sigp220.45
US Veteran
Yeah, I’m fine with that.
AFT pistol stabilizing brace rule just came down.
- Thread starter AlwaysArmed
- Start date
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.
Last edited:
Rodan
Member
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
Last edited:
Rodan
Member
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.
Last edited:
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!
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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?
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?
Last edited:
Rodan
Member
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2010
- Messages
- 374
- Reaction score
- 617
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 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.
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...armswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/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.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...armswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/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.
Last edited:
scooter123
Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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?
“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?
Last edited:
IronSkillet
Member
"Enhances public safety"
Steyr AUG [Hands-On Review] - Pew Pew Tactical
Photo: Credit PewPew Tactical
just for comparison
Steyr AUG [Hands-On Review] - Pew Pew Tactical
Photo: Credit PewPew Tactical
just for comparison
