ATF resurrecting proposed regulation of SBR's and braces

[stansdds]

The AG and ATF have resurrected and revised the previously defeated proposed regulations on Short Barrel Rifles and braces. Please read. If you commented last year, on the old proposal, you must comment again. Comments from the previous proposal are not applied to this proposal.


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

 

[Fishinfool]

Even if you don't own a firearm with a brace type stock, all gun owners should post their displeasure of the proposed changes in the comments section of the link to the ATF provided above. Strength in numbers.

Based on the Presidents anti-gun rhetoric, and his pick to head the ATF, I fear it is about to become a lot more gun unfriendly entity.

Larry

 

[Sistema1927]

Just like the ATF, that proposed worksheet doesn't solve anything. Even if, by some miracle, you come under 4 points in both parts, they can still subjectively say "Nope, not a pistol, an SBR". I don't know if I have ever seen anything so poorly crafted and full of subjectivity, and I have seen quite a lot of government bureaucratic garbage in the past.

Looks like my braces will be coming off, and foam covers going on the buffer tubes.

 

[VictorLouis]

I am afraid to open the link, LOL. What if they have a bot-sensor in there that tracks your I/P, and therefore the likelyhood YOU have such an item???

Stranger things.....

 

[dockmurgw]

Even if you don't own a firearm with a brace type stock, all gun owners should post their displeasure of the proposed changes in the comments section of the link to the ATF provided above. Strength in numbers.

Based on the Presidents anti-gun rhetoric, and his pick to head the ATF, I fear it is about to become a lot more gun unfriendly entity.

Larry

His pick defines this deer rifle as an assault weapon...it has a detachable magazine. So yea, even if you don't own one now, doesn't mean you don't own whats next.

 

[Sistema1927]

His pick defines this deer rifle as an assault weapon...it has a detachable magazine. So yea, even if you don't own one now, doesn't mean you don't own whats next.

We need a "I don't like what your post says, but I fully agree with you" button.

 

[Bozz10mm]

This new proposed rule pretty much puts the kibosh on the popular SBA3 pistol brace. Going to have to register your AR pistols and pay a $200 tax, or remove the brace and destroy it.

Definitely going to leave a comment again when the rule is published. We have a 90 day comment period. Comment early and often.

 

[Rodan]

It's laughable. The proposed points system requires NFA registration at 4 'points'. By my score, the SBA3 makes it to 15 'points'...

I'm pretty sure a rubber foot on the end of a buffer tube is more than 4 points the way they've written it.

 

[Bozz10mm]

It's laughable. The proposed points system requires NFA registration at 4 'points'. By my score, the SBA3 makes it to 15 'points'...

I'm pretty sure a rubber foot on the end of a buffer tube is more than 4 points the way they've written it.

Yeah, the ATF counted the SBA3 as having 13 points. 5 in section II and 8 in section III. Here is their example worksheet. Scroll down to page 35 to see how they scored it. Or read the whole thing for kicks and grins.

https://www.atf.gov/file/154871/download

 

[Telecaster]

Rifle slings, bipods, sandbags, and monopods are stabilizing braces...

 

[Sistema1927]

I had three braced pistols. One with an SBA3, which will never in a million years meet the criteria on this worksheet. Two others with Shockwave fin style, which do (10" LOP fix mounted on 6" buffer tubes.

However, even with them appearing to meet the new criteria, here is the rub:

"firearm that accumulates less than 4 points in Section II (Accessory Characteristics), and less than 4 points in Section III (Configuration of Weapon), will generally be determined not to be designed to be fired from the shoulder, unless there is evidence that the manufacturer or maker expressly intended to design the weapon to be fired from the shoulder."

What indicates intent? Is the fact that the "maker" (myself) has actually shouldered this weapon in the past under the old standard? Is there a new ATF mind reading squad?

This new proposed regulation solves nothing, and potentially places otherwise law abiding citizens in jeopardy of losing their freedom and rights. Of course, that is the intent of the ATF under this administration and the nominated director.

All of my existing braces will be coming off if this is enacted.

 

[Rob613]

Most points wins right?

 

[Sistema1927]

Most points wins right?

Not in this case. Four or more points in either section, and you need to either remove/destroy the brace, or pony up $200 and register as an SBR. Unfortunately, even if you do accumulate less than four points in each section, you still might be in trouble.

 

[Rodan]

All of my existing braces will be coming off if this is enacted.

No... if the ATF gets away with this (and they shouldn't) the answer is a class action lawsuit to require no-charge registration as an NFA item, or reimbursement for the perfectly legal property which they've now decided should be illegal, after declaring (more than once) that they were perfectly legal. Plus damages for putting us through the trouble.

With hundreds of thousands of these braces in circulation, it should make for a good lawsuit.

It's time for our side to start using Lawfare.

 

[ladder13]

I had three braced pistols. One with an SBA3, which will never in a million years meet the criteria on this worksheet. Two others with Shockwave fin style, which do (10" LOP fix mounted on 6" buffer tubes.

However, even with them appearing to meet the new criteria, here is the rub:

"firearm that accumulates less than 4 points in Section II (Accessory Characteristics), and less than 4 points in Section III (Configuration of Weapon), will generally be determined not to be designed to be fired from the shoulder, unless there is evidence that the manufacturer or maker expressly intended to design the weapon to be fired from the shoulder."

What indicates intent? Is the fact that the "maker" (myself) has actually shouldered this weapon in the past under the old standard? Is there a new ATF mind reading squad?

This new proposed regulation solves nothing, and potentially places otherwise law abiding citizens in jeopardy of losing their freedom and rights. Of course, that is the intent of the ATF under this administration and the nominated director.

All of my existing braces will be coming off if this is enacted.

And the AG who didn’t make it to SCOTUS.

Thanks for that one, MM.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I do not know what the rule does or does not entail. But my dad taught me that if something is wrong you can’t get away with doing it by calling it something else.

So if these stabilized guns are in fact useable as short barreled rifles, and the law says that short barreled rifles need special treatment, these stabilized firearms should be treated the same way.

 

[Sistema1927]

I do not know what the rule does or does not entail. But my dad taught me that if something is wrong you can’t get away with doing it by calling it something else.

So if these stabilized guns are in fact useable as short barreled rifles, and the law says that short barreled rifles need special treatment, these stabilized firearms should be treated the same way.

The law didn't say that they were SBRs, far from it. Just the fact that the ATF hasn't declared that in the past shows that you are 100% wrong. However, the new regs, instead of clarifying things, does the exact opposite, and makes the situation clear as mud. It's almost as if they are wanting to trap people as subjective as they are.

 

[Echo40]

Well, I think it's best that I refrain from commenting on the subject in an official capacity for the time being on the grounds that I don't believe myself capable of maintaining my composure and expressing my thoughts on the subject calmly or politely.

 

[bushmaster1313]

The law didn't say that they were SBRs, far from it. Just the fact that the ATF hasn't declared that in the past shows that you are 100% wrong. However, the new regs, instead of clarifying things, does the exact opposite, and makes the situation clear as mud. It's almost as if they are wanting to trap people as subjective as they are.

I am wrong often
But I don’t know what I got wrong here

1) SBR’s do get special treatment under the law
2) In my opinion, if a stabilized firearm is usable like an SBR it should be treated the same under the law.

 

[Sistema1927]

I am wrong often
But I don’t know what I got wrong here

1) SBR’s do get special treatment under the law
2) In my opinion, if a stabilized firearm is usable like an SBR it should be treated the same under the law.

Your opinion matters little. The ATF has actually given its blessing in the past to braces with the issuance of letters to manufacturers stating such. As well as the prior guidance regarding usage.

As I have stated previously, this newest proposed reg does nothing to clarify, and everything to confuse. That is not the way that something that could have such a draconian impact should work.