge if you register as NFA, and oddly some braced pistols may be OK, some may not - as usual they aren’t telling. Big government is winning if our congress critters won’t stand up and stop this.





“Forigive your enemy, but remember the bastard’s name.”

-Scottish proverb
 
Posts: 1871 | Location: South Florida | Registered: December 24, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Firstly. FATF.

But does this mean I register my braced AR as an sbr for free then I can just toss the brace and attach a stock since it’s now an SBR?
 
Posts: 1377 | Location: County 18, OH | Registered: April 11, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Gun Control Discussion    *Alert- Action Required*- ATF Public Comments period on rule change of pistol/ brace evaluation criteria

© SIGforum 2021