Hearing/seeing on some law related YouTube channels that the Final Ruling for braces is going to be published January 31st. 120 days puts May 31st as the deadline.

Updates to ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces
MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 2023

On Monday, January 30, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) published the final Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” rule for public inspection in the federal register.

As we reported earlier this month, the rule would subject essentially all firearms with attached stabilizing braces to the registration and taxation requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Since 2012, when Biden was serving as then-President Barack Obama’s vice president, ATF has recognized that stabilizing braces serve a legitimate function, and the inclusion of a stabilizing brace on a pistol or other firearm does not automatically subject that firearm to the provisions of the National Firearms Act. That’s because stabilizing braces were first designed and intended to help disabled veterans fire large format pistols.

With the finalization of this rule, the Biden Administration is reversing over a decade of agency guidance and rulings that the firearms industry and law-abiding American gun owners have relied on when designing or acquiring firearms.

NRA has repeatedly pushed back on administration attempts to classify firearms with attached braces under the NFA. When the most recent rule was proposed, NRA submitted comments, which you can find here.

Since the rule was first posted on ATF’s website on January 13, ATF has already been required to “clarify” several issues with the rule.

First, at the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, ATF confirmed that braces that are removed from firearms do not necessarily have to be destroyed or altered in a way that prevents them from being reattached to a firearm. While the rule claims that destruction or alteration is required for owners who choose the option of simply removing the brace from their firearm, that requirement would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

Under Thompson/Center, possession of a firearm and parts that can only be assembled into an NFA “firearm” constitutes possession of an NFA firearm. But, if the parts can be assembled into multiple lawful configurations, then the parts are not considered an NFA firearm (unless an unlawful configuration is actually assembled).

This should mean that a person who possesses an AR-15 pistol with a stabilizing brace and also possesses a 16-inch barreled upper receiver and/or a registered NFA lower should be able to keep the brace without destroying it or altering it. But, a person who only possesses a pistol with a stabilizing brace may have to dispose of or alter the brace to avoid creating an NFA firearm (in ATF’s view).

Second, in the final rule posted to ATF’s website, the agency appeared to claim that imported pistols with stabilizing braces would need to be destroyed or surrendered because they were unlawfully assembled in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(r), which generally prohibits the assembly of “non-sporting” rifles or shotguns without sufficient domestically manufactured parts.

Last week, ATF updated the final rule’ Frequently Asked Questions page to include the following answer to the question of whether section 922(r) applies to firearm impacted by the rule.

No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the GCA at 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. As discussed in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is for the “assembly” of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm would cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembly” has already occurred. Accordingly, a person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a “stabilizing brace” will have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.

While this answer seems to directly contradict the agency’s response to comments in the final rule, it is certainly positive news for owners of imported pistols with attached stabilizing braces.

The fact that ATF already needs to “clarify” aspects of the rule before it has been officially published in the federal register further underscores the arbitrary and confusing nature of the rule.

Fortunately for law-abiding gun owners, federal courts have recently proven more willing to invalidate agency actions that go beyond congressionally enacted statutes. Earlier this month, one of ATF’s most recent major rules was struck down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The agency’s stabilizing brace rule should meet the same end for the same reasons.

NRA-ILA is already working on litigation to challenge this arbitrary and capricious attack on law-abiding gun owners by the Biden Administration. Please check back to www.nraila.org for more updates.

https://www.nraila.org/article...n-stabilizing-braces

WebEx training invitation links have been sent out by ATF for FFLs, to better understand final rule. Occurs 2X Tuesday and 2x Wed.

I guess I'll know their side after Wed.

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces

This document is unpublished.
It is scheduled to be published on 01/31/2023.

Filed at: 01/30/2023 at 8:45 am
Scheduled Publication Date: 01/31/2023
Agency: Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Document Type: Rule
Pages: 291
Document Number: 2023-01001
Link

Still listed as unpublished as of 01/31/2023 0230hrs EST.
However we should expect it to be published today.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) announced Monday he will use the Congressional Review Act against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF’s) pistol/stabilizer brace rule.

Next week, I will reintroduce the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act, or the SHORT Act, to repeal elements of the National Firearms Act, thereby prohibiting the ATF from registering and banning pistols with stabilizing braces. Additionally, as soon as the ATF’s unlawful rule is published to the Federal Register, I will introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, to override the Biden administration’s unlawful overreach.

Gun owners, hear me loud and clear:
We’re fighting for you and your Second Amendment freedoms—and we will never give up.
Twitter Link

Breitbart Article Link

It has been published in the Federal Register as of 01/31/2023 at 6:15 am EST
Link

Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

Publication Date: 01/31/2023

Agencies: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

Dates:
Effective date: This rule is effective January 31, 2023.
Effective Date:01/31/2023

Document Type: Rule

Document Citation: 88 FR 6478

Page: 6478-6575 (98 pages)

CFR:
27 CFR 478
27 CFR 479

Agency/Docket Numbers:
Docket No. ATF 2021R-08F
AG Order No. 5589-2023

RIN: 1140-AA55

Document Number: 2023-01001

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
It has been published in the Federal Register as of 01/31/2023 at 6:15 am EST
Link

Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

Publication Date: 01/31/2023

Agencies: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

Dates:
Effective date: This rule is effective January 31, 2023.
Effective Date:01/31/2023

Document Type: Rule

Document Citation: 88 FR 6478

Page: 6478-6575 (98 pages)

CFR:
27 CFR 478
27 CFR 479

Agency/Docket Numbers:
Docket No. ATF 2021R-08F
AG Order No. 5589-2023

RIN: 1140-AA55

Document Number: 2023-01001

Good! let the lawsuits begin!

Why is what we were given 293 pages and what's in the register only 98?

quote:

Originally posted by Skull Leader:
Why is what we were given 293 pages and what's in the register only 98?

Maybe (in part?) because the text in the Federal Register has three columns per page...Just a theory. I saw that too, but the format(s) of the two docs don't lend themselves to a side by side comparison. My initial reading (more like glancing I guess) seems to indicate that the text I was seeing in the Final Rule (F) published in the Federal Register was the same as that of the Proposed Rule (PR) doc.

I 'might' copy/paste the text from each into two word docs to do a comparison at some point when I've got some spare time though.

Clear as mud: So not all braced pistols are rifles. Although they do not say how to determine this.

"However, a firearm with an attached “brace” device is not a “rifle” as defined in the relevant statutes if the weapon is not designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The rule, as proposed and finalized, does not ban “stabilizing braces” or prohibit firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace,” regardless of the firearm's classification."

"Consequently, many parties in possession of weapon and “brace” combinations that ATF did not specifically classify in the past as being subject to the NFA may have been violating the NFA by possessing an unregistered rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches."

Again not defined.


"The Department acknowledges that a majority of firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” have surface area that allows a user to shoulder fire the weapon, but this does not mean that all such weapons would be classified as “rifles.”


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

I'm with BigSwede

quote:

Originally posted by AKSuperDually:
I'm with BigSwede

Yup.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces

This document is unpublished.
It is scheduled to be published on 01/31/2023.

Filed at: 01/30/2023 at 8:45 am
Scheduled Publication Date: 01/31/2023
Agency: Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Document Type: Rule
Pages: 291
Document Number: 2023-01001
Link

Still listed as unpublished as of 01/31/2023 0230hrs EST.
However we should expect it to be published today.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) announced Monday he will use the Congressional Review Act against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF’s) pistol/stabilizer brace rule.

Next week, I will reintroduce the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act, or the SHORT Act, to repeal elements of the National Firearms Act, thereby prohibiting the ATF from registering and banning pistols with stabilizing braces. Additionally, as soon as the ATF’s unlawful rule is published to the Federal Register, I will introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, to override the Biden administration’s unlawful overreach.

Gun owners, hear me loud and clear:
We’re fighting for you and your Second Amendment freedoms—and we will never give up.
Twitter Link

Breitbart Article Link

For our legal minds —

Does the law referenced in the linked Breitbart article mean that all rules passed by agencies HAVE to be reported to Congress, and approved within 60 legislative days (a long time)?

And would that mean that both the Senate AND the House would have to give consent?
I think so, but may be misreading.

And if so, would the House likely disapprove this rule?

And are there 60 legislative days before May 31?

Nothing more than a gigantic steaming pile of horse shit

quote:

Originally posted by Skull Leader:
Why is what we were given 293 pages and what's in the register only 98?

It’s just formatting.

I’ve worked on five rulemakings and it happens every time.

The Federal Register requires agencies used the wide margin, double spaced format to write the rule, then the Federal Register reformats it as published (small font, single spaced) and releases it.

Apparantly, the first lawsuit has been filed and it's been filed by military veterans. One of the better plaintiffs for a court case. Partial excerpt of the actual plaintiffs:

quote:

The three plaintiffs, Darren Britto of Amarillo, Texas, Gabriel Tauscher of Oconomowoc, Wisconsin and Shawn Kroll, of Hartland, Wisconsin are all American veterans impacted by the ATF rule.

Britto is a decorated Marine combat veteran, who served in Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, as well as in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. He owns a pistol with a stabilizing brace, which has a barrel less than sixteen inches, which classifies it as a "short-barreled rifle" under the new rule, according to the lawsuit. He uses the firearm for personal defense, competitive sport shooting, recreation actives with family and as part of his employment as a firearms instructor.

Tauscher served overseas as an Infantry Marine and later as a security contractor after his service. In 2020, Tauscher was ambushed and shot 15 times in Minneapolis, after which he spent 85 days in the hospital, where he underwent multiple surgeries. He owns a pistol that also has a barrel less than 16 inches with a stabilizing brace, which he said he uses for personal protection and recreation, according to the WILL.

Kroll, a decorated Marine combat veteran who served in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2010, also owns a pistol with a 10.5 inch barrel and a stabilizing brace, which he uses for recreational target shooting, hunting and person defense, according to the WILL.

Well I have attended the webinar and here are some take-a-ways. The first is easy, new regs entered Fed register 1/31/23, and the tax forbearance extends only till 5/31.

As of yesterday (1/31/23) FFLs may not transfer any braced pistols which extend rearward, or have "surface area" w/o form 4. As they are now considered an SBR, such firearms in transit must be refused or turned over to ATF or local agency if not class III. A lower w/brace may be transferred because it is not built, but must not be delivered w/pistol upper (constructive possession). FFL in stock pistol kits have only the grace period to remove offending brace which was included, yet and braces in general stock are for now just considered accessories and can be sold to public.

For those of you who Submitted form 4 and paid $200 after 1/13 (AG signed off), you can use ATF site to cancel, and then resubmit within the amnesty and save $200. If you submitted prior to 1/13- tough!
Owners of lowers which are not yet built, are being required to submit form 4 and $200 be approved before proceeding. They are not in the amnesty because it's not a firearm as of 1/31/23.
Personal LE firearms are not excluded.
Owners with disabilities are not excluded.

The biggest caveat is the term constructive possession. We heard a few times you could remove the offending brace and its ok as long as the remaining part does NOT extend rearward. Do not keep parts together. However also heard one explanation for the need to permanently alter buffer or brace so it cannot be easily replaced. That sounds like a contradiction of simpler comments to me, so make up your own mind.

Additions and corrections welcome!

Thanks for the info. I for one appreciate it.

Now that the final rule has been finally published, and the dust has been settled somewhat, is there a post, or link, or other article that accurately summarizes the points?

Eg (I believe the following are true):
- The deadline for the filing / amnesty / waiver of the $200 fee is 5/31.
- 922r requirements do not apply.
- Once your braced pistol is registered as an SBR, you may reconfigure it with a different stock.
- There is some law that says agency rules have to be affirmed by both houses of Congress within 60 legislative days — but that likely puts us past 5/31 so won’t be of help.

What other points are important that we now know?

I am not asking about other speculation / wishful thinking about the likelihood that this will be overturned in the courts — I predict that will happen, but not enough to count on it.

As always, very appreciative of the wisdom from everyone here.