SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved.
Page 1 2 3 4 ... 27
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved. Login/Join 
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted
Yes, there is another thread on the subject here, but this deserves extra attention, so if you haven’t seen it, please go there for more details.

This is the link to the site where the proposal is posted and to make public comments:

https://www.federalregister.go...h-stabilizing-braces




7/93
“So let’s speculate, a word that sounds like an activity that should be—and once was—done in private.”
Link
 
Posts: 46398 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
quote:
Type and Caliber. The type and caliber of firearm to which the stabilizing brace or similar item is installed. A large caliber firearm that is impractical to fire with one hand because of recoil or other factors, even with an arm brace, is likely to be considered a rifle or shotgun.


Oh ok. So all of that armor piercing NATO ammo that is illegal because TC chambered it in a pistol will now be ruled ok? According to the ATF, 308 is not a practical pistol cartridge, so why is there an AP ban in place?



Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
 
Posts: 7874 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Distinguished Pistol Shot
posted Hide Post
Hate to say it, But if you thing BATFE will take any comment from the public seriously, you are naive. They have already made their decision, they just have to go through the motions.
 
Posts: 762 | Location: South Central MO | Registered: August 25, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgshooter:
Hate to say it, But if you thing BATFE will take any comment from the public seriously, you are naive. They have already made their decision, they just have to go through the motions.


Maybe. Maybe not...but I don't want this implemented without a fight.

The attempted ban of M855 was stopped a few years ago when gun owners got involved during the same Federal Registry process and made enough Public Comments to catch the attention of the ATF.

What could it hurt to get involved and join in the fight by taking a few minutes to make some calm reasonable comments? Do your 1st amendment rights mean as little to you as your 2nd amendment rights?
 
Posts: 7222 | Location: the Centennial state | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
Am I the only one not able to link to the comment page? I know it’s gov bureaucracy but it’s hard to navigate.




“Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from a virus they got vaccinated against because you’re not vaccinated.” - author unknown
 
Posts: 14364 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by gearhounds:
Am I the only one not able to link to the comment page? I know it’s gov bureaucracy but it’s hard to navigate.


The links to the proposal page appear to be good, BUT when I attempt to make a public comment I get this pop-up warning:

DIRECT COMMENTING UNAVAILABLE Submitting a formal comment directly via federalregister.gov is not available for this document. However, you can click the button below to view more information on alternate methods of comment submission.

This is bullshit. There is a hyperlink button right there on the proposal page they could enable if they chose to. Also, when the M855 ban proposal was published in the Federal Registry you could hyperlink directly to a separate site to make comments, although it did require creating an account to make comments then.
 
Posts: 7222 | Location: the Centennial state | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 3482 | Location: Greenville, SC | Registered: January 30, 2017Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lead slingin'
Parrot Head
Picture of Modern Day Savage
posted Hide Post
^^^^^^^

Yes, that Rules Comment site is hyperlinked from the Federal Registry website link that sigfreund posted.

But, leave it to .gov to disable a Public Comments button only to require viewers to click on a separate website link to actually make Public Comments. They could have easily simply enabled the Public Comments hyperlink button, had a pop-up warning notifying someone that they were being re-directed to a separate site, and take someone directly to it.

As it stands, there is the Federal Registry page with the actual proposal wording and background, and then a separate link to the Rules site to make Public Comments.
 
Posts: 7222 | Location: the Centennial state | Registered: August 21, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of bjor13
posted Hide Post
I shared my thoughts


"you guys are looking for a solution without a problem. work on prosecuting real gun crimes and stop trying to make the people who obey they laws next years felons"
 
Posts: 1017 | Location: Kentucky | Registered: September 26, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
I think the fact that they had previously give opinion letters on several of these type of braces stating they were legal will make doing this eminently challengeable in court.
 
Posts: 21136 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
I think the fact that they had previously give opinion letters on several of these type of braces stating they were legal will make doing this eminently challengeable in court.


It would likely only be a slam dunk for those specific brace models on those specific gun models that had received prior approval letters.

But the recent issue all arose because some of the brace and firearm companies have been sending in one brace prototype on one model of pistol, getting it approved, and then modifying the brace design and/or attaching it to other gun models, and yet still marketing and selling it as "ATF approved" in that new configuration.

So the buyers bought it in good faith, because the manufacturer advertised it as ATF approved, and they even had an ATF letter that said the brace was approved, when the only thing approved was the original model brace specifically on the gun model submitted.

Yeah, it's chickenshit, and SBRs/braced pistols are bullshit. But from the legal perspective, this isn't as clear-cut as you may think, since it involved companies trying to broadly apply what was actually narrow ATF approval.

Doing away with SBRs altogether would be an easy solution, but not very likely in the coming years.

So in the meantime, it'd be nice if ATF at least has a set, consistent standard of simple rules they used to make determinations, so companies and consumers could simply look at something and determine if it's legal or not. (Like the 16" barrel length rule, or similar.) Not this "send us each individual model of gun with each individual brace, and we'll consult the Oracle, and the phases of the moon, and shake our Magic 8 ball, and then based on 47 different factors and depending on what we had for breakfast that morning, maybe approve that specific implementation".
 
Posts: 30346 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
E tan e epi tas
Picture of cslinger
posted Hide Post
Done. I think the braces are kind of silly myself, but this isn’t about me it’s about us. Same with bump stocks etc. just remember we don’t all have to agree or be personally affected. It’s not about I, it’s about US.

Take care, shoot safe
Chris


"Guns are tools. The only weapon ever created was man."
 
Posts: 6871 | Location: On the water | Registered: July 25, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Help! Help!
I'm being repressed!

Picture of Skull Leader
posted Hide Post
I added my comment. Pretty much said that the definitions in the firearms acts are the definitions. There is a legislative process to amend those acts if they feel the need, but to interpret the definitions as they see fit is usurping the authority given to them by Congress and the firearms acts and that by doing what they are doing they are circumventing the checks and balances placed upon them as part of the executive branch.
 
Posts: 10868 | Location: Big Sky Country | Registered: November 20, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
Working somewhat backwards, the SBR definition and rules are directly codified in the NFA. Getting rid of it entirely would take legislation. For the next four years, that's just not happening.

The BATF opened up a loophole to the SBR regulations by allowing arm braces (and previously AR pistols.) The question becomes, at least for the ones they issued opinion letter for, can they legally walk that back. Do they get to say "Oops, we were wrong. These things are really NFA items." after the fact. They might. A court will have to decide that.

For similar items that don't have opinion letters, a lot depends on the result of the prior paragraph. If a court says that the ATF can't wall back the prior opinion letters, and have to allow those braces to stay not-NFA, I would think SB tactical and others could say that the other items are so similar that if the opinion letter are considered valid, they should apply to the items for which letters were not issued also. That's more of a stretch, but not a big one, if the original letters are allowed to stand.

quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
quote:
Originally posted by BBMW:
I think the fact that they had previously give opinion letters on several of these type of braces stating they were legal will make doing this eminently challengeable in court.


It would likely only be a slam dunk for those specific brace models on those specific gun models that had received prior approval letters.

But the recent issue all arose because some of the brace and firearm companies have been sending in one brace prototype on one model of pistol, getting it approved, and then modifying the brace design and/or attaching it to other gun models, and yet still marketing and selling it as "ATF approved" in that new configuration.

So the buyers bought it in good faith, because the manufacturer advertised it as ATF approved, and they even had an ATF letter that said the brace was approved, when the only thing approved was the original model brace specifically on the gun model submitted.

Yeah, it's chickenshit, and SBRs/braced pistols are bullshit. But from the legal perspective, this isn't as clear-cut as you may think, since it involved companies trying to broadly apply what was actually narrow ATF approval.

Doing away with SBRs altogether would be an easy solution, but not very likely in the coming years.

So in the meantime, it'd be nice if ATF at least has a set, consistent standard of simple rules they used to make determinations, so companies and consumers could simply look at something and determine if it's legal or not. (Like the 16" barrel length rule, or similar.) Not this "send us each individual model of gun with each individual brace, and we'll consult the Oracle, and the phases of the moon, and shake our Magic 8 ball, and then based on 47 different factors and depending on what we had for breakfast that morning, maybe approve that specific implementation".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BBMW,
 
Posts: 21136 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Help! Help!
I'm being repressed!

Picture of Skull Leader
posted Hide Post
quote:
The BATF opened up a loophole to the SBR regulations by allowing arm braces


I look at it as more of the ATF now infringing on the definition of a pistol rather than they allowed a loophole.

The loophole never existed because these braced pistols do not meet the definition needed to call them rifles per the legislation.
 
Posts: 10868 | Location: Big Sky Country | Registered: November 20, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
^^^This!


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 6886 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I sent in my reply and basically told them that the decision to allow braces was made by the ATF many years ago and now millions of people own them, and they are rarely used in criminal activity.

The only thing a reversal would do is further erode the ATF's credibility with the public, and would not change the crime rate one way or another.


_________________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
Mark Twain
 
Posts: 11024 | Registered: January 17, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fool for the City
Picture of MRMATT
posted Hide Post
I commented that maybe the ATF should be "defunded."


_____________________________
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington.
 
Posts: 5236 | Location: Pottstown, PA | Registered: April 26, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
A pistol that has a device that allows it to braced (and, yes, this word is going to be used a few different ways in this post) into the shoulder of the shooter, is a short barreled rifle. SIG/SB Tactical promoted the "stabilizing brace" as something that would be strapped to an arm, not braced into the shoulder. Of course, we all know for the vast majority "pistols" with stabilizing braces attached, the brace is being used as a stock, and the pistol is being used as an SBR.

The ATF has known this for years (remember their abortive attempt to define and shooter who shouldered their braced pistol as having modified the braced pistol to be an SBR.) Now it sounds like they are admitting reality. The question is, can they now, after several years, and at least several hundred thousand, if not more, of these devices in circulation, with their blessing at least initially, make them illegal.

quote:
Originally posted by Skull Leader:
quote:
The BATF opened up a loophole to the SBR regulations by allowing arm braces


I look at it as more of the ATF now infringing on the definition of a pistol rather than they allowed a loophole.

The loophole never existed because these braced pistols do not meet the definition needed to call them rifles per the legislation.
 
Posts: 21136 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I commented on their site. I said that to approve something one time then revoke approval is BS.


End of Earth: 2 Miles
Upper Peninsula: 4 Miles
 
Posts: 14516 | Location: Marquette MI | Registered: July 08, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 ... 27 
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved.

© SIGforum 2023