AFT pistol stabilizing brace rule just came down.

[AlwaysArmed]

YouTube

YouTube

[AlwaysArmed]

This may be a blessing in disguise. Millions of AR pistols are out there. It can't be legal (or tolerated) to make millions of Americans felons overnight.
As far as the 5th Circuits ruling, that only applies within the boundaries of the 5th Circuit.
Hopefully we will see an end to the NFA and GCA within our lifetime. Better hurry up. I'm 65 and retiring next week.
Support GOA, FPC and others that support us. If we all gave just $5, it would go a long way toward getting our 2A back.
AA

[Racer X]

"Millions of AR pistols are out there. It can't be legal (or tolerated) to make millions of Americans felons overnight."

The Rule of Lenity?

[sigp220.45]

You’re not a felon until you’re convicted of a felony.

[AlwaysArmed]

Originally Posted by sigp220.45

You’re not a felon until you’re convicted of a felony.

True. But, the legal fees and stress could wipe someone and their families out. This is tyranny, nothing less.
AA

[Racer X]

the process that has occured over bump stocks and braces could also occur with gas stoves in your home, or internal combustion engines in cars and trucks.

The president says "I don't like them", and the EPA makes them go away using emission and pollution standards impossible to meet. How about ICE portable generators, ATVs, snowmobiles and boat motors?

If these are allowed to stand, there is no real theoretical end.

I don't care about bump stocks, and don't use a pistol brace yet, depending on my neck/shoulder surgery, but I DO CARE about the rule of law, and the legal functioning of our government.

We must innundate our lawmakers, who were not involved in these processes.

[sigp220.45]

Originally Posted by AlwaysArmed

True. But, the legal fees and stress could wipe someone and their families out. This is tyranny, nothing less.
AA

Its not.

Stocks on handguns have been illegal (without government approval) since before I was born. And I’m old.

Pistol braces are stocks. The work-around worked for a while. It doesn’t anymore.

If you want pistol stocks to be legal, work on that.

I will now launch myself onto many ignore lists: I don’t care about the ATF deciding pistol stocks are masquerading as arm braces.

[Baxter6551]

I just read this link and it indicates that there is a grace period to register what now could be considered a short barrel rifle tax free for 120 days after the ruling is posted in the federal register.

Justice Department Announces New Rule to Address Stabilizing Braces, Accessories Used to Convert Pistols into Short-Barreled Rifles | OPA | Department of Justice

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by sigp220.45

Its not.

Stocks on handguns have been illegal (without government approval) since before I was born. And I’m old.

Pistol braces are stocks. The work-around worked for a while. It doesn’t anymore.

If you want pistol stocks to be legal, work on that.

I will now launch myself onto many ignore lists: I don’t care about the ATF deciding pistol stocks are masquerading as arm braces.

do you care about a regulating agency making de facto law, bypassing the whole elected representative government most of the planet wishes they had, and are literally dying to achieve what we have?

[Shark Bait]

They were legal for many years and the ATF supported it. Now they simply decide to change their minds after millions of legal gun owners have them. They are a federal agency and do not have the authority to make laws or rules that can result in jail time. But they're doing it anyway. If that is not a cause for concern then be prepared to accept anything they want to impose. They can't even demonstrate that pistol braces pose a significant threat. How will registration of these guns make us safer? They won't. The fact is that they don't know who has them and now they want a list.

[Muss Muggins]

I’ll wait until an actual news source, as opposed to a couple histrionic YouTubers, busts it out, and then I’ll still wait. E’erbody relax . . .

[sigp220.45]

Originally Posted by Racer X

do you care about a regulating agency making de facto law, bypassing the whole elected representative government most of the planet wishes they had, and are dying to achieve what we have?

They didn’t. The law making pistol stocks illegal was passed and signed into law decades ago.

They’ve ruled arm braces fall under that law.

I agree. I’ve never seen anyone use one on these things as an arm brace. I have seen plenty of people use them as a shoulder stock.

It was a good try while it lasted.

[Rodan]

It did in fact drop. No full analysis yet, but this has been about the best source for legal interpretation I've found over the last year or so on ATF/2A issues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HfOIFAt0To

Any gun owner who is not concerned about HOW this was done needs to pull their head out of the sand... the ATF has been overstepping for years, and even in the face of 2 major SCOTUS cases and one major appeals court case that are very clear on the illegality of their actions, they've got the pedal to the metal. If you think they're going to stop at forced reset triggers and braces, you're deluding yourself. They ARE coming for you eventually.

Don't forget that the 'arm brace' market took off only AFTER the ATF said that they were legal, and ATF even said that it was OK to shoulder them...

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by Baxter6551

I just read this link and it indicates that there is a grace period to register what now could be considered a short barrel rifle tax free for 120 days after the ruling is posted in the federal register.

Justice Department Announces New Rule to Address Stabilizing Braces, Accessories Used to Convert Pistols into Short-Barreled Rifles | OPA | Department of Justice

and a perfect example of why this is completely illegal. If you volunteer to register, they waive the $200 tax stamp. ONLY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH of the US Government, can levy, waive, or eliminate taxes. Somehow, I think, in the back of your mind, you know this, but hadn't made the connection yet. The BATFE just collects the tax, they don't decide who, when, how much, or what it's used for. Only the legislative branch gets to.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by sigp220.45

They didn’t. The law making pistol stocks illegal was passed and signed into law decades ago.

They’ve ruled arm braces fall under that law.

I agree. I’ve never seen anyone use one on these things as an arm brace. I have seen plenty of people use them as a shoulder stock.

It was a good try while it lasted.

They ruled because they were told to, just like they ruled on bump stocks, when told to, and this was after, during the Obama administration, they ruled bump stocks WERE NOT "machine guns" "Braces" were already ruled fair game. The Director owes his/her job to the sitting president. How convenient for the President that the person who edits the dictionary works for them.

And by flipping on bump stocks, it's plain that without an actual change in the wording of the original laws these intrepretations MUST be based on, any intrepretation can be massaged if we let them, at the whim of someone higher up the food chain.

[Racer X]

everyone needs to get on the NRA-ILA email/text alert lists so we can easily follow the links the alerts contain and blast our elected officials daily. Same with the 2A Foundation, GOA and FPC. I've sent out 3 rounds of e-mails today.

In my state, I know they don't care about my views, but I still have to, so our system ever has a hope in working as it should.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

I’ll wait until an actual news source, as opposed to a couple histrionic YouTubers, busts it out, and then I’ll still wait. E’erbody relax . . .

I sort of agree. I'm not going to get too excited just yet.
HOWEVER, like the guy in the first video said, make your opposition and your displeasure heard at every level of government.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by Muss Muggins

I’ll wait until an actual news source, as opposed to a couple histrionic YouTubers, busts it out, and then I’ll still wait. E’erbody relax . . .

So, the e-mails from the GOA, NRA-ILA, 2nd A Foundation and FPC I received today are suspect? I'm just asking.......

[waffles]

I don't like the NFA. I think the prohibitions on SBRs and silencers are particularly pointless.

I also think that in a world where the NFA is still law, whether I like it or not, the pistol braces went far over the "I'm not touching you!" line. The original sig brace was definitely easily used as a stock, but the shape and the straps made sense as an accessibility device (indeed, I'd actually seen it used once by a person who was born with an unusable arm).

By the time of the ruling, all that was gone. I built an AR pistol for about $320 before the pandemic. This was one of the cheapest options, it doesn't have the sig brace accessibility features, neither the shape nor straps, had a screw that would interface with the adjustable stock positions on a standard carbine buffer tube, etc.



There were others with even more features. They were stocks, no way around it. If these had stayed something like the sig brace, we might still have them. Instead the industry flew too close to the sun and melted their wings. It's a damn shame. They were a nice option for making AR/AK/similar "pistols" usable when waiting for a stamp, for situations where SBR legality was an issue, or, yaknow, for the genuinely disabled. That's over now, I'm glad at least (From my understanding) those with the pistols at least get a free stamp, but it's a pain in the ***. I'm disappointed that supposedly pro-gun politicians didn't pass the HPA or other NFA-neutering legislation when they had the chance, but putting stocks on pistols and calling them a brace was never something that was going to be a long term thing.

[dbell54]

Originally Posted by sigp220.45

I don’t care about the ATF deciding pistol stocks are masquerading as arm braces.

Just remember the words of Martin Niemöller, "When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."

[sigp220.45]

Originally Posted by dbell54

Just remember the words of Martin Niemöller, "When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."

Yeah, I’m fine with that.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by sigp220.45

Yeah, I’m fine with that.

Really? Figure it will be a while before they get to you, eh?
I'm not so confident, and that's why I'm opposed to this.

For now, removing the brace and putting a foam pad on the buffer tube seems like the most prudent thing to do.

[Rob613]

It's ironic that the SBT "data breach" happened right before the ruling.

[Rodan]

Originally Posted by waffles

Instead the industry flew too close to the sun and melted their wings.

The ATF clearly and publicly stated braces were not stocks and that shouldering a brace was OK because it did not "redesign" them. It was only AFTER this that the sales of braces really took off, and then manufacturers began offering them on production guns.

The "industry" didn't 'fly too close to the sun'... the ATF said braces were legal and the "industry" followed the market.

[Duckford]

The bigger point goes to law and precedent.

If the ATF had put its foot down in 2012 and stopped all this from the get go, not only would it have prevented all this from going any further, but it would also cleared the legal status of pistol braces. It would have been stated and known they are violations of the NFA. It would have been over and nothing would have happened.

Since the ATF gave approval, and let things roll down hill as braces evolved into other products, and then the ATF dragged their heals and gave approval for the arm braces, for years and years, they set precedent that the newer designs were acceptable or perhaps not a violation of the NFA at all. They allowed industry to produce products for years, setting precedent. They allowed hundreds of thousands of customers to buy these products without any stoppage, over the course of many years. Setting precedent.

Doing nothing, or giving head nods, actually is of great importance in law. Implied implications, giving the general public and manufacturers ideas and notions that these were not violating the NFA, allowing this whole circus to play out for years and years and years.

By doing nothing for long periods of time, by saying "yeah these are OKish" for years, the ATF can claim they are clarifying the NFA and regulations finally, but by waiting so long and abdicating for as long as they have, one can start to also make the argument that the "train has left the station", and the time for clarification was when the manufacturers asked for approval, or as many as two million products were sold to law abiding citizens who thought they were within the law.

If they would have put a foot down in 2012, or 2014, or 2016. But, they waited for around a decade of established first ruling to finally "figure it out". They dragged their feet to the point where their authority was lost, all by their own inaction and doing.

Did the ATF have the authority to shut down arm braces as a violation of the NFA? Certainly, 10-6 years ago. When the products were introduced to the market and the rulings NEEDED to be made on them, not a "well, we'll allow it, but not really, maybe, maybe we'll declare it illegal years after the fact". When they allowed these products to proceed, THAT WAS THE RULING, active or implied. By not acting, the ATF acquiesced.

Are pistol braces a violation of the NFA, or a work around of the NFA? That is a good question.

But, was the time for the ATF to rule on the issue back when the products were introduced and not years after the fact? Absolutely. Can the ATF change the guidance they gave manufacturers and gun owners and decide to rule against their own precedents? Maybe not.

Wither or not the arm braces are a tricky workaround of the NFA is one legal issue to be questioned. Wither the ATF lost its authority to regulate them now, by setting its own precedents in the past few years on the issue, is another.

Even if the ATF HAD the authority under prescribed law to stop them in the past, does not mean they have the authority to do so now. Gun owners and other people who want clarity on administration powers demand to know if it will take a change to prescribed law after precedent has been set by the agency, or if the agency can arbitrarily change its mind.

[waffles]

Originally Posted by Rodan

The ATF clearly and publicly stated braces were not stocks and that shouldering a brace was OK because it did not "redesign" them. It was only AFTER this that the sales of braces really took off, and then manufacturers began offering them on production guns.

The "industry" didn't 'fly too close to the sun'... the ATF said braces were legal and the "industry" followed the market.

Go ahead and read my post, take a look at the braces when this started and the braces now.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by waffles

Go ahead and read my post, take a look at the braces when this started and the braces now.

Doesn't matter. EVERY new design that has come out, the manufacturer has submitted the specs to the ATF for approval BEFORE they went into production.
The ATF approved the designs, the manufacuturers took their approval at face value, produced and sold the products in good faith, and the public purchased them in good faith based on the ATF having approved them.
Changing their minds after the fact doesn't change the FACTS.
Infrared night scopes have been legal for years. Can they change their minds tomorrow and say they are illegal because they give criminals an advantage because most crimes happen at night?

[Rodan]

Originally Posted by waffles

Go ahead and read my post, take a look at the braces when this started and the braces now.

And all along the way, the ATF said they were legal.

Until now.

[waffles]

Originally Posted by BC38

Infrared night scopes have been legal for years. Can they change their minds tomorrow and say they are illegal because they give criminals an advantage because most crimes happen at night?

No, not without a law in place saying night vision is illegal.

There is, of course, a law saying that a stock on a pistol or rifle with under a 16" barrel requires a tax stamp. I don't like it, but most of the braces are stocks, plain as day.

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by waffles

No, not without a law in place saying night vision is illegal.

There is, of course, a law saying that a stock on a pistol or rifle with under a 16" barrel requires a tax stamp. I don't like it, but most of the braces are stocks, plain as day.

But the BATFE already said they WEREN'T stocks years ago. That's the core of the issue. I even have a copy of the letter they sent to Sig saying my model is NOT a stock. So, were they lying then, or lying now? Congress hasn't passed any legislation on braces in the interim, so the LAW hasn't changed.

[Becket]

Q: Do you think this will be attempted in some form: Between citizen owners, and purchased but yet unsold stock of ffl dealers, can a legal *accessory* argument be made for a now 'common use' of the millions of braces in general circulation? Just wondering. Of course all this, like bump stocks legality, must be dealt with by the Judicial branch and not ANY other federal branch or department. Atf overstep is merely political bullying no different than using the IRS as a threat to a citizen to fall in line, imho. I honestly think the Trump (yeah, I voted for him too) & then Biden ATF used the lack of focus due to the troubles of the NRA in the past several years to ram through these unconstitutional 'rulings'. Their first mistake was thinking the NRA was the be all end all of any opposition. The politicians were sooo arrogant as to think the American peon citizens didn't care, and were too stupid and powerless anyway to organise any threat to THEIR superior power, intellect and education. Yet we little peons WERE watching; & I gleefully state the obvious as it has for several months now been biting them in their collective heavily-sticked butts, and with Benitez and Heller, the pendellum is finally swinging back hard after almost 55 years!

[Racer X]

Originally Posted by waffles

No, not without a law in place saying night vision is illegal.

There is, of course, a law saying that a stock on a pistol or rifle with under a 16" barrel requires a tax stamp. I don't like it, but most of the braces are stocks, plain as day.

and if they say a brace makes it a SBR and needs a tax stamp, the ATF does not have the authority to waive that tax for the first 120 days if you register it. Only Congress has the authority to levy, waive or rescind taxes. It's Beyond ludacris.

[gdogs]

Seems to me the ATF is saying that if you are disabled and using a brace as originally intended then you can keep it as is, but if you are putting it to your shoulder, then it is a "stock", and therefore must be registered as an SBR. Which is pretty much exactly how the NFA set it up in 1934. So the only legal argument is, is the NFA unconstitutional. Unfortunately the courts will see that as settled law, it is nearly 100 years old after all.

Many will say that the ATF letter they got with their brace means that they bought it legally... and yes, that is the case. We bought them legally. However, if you are using it illegally (by putting it to your shoulder) then it doesn't really matter how it was purchased.

I'm no fan of the ATF and their "rule" making, but this isn't the change in rule, rather the allowing of braces in the first place was. For me this is a completely different thing than the bumpstock rule which effectively rewrote the definition of a machine gun. That was pure ATF overreach plain and simple. This is the ATF saying - we got it wrong, you all are breaking the law, but we're going to let you register them for free.

I and many others have been expecting this for a long time. My hope all along was that we'd get free tax stamps out of it. We "got away with it" for a while, but I don't see how you can possibly argue that a shouldered brace isn't a stock.

So decide for yourself, free tax stamp and compliance with a 90 year old law, or take your chances and try to buck the system on a technicality and hope that you don't end up fined or in jail - no longer being allowed to legally possess firearms, and your property confiscated. I know what I'm doing... saving over a thousand dollars in taxes... and getting to put whatever stock I want on some guns... win-win.

PS - anyone want to buy some Tailhooks?

[Rodan]

The NFA is unconstitutional on it's face. It was in 1934 and it is today. It certainly can't stand scrutiny under Bruen. Suppressors and SBRs are clearly in "common use", as are braces.

Roe v. Wade was "settled law" as well...

I hate to keep repeating myself, but the ATF proclaimed that it was perfectly OK to shoulder a 'brace' because it did not 'redesign' the brace for that purpose. Now they are reversing their position.

If they aren't "changing the rule" they are certainly reversing their interpretation of it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that a 'brace' isn't a 'stock'... except for the ATF. They proclaimed it wasn't. Millions bought them based on that proclamation. Now the ATF wants to put the horse back in the barn.

Given the recent debaucle with Form 1 suppressor 'kits', I don't trust the ATF at all for the 'amnesty' registration. They're just as likely to reject the apps, saying it was an SBR all along and should have been sold on a Form 4. This is exactly what they did with the suppressors, denying thousands of applications and even revoking some that had already been approved and demanding surrender or destruction of suppressors that had already been approved and taxed.

[Benton Quest]

I remember the first time I saw a pistol "brace". The person with excitedly explained it was legal.

I shook my head and stated before this is all over, somebody is going to get bent over on this. It was a nice try of trickery, fakery and obfuscation, but it's a stock...and it's an SBR.

If you don't like the NFA, that's a whole 'nother thing. But, this fits in the NFA as written. Sorry, just my opinion.



Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[CH4]

Originally Posted by Benton Quest

I remember the first time I saw a pistol "brace". The person with excitedly explained it was legal.

I shook my head and stated before this is all over, somebody is going to get bent over on this. It was a nice try of trickery, fakery and obfuscation, but it's a stock...and it's an SBR.

If you don't like the NFA, that's a whole 'nother thing. But, this fits in the NFA as written. Sorry, just my opinion.



Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

I agree with the, “walks like a duck” thing, but on more than one occasion, the ATF approved their use and explained in detail why they were legal. Now they want to change boats mid stream. Waiving the $200 tax is another can o worms. I think ATF et al., are going to be shown the light.

[zeke]

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...espdf/download

it appears work sheet 4999 has been replaced with open ended, unclarified descriptions that can not be used by an individual.

." The rule does not adopt the
Worksheet 4999 as proposed in the NPRM. The rule does, however, adopt from the
NPRM and proposed Worksheet 4999 several of the objective design features that
indicate a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and
incorporates those features into the definition of “rifle.” The final regulatory text for the
definition of “rifle” reflects the best interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.
All previous ATF classifications involving “stabilizing brace” attachments for firearms
are superseded as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. As such, they are no longer valid or authoritative, and cannot be relied
upon. However, firearms with such attachments may be submitted to ATF for reclassification.
This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed,
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a
weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment
(e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired
from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other
factors are:
(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or
length of similarly designed rifles;
269
(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the
trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory,
component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping
attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer
tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method) that is consistent
with similarly designed rifles;
(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that
require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as
designed;
(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the
shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for
the cycle of operations;
(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional
materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general
community.
"provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder"

The new rule is open ended in it's interpretation of various statements and definitions. It clearly states they rewrote the definition of rifle. The new definition has no clear measurements that can be made, and clearly rely on some ones interpretation of what the six (i to vi listed above) factors are, none of which can be measured consistently by varying people in varying situations. Then to say if you have any questions about an specific firearm, you can just send the firearm to us to evaluate, presumably with in their 120 days?.

While the rule clearly shows some examples of what they consider sbr's, they failed to provide any clear examples of what could be considered to meet their rule.

The rule changed an existing definition of a term used in various long standing laws, is ambiguous at best and the only specific items in it are the lists/pictures of what they consider not to meet the rule. As plenty of lawyers may tell you, the intent doesn't really matter if it contradicts what the rule actually says. And imo, it is not ATF's role to change definitions commonly used in laws without going through congress.

Unless someone owns one of the specific examples listed/pictured in the rule, they can not even questimate if their current item meets the new rule.

[scooter123]

Sad to say but technically all the ATF is doing is enforcing current law. Because the fact is that these arm braces are only actually used as butt stocks on short barreled rifles. BTW, I will always consider a 10 inch AR to be a Rifle, calling in a pistol is just dishonest. If people want to shoot a Short Barreled Rifle there is a mechanism in place that will make that perfectly legal.

As for the current Law, that is a violation of the 2nd Amendment and has been since it was passed in 1934. Infringed is a word with a very specific meaning. Per the 2nd every one of us should have the ability to keep a 105mm howitzer in our garage. I have no desire for one due to the cost of ammo but per the second that should simply be a matter of choice.

Note on Context. The battles of Lexington and Concord were triggered by a British troupe in the area with the intent of seizing a small field cannon (4 or 6 lbs. ball) and all available gun powder they could locate. The Second was written with that particular incident in mind. I will also point out that there is a very sound reason why it's the Second Amendment. It is because it's primary purpose is to protect the First Amendment. As for the First, it's primary purpose is to preserve the means for the People to organize and remove the government in power should that need ever arise.

[ladder13]

Justice Department finalizes tighter regulations on gun stabilizing braces | PBS NewsHour.



“Pistol-stabilizing braces transform a handgun into a weapon with a similarly dangerous combination of being powerful and easy to conceal, said Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Today’s rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles,” Garland said.

“Simply put, this rule enhances public safety,” said Steven Dettelbach, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”


So it was ok to “evade these important public safety protections” previously by paying $200 and now going forward by getting a free stamp?

[IronSkillet]

"Enhances public safety"
Steyr AUG [Hands-On Review] - Pew Pew Tactical


Photo: Credit PewPew Tactical

just for comparison

[dbell54]

Originally Posted by IronSkillet

"Enhances public safety"
Steyr AUG [Hands-On Review] - Pew Pew Tactical


Photo: Credit PewPew Tactical

just for comparison

And these are legal now, but next week ATF may just arbitrarily decide that they need to be prohibited. Public safety or some such nonsense.

[AlwaysArmed]

Originally Posted by BC38

For now, removing the brace and putting a foam pad on the buffer tube seems like the most prudent thing to do.

According to the AFT, that will do nothing to make the firearm legal. Buried in their ridiculous publication, removing the pistol brace and leaving the barrel shorter than 16 inches makes the weapon an SBR.
It is only when you remove the short barrel that you make the firearm legal. You can remove the short barrel and leave the pistol brace on. Or, replace the short barrel with a 16 inch barrel and leave the pistol brace on.
It's ridiculous and makes no sense.
Removing your complete pistol upper from the lower and waiting for this "rule" to be struck down is the best option IMO.
AA

[zeke]

Originally Posted by ladder13

Justice Department finalizes tighter regulations on gun stabilizing braces | PBS NewsHour.



“Pistol-stabilizing braces transform a handgun into a weapon with a similarly dangerous combination of being powerful and easy to conceal, said Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Today’s rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles,” Garland said.

“Simply put, this rule enhances public safety,” said Steven Dettelbach, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”


So it was ok to “evade these important public safety protections” previously by paying $200 and now going forward by getting a free stamp?

So what they did was to make the firearms even easier to conceal, and harder to control. Perfect recipe for public safety.

[Eric300]

Originally Posted by zeke

So what they did was to make the firearms even easier to conceal, and harder to control. Perfect recipe for public safety.

ATF......They're making the REICH decisions.

[YeshuaIsa53]

If something was acquired legally, the NICS would have given a number to place on the 4473. That, to me, is a signature the purchase is 100% legal by the law. Maybe the time is coming to change the lawmakers if they let this lay.

This reminds me of a dead deer I have seen on the side of a well-travelled road for weeks. Had I have seen it first day or two, I most likely would have pulled over safely and out of traffic to move the carcass out of my sight, and out of children's sights. Law against that? Do your job. We pay you.

[Muss Muggins]

At the moment, all I’m gonna do is make lemonade. I’ve intended to SBR my Springfield Saint ever since I bought it, and now I can do it free. My Senators and Representative are solidly against this ruling, but I sent them a note anyway. Everyone should do the same, regardless of whatever their reps established position may be . . .

[Rustyt1953]

I sent politely worded emails voicing my concerns to Representative Greg Hardman and Senators Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown.

I anxiously await my rubber stamped apologetic rejection slips.

[beach elvis]

Originally Posted by Rustyt1953

I sent politely worded emails voicing my concerns to Representative Greg Hardman and Senators Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown.

I anxiously await my rubber stamped apologetic rejection slips.

My rep’s a dem. I can see the reply now…
“We’re all concerned about making the streets of America safer…”.

[Rob613]

Montana state law will prevent this from being enforced by state and local law enforcement. Don't think I'll see feds at my door for 1 or 2 pistol braces, so eh.

There's no way this stands up anyway. There will be an injunction or stay put on it soon.

[robandrew]

Originally Posted by Rob613

Montana state law will prevent this from being enforced by state and local law enforcement. Don't think I'll see feds at my door for 1 or 2 pistol braces, so eh.

There's no way this stands up anyway. There will be an injunction or stay put on it soon.

Agreed. It will be legally challenged. And while that is going on there will be massive non-compliance.

But I guess I'll have to remove the AR pistol from under my back seat till this blows over.