ATF Plans to Finalize Pistol Brace Rule in January
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2023

In a recent court filing, the Department of Justice claimed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “expects to publish a final rule in January 2023.” That rule is the Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” which was first proposed by the agency in June 2021. And, is the most recent in a long line of ATF guidance, rulings, and rules regarding firearms with attached stabilizing braces.

If finalized, the rule would likely subject most firearms with attached braces to the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA), which include additional taxation, long wait times, and registration.

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 NFA. That’s because stabilizing braces were first designed and intended to help disabled veterans fire large format pistols.

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.

More recently, on December 20, 2022, NRA-ILA staff met with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which was conducting its review of ATF’s final rule. OIRA review is generally the last step that an agency must cross in order to publish a final rule. At the meeting with OIRA, NRA staff voiced the many concerns that gun owners had with the proposed rule.

Now, it looks like ATF intends to move forward with the final rule despite the numerous problems that have been identified with the rule. While no definitive date has been set for the release in January, ATF has in the past released various rulings immediately before the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT). SHOT Show 2023 is scheduled to begin on Tuesday January 17th.

Please check nraila.org regularly for updates on this terrible rule and other regulations, legislation, and litigation that impact your Second Amendment rights.

https://www.nraila.org/article...race-rule-in-january

quote:

Now, it looks like ATF intends to move forward with the final rule despite the numerous problems that have been identified with the rule.

Shocking.

They all do it. The IRS, the FAA, and the fucks at the ATF are no different. Remote ID is a perfect example of the exact same kind of bullshit with the FAA.

Either cuck to the latest rulings, forever, or decide your line has been crossed and move on with life ignoring their bullshit until they catch you.

I fail to see where a legal middle ground exists anymore.

FATF

quote:

ATF Plans to Finalize Pistol Brace Rule in January

Well, I imagine the ATF should 'brace' for a lawsuit then...

And to be consistent, it should be filed in the Fifth Circuit, which recently ruled (like LAST FRIDAY!) that the process the ATF used usurped the powers of Congress!

The bump stock ruling? That could be seen coming a mile away, since the NFA has very clear definitions of a machine gun, and an AR with a bump stock does not fit them.

With pistol braces, there's no language in the NFA that a plaintiff could work with to show that the ATF doesn't have the authority to declare them NFA items. A long gun with a pistol brace looks and functions VERY much like the NFA definition of an SBR.

If there's one issue the plaintiffs could harp on its that the NFA fully reversed itself on these devices. It had fully cleared them, now it wants to reel them back in, after millions have been sold. A court may look sideways at that, but I'm not that optimistic.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

ATF Plans to Finalize Pistol Brace Rule in January

Well, I imagine the ATF should 'brace' for a lawsuit then...

And to be consistent, it should be filed in the Fifth Circuit, which recently ruled (like LAST FRIDAY!) that the process the ATF used usurped the powers of Congress!

The Fifth Circuit just blocked the bump stock ban. Maybe use the same logic to stay the pistol brace ban?
https://www.reuters.com/world/...p-stocks-2023-01-07/

You can't use the same logic because there is no definition in the NFA to cite as the underlying law. While there will be suits its not the same legal issue. I would personally wonder if the best angle is the ADA, but detrimental reliance may be an approach. In any case if they publish what they trial ballooned braces are toast.

Many people have wondered, “Why didn’t they just call it a ‘stock’ in the first place and let it die?” On the other hand it was supposedly originally approved to help people with disabilities, and if that’s the only people who used it in the way it was designed, nothing would have ever come of it. But the ATF’s flip-flopping rulings might make a difference. At least one of the attorneys that follow gun rights issues did mention that briefly in one recent video as evidently having been considered by a court in a pro-rights ruling.

From the Fifth Circuit Case:

The Fifth Circuit ruled the process the ATF used usurped the powers of Congress.

“As an initial matter, it purports to allow ATF—rather than Congress—to set forth the scope of criminal prohibitions,” Elrod wrote. “Indeed, the Government would outlaw bump stocks by administrative fiat even though the very same agency routinely interpreted the ban on machineguns as not applying to the type of bump stocks at issue here. Nor can we say that the statutory definition unambiguously supports the Government’s interpretation.”

It not that the ruling was specific to Bump Stocks, but rather that it's related to the way the ATF has 'routinely interpreted' the permissibility of the pistol brace previously!

Well, that's the thing. If the only government entity that says bump stocks are prohibited is the ATF, then by changing a ruling from an "OK" to a prohibition the ATF is actually creating a law. That they cannot do - Congress has to do it and the Congress has to make the law clearly mean what the ATF wants to rule or fuhgedaboudit.

Fingers crossed that we hear the 5th Circuit's language in other cases to come.

With the bump stock rule, the ATF ruling contradicted the definition of a machine gun in the NFA. With the proposed pistol brace rule, that isn't the case. An AR withe a pistol brace does fit the definition of an SBR.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Well, that's the thing. If the only government entity that says bump stocks are prohibited is the ATF, then by changing a ruling from an "OK" to a prohibition the ATF is actually creating a law. That they cannot do - Congress has to do it and the Congress has to make the law clearly mean what the ATF wants to rule or fuhgedaboudit.

Fingers crossed that we hear the 5th Circuit's language in other cases to come.

Just my opinion, maybe we should have someone to represent the handicapped to fight the ban on the pistol brace as the original intent is an item for them to exercise their 2nd Amendment which can also be used by anyone. God Bless

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
ATF Plans to Finalize Pistol Brace Rule in January

Well, I finally got off my ass and got the ball rolling on an NFA trust today. I'm not going to wait for this to get fought out in the courts, or wait until the system gets positively choked with "amnesty" registrants. Gonna drop about a grand on E-File form 1's here as soon as I get my stuff notarized, printed, and passport photos and all that. It's not all braced pistols, but I have things I want to put a stock or a short barrel on and I don't want to fool around until wait times go from a month or so to the better part of a year or worse.

and what happens in a few years when they decide 'you' creating the trust to get a tax stamp is a way to get around certain people having NFA firearms?

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Well, that's the thing. If the only government entity that says bump stocks are prohibited is the ATF, then by changing a ruling from an "OK" to a prohibition the ATF is actually creating a law. That they cannot do - Congress has to do it and the Congress has to make the law clearly mean what the ATF wants to rule or fuhgedaboudit.

Fingers crossed that we hear the 5th Circuit's language in other cases to come.

With the bump stock rule, the ATF ruling contradicted the definition of a machine gun in the NFA. With the proposed pistol brace rule, that isn't the case. An AR withe a pistol brace does fit the definition of an SBR.

It only fits the definition of an SBR if you CHANGE the definition of a Stock, and ignore the design intent of the Brace, as well as it's previously accepted compliance with the law!

quote:

Originally posted by Blume9mm:
and what happens in a few years when they decide 'you' creating the trust to get a tax stamp is a way to get around certain people having NFA firearms?

All responsible persons on a trust have to be fingerprinted and have a 5320.23 submitted at the time of Form 1 or Form 4 application, so I think that's a non-issue.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Well, that's the thing. If the only government entity that says bump stocks are prohibited is the ATF, then by changing a ruling from an "OK" to a prohibition the ATF is actually creating a law. That they cannot do - Congress has to do it and the Congress has to make the law clearly mean what the ATF wants to rule or fuhgedaboudit.

Fingers crossed that we hear the 5th Circuit's language in other cases to come.

With the bump stock rule, the ATF ruling contradicted the definition of a machine gun in the NFA. With the proposed pistol brace rule, that isn't the case. An AR withe a pistol brace does fit the definition of an SBR.

It only fits the definition of an SBR if you CHANGE the definition of a Stock, and ignore the design intent of the Brace, as well as it's previously accepted compliance with the law!

Seeing how most people ignored the intent of the brace, one has to wonder why the ATF wants a change in the rules. How many braces sold times 200$ is a good chunk of change, even for the feds. I think the smart people have been pruning their social media accounts, but since the Sig Brace was introduced in 2015, how many pics and videos have you seen where the user is using the brace attached to their forearm? And how many with it being used as a stock? In the 7+ years since the brace was introduced, I've only seen the brace being used as a brace twice. Rest of the time, as a stock.

I couldn't care less how people use their brace. A stock, a stabilizer.... Couldn't. Give. A shit. Less.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I couldn't care less how people use their brace. A stock, a stabilizer.... Couldn't. Give. A shit. Less.

Exactly. Doesn’t matter. That’s why the whole “designed or redesigned to design a redesign” nonsense went away. How you use a gun does not change the definition of what it is. Really, all this is, is the endgame of something as stupid as leaving SBR’s and SBS’ in the NFA after not banning pistols. The reason for them being written into the law in the first place was to make it illegal for people to end-run the ban on handguns that was originally in the NFA, then removed. It just highlights how stupid the law was in the first place, and now we’re all tied up in knots with an even higher doing everything they can to justify and “clarify” this bad piece of legislation that’s beyond outdated and was pointless right from jump.

Blume, this is me pointedly ignoring your obtuse and standard “but what about?” devil’s advocate routine.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I couldn't care less how people use their brace. A stock, a stabilizer.... Couldn't. Give. A shit. Less.

Even the ATF themselves previously said as much in their On Again, Off Again, Blessing, Non-Blessing of the Pistol Brace! I wonder if we'll need to apply for a Handicapped Placard to use one in the future? Maybe they'll propose we can only but Pistol Braces from Home Medical Equipment suppliers in the future?

Probably Not...It's just about Banning Firearms, and targeting MILLIONS of Law Abiding Gun Owners!