ATF resurrecting proposed regulation of SBR's and braces

[Echo40]

So make a comment that ISN'T filled with sarcasm and snark. You're a good writer. You can bite your tongue and do it. IMO EVERYBODY who cares about the 2nd Amendment should be commenting against this garbage. No exceptions, no excuses. Stand up and be counted.

Like I said, I will, but when I do, I'm going to keep it short, concise, and with no more courtesy than what is due. It's thoroughly difficult to write comments for folks who are catering towards ignorant control freaks based on a fundamentally flawed concept which shouldn't even require a counter-argument to begin with, especially when the folks you're writing to most likely won't listen in the first place.

Honestly, there's nothing quite as frustrating as taking the time to thoroughly explain precisely why an obviously bad idea is a bad idea, or why a flawed, erroneous believe is so, only to have it go completely ignored, especially when the outcome may effect you personally.

It's absolutely absurd that we have to continue fighting against the terrible propositions of folks who are so hopelessly sheltered and utterly out-of-touch with reality that they frankly out to be declared incompetent and relieved of their positions.
Can we please get some actual citizens in Congress rather than just spoiled wealthy people who are completely unfit to be making decisions on behalf of the average citizen?

Believe me, I have every intention of fighting this as hard as I can, which is much more than I can say for the average hypocrite who constantly quotes King Leonidas, or even goes as far as to directly say that they would sooner shoot someone than hand over their guns, but never actually does anything more than blow hot air. No comments, no petitions, no responsibility nor accountability for whom they voted into office, just a whole lot of faux-macho showboating.

Rest assured, I'll write a comment, I'm merely venting my frustration over the fact that I have to do so at all, as well as the fact that it will most likely be ignored. In fact, I'm going to go do it right now, and I already know exactly what I'm going to say. Pure, undeniable logic.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I think that a good question to ask is why is an SBR considered so much more dangerous than a full size rifle or a handgun that it requires approval from the federal government to own?

I think the idea was to give the Feds a legal weapon to go after bootleggers and bank robbers who where fond of Thompson machine guns and sawed off shotguns. I bet the SBR was thrown in for good measure.

 

[Echo40]

Alright, so I actually took the time to get involved and submit my opinion on this proposed rule to the ATF on regulations.gov and I suggest that others here do the same.

Here is a copy/paste of my argument, please refrain from using it as a copypasta should you decide to get involved yourselves:

"In regards to Proposition 2021R-08, I would like to make the following statement. I oppose to Proposition 2021R-08 on the grounds that like so many other proposed laws which seek to deter the occurrence of gun violence and mass shootings, it is based upon the fundamentally flawed reasoning that perpetrators of gun violence are otherwise law-abiding citizens. Murder is obviously among the most heinous of crimes, ergo it is common sense that anyone who plans to commit murder, especially mass murder in the form of a shooting has already made the conscious decision to disobey the law, thus rendering additional laws such as this completely moot.

Proposition 2021R-08 is yet another farcical regulation which could only succeed in further erosion of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution by infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep/bear arms, not to mention one which specifically effects citizens with physical handicaps who require the aid of such braces in order to adequately defend themselves against criminals whom we have already assessed don't obey the law.

Furhermore, I must question the very basis of Proposition 2021R-08 on the grounds that to the best of my knowledge, the usage of stabilizing braces in gun violence, especially mass shootings is not only relatively minor, but also completely irrelevant. Stabilizing braces have provided criminals with no meaningful advantage, nor can they be attributed to any increase in fatality any more so than sights, a sling, or any other such peripheral accessories.

In closing, I submit to you the logically sound argument that the regulation of stabilizing braces will serve as no meaningful deterrent against the occurence of gun violence, but will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens, particularly those with physical handicaps from defending themselves, many of whom are injured/handicapped veterans of the United States Military who fought to uphold freedom and defend our nation against the sort of terrorists who perpetrate heinous crimes such as mass shootings."

 

[Czechvar]

From another Forum:
“ Funny how that AR pistol or SBR is unlawful, scary and unsafe,..... until you pay a $200 fee + registration and all the sudden its "safe" and "lawful" now.”

 

[deadin]

Funny how that AR pistol or SBR is unlawful, scary and unsafe,..... until you pay a $200 fee + registration and all the sudden its lawfull now.”

What it boils down to is you can have whatever you want. It just takes money..........

 

[ladder13]

PSA has SB3 braces for $99. Are they dumping them ahead of time?

 

[Czechvar]

AR Pistols are Legal, not NFA, and are not SBR’s. This is the peak of Bureaucratic Tyranny. Some unelected Civil Servant in a DC office building is making this **** up to justify his/her jobs. If they did what they were supposed to be doing we’d never hear from them.

 

[Racer X]

Since no one has done so yet, here is the link to the comment page.

Regulations.gov

 

[sigp220.45]

AR Pistols are Legal, not NFA, and are not SBR’s. This is the peak of Bureaucratic Tyranny. Some unelected Civil Servant in a DC office building is making this **** up to justify his/her jobs. If they did what they were supposed to be doing we’d never hear from them.

They’re pistols until you put a shoulder stock on them, then they are SBRs.

The arm brace is clearly a work-around. If anyone ever actually used them as arm braces then maybe there would be an argument. Every one I’ve seen at the range was fired from the shoulder. Hell, my kid built one and he shoots it from the shoulder.

 

[dockmurgw]

I support a total ban. I read that there is one...count um one...documented case of a pistol with a brace being used in a crime. That makes it far to dangerous for this country.

 

[Czechvar]

The arm brace is clearly a work-around. If anyone ever actually used them as arm braces then maybe there would be an argument.

Maybe...But look at the larger picture and not the babbling legal fine print. If the original intent was to prevent Bank Robbers and Bootleggers from hiding sawed off shotguns in their Trench Coats 100 years ago, then why are handguns legal. Why is a Glock 20 10mm or a S&W 629 legal? They are much easier to conceal...

People are so absorbed with arguing the legal terms and definitions, they forget to consider whether or not these things should be regulated in this manner at all. In my humble opinion, only rule that might stand up to reason is full auto machine guns, Bazookas, Mortars, Tanks, etc...Other than that they should have no regulatory authority.

 

[sigp220.45]

Maybe...But look at the larger picture and not the babbling legal fine print. If the original intent was to prevent Bank Robbers and Bootleggers from hiding sawed off shotguns in their Trench Coats 100 years ago, then why are handguns legal. Why is a Glock 20 10mm or a S&W 629 legal? They are much easier to conceal...

People are so absorbed with arguing the legal terms and definitions, they forget to consider whether or not these things should be regulated in this manner at all. In my humble opinion, only rule that might stand up to reason is full auto machine guns, Bazookas, Mortars, Tanks, etc...Other than that they should have no regulatory authority.

That’s a whole different question. If you want to get rid of the NFA have at it.

Until then, people will try to get around it by calling a shoulder stock an arm brace. This one lasted longer than I thought it would.

Next up: Shockwaves.

 

[terry_tr6]

the big issue I would have with having to register as a SBR, even if with an amnesty so there is no cost, is you now have an NFA weapon and all the baggage that goes with owning one. And I think THAT is the slippery slope they want to push us down. Make more and more guns NFA weapon but allow us to register them for free during a limited amnesty. now we are open to a whole lot more regulations. then like machine guns say "no more new civilian sales" and cap the number in circulation. Will you pay $200 transfer fee plus the paperwork and wait to buy someones used brace?

 

[CH4]

In common use...

 

[Dieseltech56]

The fact is the brace is a horrible stock, no one takes a rifle buttstock, removes it and replaces it with a brace.

Also the ATF seems to think anything under 26 inches is easily concealable, you don’t have to ask what I think about trying to conceal a 26” firearm. If anything adding a brace makes it LESS concealable

 

[Echo40]

The arm brace is clearly a work-around. If anyone ever actually used them as arm braces then maybe there would be an argument. Every one I’ve seen at the range was fired from the shoulder. Hell, my kid built one and he shoots it from the shoulder.

My brother owns one of those CAA Micro Conversion Kits for his Glock 17 which he uses for Home Defense and he uses the arm brace exactly as it was designed to be used, strapped to his forearm.

Many of the stabilization braces that I have seen are too short to be effectively used as a shoulder stock and are most likely detrimental towards accuracy when utilized as such. People merely misuse them as a poor-man's shoulder stock out of ignorance, believing that it will improve their accuracy out of the misapprehension that the reason why SBRs are restricted is because they're extremely effective weapons which are inexplicably superior to a proper rifle.
Meanwhile, there's a reason why military forces across the globe have long since abandoned the concept of a pistol with a detachable shoulder stock. Because in practice they're only marginally more stable than a handgun shot from a proper grip/stance, and the minor increase that you get from a stock isn't worth the additional weight of the stock.

Truthfully, the attraction towards AR Pistols with braces is the novelty of being able to own an SBR minus the tax stamp, paperwork, and long wait for authorization/approval involved. However, if the NFA were to be repealed, then it's most likely that sales volume of SBRs wouldn't be particularly high in the long run, as it would no longer have the allure of forbidden fruit nor the novelty of owning something uncommon/rare.

In a practical sense, the only tangible benefits of a shorter barrel is concealability and the ability to maneuver more freely in cramped quarters, thus rendering the only practical civilian application of an SBR, SBS, or braced firearm is in the role of Home Defense.

 

[shocker]

If the original intent was to prevent Bank Robbers and Bootleggers from hiding sawed off shotguns in their Trench Coats 100 years ago, then why are handguns legal. Why is a Glock 20 10mm or a S&W 629 legal? They are much easier to conceal...

Since you mentioned it, the NFA originally had handguns in it, but that was a step too far in 1934 so they were removed in the final legislation.

 

[deadin]

My brother owns one of those CAA Micro Conversion Kits for his Glock 17 which he uses for Home Defense and he uses the arm brace exactly as it was designed to be used, strapped to his forearm.

Just out of curiosity, does he wear it around the house strapped to his arm in case someone decides to kick his door in?


I don't think I would take the time to mount it in a case like that.

 

[RCL-09]

Over the years I have learned that I need not fear sociopathic and violent criminals, or homicidal and suicidal miscreants... no these are the things I must fear...

Legally owned and registered machineguns

Legally owned and registered SBRs, SBS, and AOW.

Legally owned and registered Destructive Devices (the horrifying Street Sweeper)

Big, large capacity handguns.

Small concealable handguns.

The horrifying "pocket rockets".

Powerful handguns.

Plastic/invisible handguns (you know, the Glock that was made specifically for terrorists).

Handguns that may have a forward grip.

Sniper rifles.

Fifty caliber rifles (.49 caliber are ok).

Assault rifles.

Semi automatic rifles.

Rifles with specific names (Galil, UZI, AR15,...)

Guns with bayonet lugs, flash hiders, pistol grips, folding stocks, detachable magazines, etc.

Bump stocks.

Pistol braces.

Things that take lots of bullets (10 rounds, 7 rounds,...)

Hollow point bullets.

Armor piercing bullets.

Unsafe bullets.

Cop killer bullets.


Lets stop this piecemeal provision of safety and just ban them all at once! I'll feel so much safer then.

 

[bushmaster1313]

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.

I do not give a hoot one way or the other about pistol braces or bumpstocks for that matter. I don’t want either and I don’t want to know and don’t care if someone else has them. I have more important things to think about, like where does belly button lint come from.

What concerns me as a responsible gun owner and attorney is that the gun statutes passed by Congress can be interpreted by ATF one way one day and the opposite way the next day, with felony implications for otherwise law abiding citizens.

BTW IMHO laws passed by Congress regulating or even banning pistol braces and bumpstocks are just a variant on laws regulating and banning machine guns. Whether one thinks that such laws are valid under the Constitution is a matter about which reasonable people could differ, but given the fact that they are relatively uncommon, there is zero chance of getting such laws overturned by the the Supreme Court. On the other hand, because semiautomatic rifles with removable magazines are very common, if the Supreme Court were to take up such a case, which is very unlikely, there is a chance that today’s Supreme Court would find a ban of such firearms violated the Constitution. The reason is that such firearms are the most common rifle kept by people who believe that because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.