For the sake of this thread, let's just leave it as he'll be in office next month, and deal with the repercussions of that as it applies to this subject. The election can have a whole flight of threads on it's own

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
.... I Hope they know this is going to get ugly. They got lucky in that Biden won the election. He'll give them some cover to do ......

Biden didn’t win, the dems cheated.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:
“ This being said, if this guidance letter passes, then braces previously approved by BATFE or those substantively similar in design should be OK. Braces that do not have sufficient functionality to be used as an actual brace will not.”

Based on what they published, I don’t believe that to be true at all. How effective the brace design is as a brace is only one thing they look at. They also look at the gun it’s mounted on. If the ATF decides that a gun is too long, or too heavy, or too much recoil, etc. that it’s only practical to shoot from the shoulder, it won’t matter it has one of the originally approved braces on it, or not.

Yes I read all of that and summarized each criteria in the other thread. Under the complete set of criteria BATFE can only evaluate complete firearms, not separate parts, so it is unclear how individuals will get determinations for firearms they assemble themselves from parts.

What I meant was that the specific braces and configurations already approved should stand, and that approved brace designs should not be summarily rejected as being too "stock-like".

Now, if an AR manufacturer gets a determination that a 10.5" barrel 5.56 mm AR pistol with an SBA3 (or SBA4, or Tailhook Mod2, etc.) is a braced pistol and not an SBR, then the rest of us can follow suit.

But a 14.5" barrel may be ruled to be an SBR because of the added length and weight and lessened ability to be fired one-handed. A 14.5" AR10 .308 may have even less of a chance due to the increased weight.

It is in our best interest to file a class action lawsuit against any restrictions that go further than simply state which brace designs are braces, and which are stocks, along with specific criteria to determine this. Anything else is arbitrary and nearly impossible for citizens to follow lawfully.

I have a question about these 'braces' Seems like when the first AR type pistols came out they did not have what we see now as a brace but just a tube on the back that held the recoil spring.. so, my question is; say you have a AR type pistol with a more current brace, which is really just a short stock and you convert it back to just the tube with spring... would that get around the proposed BAFTE changes?

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
I have a question about these 'braces' Seems like when the first AR type pistols came out they did not have what we see now as a brace but just a tube on the back that held the recoil spring.. so, my question is; say you have a AR type pistol with a more current brace, which is really just a short stock and you convert it back to just the tube with spring... would that get around the proposed BAFTE changes?

According to what’s been posted, removing the brace would get you clear.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
I have a question about these 'braces' Seems like when the first AR type pistols came out they did not have what we see now as a brace but just a tube on the back that held the recoil spring.. so, my question is; say you have a AR type pistol with a more current brace, which is really just a short stock and you convert it back to just the tube with spring... would that get around the proposed BAFTE changes?

According to what’s been posted, removing the brace would get you clear.

Considering all the recent published ATF comments together (large format pistols), not necessarily so...and remember, this current proposal is just that, a proposal, and there is nothing to prevent the ATF from changing/ adding to the determination criteria should it be implemented.

So what effect would any future change or directive
have on the millions of braced pistols in ownership or circulation currently?

I realize any thing is speculation to this point. Just curious on thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
I have a question about these 'braces' Seems like when the first AR type pistols came out they did not have what we see now as a brace but just a tube on the back that held the recoil spring.. so, my question is; say you have a AR type pistol with a more current brace, which is really just a short stock and you convert it back to just the tube with spring... would that get around the proposed BAFTE changes?

According to what’s been posted, removing the brace would get you clear.

Considering all the recent published ATF comments together (large format pistols), not necessarily so...and remember, this current proposal is just that, a proposal, and there is nothing to prevent the ATF from changing/ adding to the determination criteria should it be implemented.

That’s why I specifically said “according to what’s been posted.” Things can always be changed/expanded later.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dwill104,

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
I have a question about these 'braces' Seems like when the first AR type pistols came out they did not have what we see now as a brace but just a tube on the back that held the recoil spring.. so, my question is; say you have a AR type pistol with a more current brace, which is really just a short stock and you convert it back to just the tube with spring... would that get around the proposed BAFTE changes?

According to what’s been posted, removing the brace would get you clear.

Considering all the recent published ATF comments together (large format pistols), not necessarily so...and remember, this current proposal is just that, a proposal, and there is nothing to prevent the ATF from changing/ adding to the determination criteria should it be implemented.

I expect to see action on large format pistols that are derived from SBR's. SP5 and MP5 Clones, Scorpion, Bren, AK's, etc. Handguns are currently exempt from 922r compliance that cripples imported semi-autos, and forces import of AK's as "sporting rifles" that are modified after importation with enough 922r parts.

922r is legislation that applies to rifles and shotguns, so applying it to handguns would take an act of Congress. However reclassifying the above SBR-based handguns as rifles might be possible by saying that any handgun that can easily accept a factory stock is a rifle. SP5/MP5 and clones can take any available stock by swapping the end cap that is held on with a single pushpin. Scorpions just have a spring detent holding the backplate on. SBA3's can be swapped with a stock very easily too.

And it doesn't take legislation to ban their import or tax them into non-existence, which is what I expect Biden to do by executive order.

We need to get BATFE to re-define what "sporting" means. Traditionally, it means hunting, target shooting, and skeet/trap/clays. Lower capacity and slower reloading are acceptable due to laws restricting capacity during hunting, and rules of the traditional shooting sports.

I don't have any numbers but the popularity of 3gun, USPSA, IDPA and other action shooting has changed the definition of sporting. Perhaps these sports aren't as popular as hunting, but I think they are more popular than NRA Bullseye and similar events. To be competitive in action shooting you need full capacity magazines, threaded barrels for compensators, free floating forearm rails that are "barrel shrouds" by another name, pistol grips with less angle, and adjustable stocks. About the only feature that is not needed for competition is the old bayonet lug.

And then there's the suitability of AR's for hunting - due to the inherent accuracy of the AR design, adaptability to rounds suitable for hunting, low recoil allowing you to see your shot land, and speed of follow up shots. The banners constantly lie that the AR is not suited for hunting because it is inaccurate.

I haven't fully crafted or submitted my response yet, but a few observations and thoughts on the Public Comments:

- I posted my bitch earlier in this thread about the Submit a Formal Comment button on the Federal Registry website not being activated, forcing users to use a separate hyperlink, but apparently that has now been rectified. Clicking on the link will now redirect directly to a different (correct) Rules Public Comments website where they will be posted.


- As of this posting there are 21,444 Public Comments. You are able to view the Public Comments without yet making your own comments, which may be of some help to those who are considering their own responses.

Interestingly, there are several pages of public comments that were first submitted on 17 December, the day before the proposal was published. The first 12 pages of Public Comments are from 17 December, then there is a 3 day gap, after which the Public Comments period resumes on 20 December on page 13.

- For those interested in doing so, the ability to include supporting documents with their responses is available, and a fraction have done so, at least so far.

- The names of those posting responses are not automatically displayed, but clicking on a button will display the name, and if an organization is included it will display the organization's name as well.

- I'm disappointed, but not surprised, by the type of comments being made. Obviously a lot of gun owners and shooters are angry about these proposals and have responded in an angry and emotional way. Spelling mistakes, poor grammar, comparing the ATF to the SS and Nazis, rudimentary Second Amendment quotes, etc..., while it might feel good to emote, these types of responses aren't likely to influence a government bureaucracy.

Having said that, there were a few well thought out well constructed arguments within the Public Comments posted and so, for those willing to wade through the jack-booted thug type comments, you may just find one or two that might help shape or influence your own comments.

Here are examples of a couple of the better Public Comments that I read (although some of the commenters included their names in the body of their responses I've redacted them):

(example 1)
Although this notice claims to provide objective elements used to classify firearms, it fails to do so, and will only cause more confusion and difficulty for the firearms industry and law-abiding citizens, and should therefore be removed.

Regarding the vague statement that caliber will be a factor in whether or not a firearm with a brace is a pistol or SBR, the first braced AR pistol ever approved by the ATF was chambered in 5.56. Is 5.56 considered a large caliber? If so, why was the first ATF-approved use of a pistol brace given to an AR pistol in 5.56? In addition, what qualifies a "large caliber firearm?" A 45ACP bullet is much heavier and much larger than a 5.56 bullet. Moreoever, what defines a firearm as being "impractical to fire with one hand"? There are countless after-market firearm parts such as muzzle breaks, which significantly reduce recoil of firearms, especially ones chambered in 5.56 or 7.62, which would easily allow them to be fired with one hand. Saying a "large caliber" firearm with a pistol brace could be considered an illegal SBR and not a pistol is completely subjective, not objective, and therefore the lack of a definition on this point makes it extremely confusing and therefore difficult for law abiding citizens to follow.

Next, if a braced firearm is deemed too heavy to be shot with one hand, what is the objective weight that makes a firearm too heavy and therefore not a pistol? My father would be able to hold a much heavier firearm with one hand than my mother, but does this mean the gun that is 1oz too heavy for my mother is universally too heavy to be fired with one hand and should therefore be classified as a pistol? I do not think so, at least in the absence of an actual weight that would take away the subjective nature of this statement.

To continue, the argument the distance between the trigger and the back of a brace should be shorter compared to a shoulderable rifle is, unsurprisingly, vague and impractical. It took less than 30 seconds for me to search the internet for videos of people shooting an AR pistol one handed, and although the distance from the back of the brace to the trigger is around the same as for a shoulderable rifle, the individuals in these videos are cleary using the brace exactly as it was designed for, and had no issues shooting their AR pisols, chambered in 5.56 or 7.62, with one hand. Clearly, length of pull does not inhibit an individual's ability to fire an AR pistol one-handed, even if the length of pull is the same as a shoulderable rifle. And again, by not providing an actual numerical value of how long of a length of pull is too long, this notice provides more harm than good in terms of understanding how to abide by the law, and so far has been comprised of completely subjective evaluations.

Regarding attachment method, I find it surprising that the ATF thinks a 5'2" shooter will have the same length of pull as a 6'2" shooter. Different people have different arm lengths, and therefore a taller person with a longer arm length may prefer a spacer or some kind of brace extension so that when they shoot their pistol one-handed, they can fully extend their arm or at least shoot one-handed in a way that is most comfortable to them. This is in no way some sort of declaration that a person intends to fire the pistol from the shoulder, but instead is a matter of personal preference and comfort. To argue that adding a stock extension to a pistol "indicates that the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder," seems absurd and would be almost comical if it were not coming from a government agency.

If you continue down the list of features that could violate a braced firearm's classification as a pistol, you will find there are little to no objective definitions provided, despite the first sentence of this notice saying the ATF "is publishing the objective factors it considers when evaluating firearms with an attached stabilizing brace to determine whether they are considered firearms under the National Firearms Act." The entire notice is a list of unclear evaluations which have the potential to negatively impact law-abiding citizens trying to practice the Second Amendment in conjunction with any applicable legislation from their elected officials. Therefore, this notice does more harm than good, and without any definitive guidelines on what a "large caliber firearm" is, the weight at which a braced firearm becomes an illegal SBR, and the rest of the subjective evaluations, this notice is detrimental to the good people of the United States and should be removed.

Thank you,


(example 2)
This is in response to the document with docket # ATF 2020R-10
Good day,

Below are some very basic and important questions that you have failed to answer in your recent notice:
1. Type and Caliber: How can FATD, in good faith, classify certain large/heavy calibers as "impractical" for pistols while there are many large caliber, heavy revolvers/pistols already in common use? (i.e. the Smith & Wesson 500) What is the current caliber limit to ensure pistol owners and manufacturers do not become felons overnight?
2. Weight and Length: Again, how can FATD determine this, when there are many long-barrel pistols already in common use? What is the weight and length limit? This would be vital information for any manufacturer or legal gun owner, especially when ATF has taken it upon themselves to reclassify regular firearms already in common use as NFA items.
3. Length of pull: What would FATD classify as "too long?" Why is there no comment on what the standards would be for length of pull? FATD continues to not say.
4. Brace Design Features: Since when has the visual appearance/look of a firearm been the sole reason for classifying it as an NFA item?

Furthermore, I am struggling to understand the steps ATF is attempting to make regular, law-abiding citizens take in order to keep existing legal firearms:
"No single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis."

How can anyone, in good faith, keep up with these ever-changing regulations? Especially when FATD has yet to make any determinative standards for such things as pistols, braces, and/or peripheral devices? "We'll know it when we see it" is a load of garbage. No manufacturer or legal gun owner will be able to continually satisfy the arbitrary requirements when FATD operates in this manner.

My parting comment is this: the BATFE continues to unilaterally make uninformed decisions that serve only to hinder and suppress the rights of law-abiding citizens, bolster hyper-political support from ignorant hardline partisan hacks, and continues to allow the funneling of money and weapons into the hands of dangerous Cartels and violent criminals.

Overall, do better, and God Bless America.

^^^^^^
Thank you Modern Day for posting some of the "better" type letters. I just want to write the ATF and tell them to take a "flying one" but will use some of these as a template for my own letter.

They will be back around January 20th or so...

Don't be too quick to holster your Public Comment responses.

The proposal may have been withdrawn from the Federal Registry, but there are still a whole hell of a lot of questions and ambiguities remaining, and I'm fairly certain they will be back for another bite at the apple.

This was too easy and my Spidey Sense are tingling...any intel on why the feds withdrew the proposal?

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
This was too easy and my Spidey Sense are tingling...any intel on why the feds withdrew the proposal?

90 members of Congress sent the ATF a letter. Here is the letter.

https://shared.nrapvf.org/shar...abilizing-braces.pdf

Another article of the withdraw of the proposal. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...rule-change-n2582098

Supposedly 90 house members got in on this.



https://www.washingtonexaminer...iaV7afooloNW42L55a8g

I would say that that is a nice Christmas present to those folks with arm braces, or those that plan to purchase one!!

Excellent news.

A good effort to rein in the run-amock agency and its desire to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

A great Christmas present

Congress needs to remove the rule making authority of this agency and several others before the President leaves office in 2025.