SB Tactical pistol stabilizing brace
Travis Pike for TTAG
Previous Post
Next Post

The Biden administration is in the final stages of drafting a regulation on firearm accessories that can be used to make pistols more like rifles, part of the White House’s broader effort to tackle gun violence without involving Congress.

The White House received the Justice Department’s proposal to regulate stabilizing braces on Monday, according to the White House regulatory office’s website. The firearm accessory can make pistols more accurate and deadlier. It effectively transforms a pistol into a short-barreled rifle — without requiring a background check.

The proposal is one of two that President Joe Biden directed the Justice Department to write in early April, after mass shootings in Boulder, Colo., and Atlanta again called attention to sluggish action in Congress on gun violence. The Justice Department published the first proposal, to regulate unmarked firearms or so-called “ghost guns,” in early May.

— Courtney Rozen in Biden Moves to Regulate Pistol Braces to Help Curb Gun Violence



Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Regulate all you want. I am not giving up anything I own and I am not registering anything I own. Once they make me cross that rubicon then all bets are off. In for a penny, in for a pound.

    • If you already need a background check to buy a pistol, how is it safer to require another background check to make a SBR?

      The gun industry needs to find a handicapped individual who is also poor and mount a challenge of the $200 NFA Tax if they try to regulate braces.

    • And if you are already “a criminal” in their eyes…go nuts. Do whatever you want with your personal property.

      They will find SOMETHING to get you on. Might as well have fun / be prepared.

      Either that, or get on your knees.

  2. It effectively transforms a pistol into a short-barreled rifle — without requiring a background check.

    So, get rid of the background check. Problem solved.

    • But I would have already had a background check on my scary pistol before adding a brace. Or if I bought it with the brace already attached, background check already happened. I have had lots of background checks. After some number of background checks can they just call you “good to go” and move on?

      They just mention the background checks because it makes less sense to tell the American people why a safe, legal adult that has a pistol with a 15.5″ barrel needs to go to jail vs someone with a 16″ barrel.

      “You can make a ghost weapon of war short pistol tactical rifle brace thingy with no background check, oh my god why?!?!?”

    • As irony would have it, I’ve already gone thru three separate background checks in 2021 so far, from three separate institutions including LE. I’ll need to go thru yet a fourth if/when I apply soon for a Lis Angeles CCW.

      At what point is enough, enough?

      • I have been suggesting for years that perhaps the answer to universal background checks is one that is truly universal: run them on all state IDs and drivers licenses. Then have a each state put a little gun symbol on each license/ID. Green if you are good to go, and red with a circle around it and line through it if not. Show that when you buy a gun and skip the NICs BS. Rewrite the NFA to allow NFA items without a tax stamp for those who are green. If someone becomes prohibited confiscate their license/ID and issue a new one with the correct symbol.

        States could also use this as license/permit to carry.

        • Background checks and permits are unconstitutional, at the end of the day.

          The Biden Administration recently stated that braces and 80% builds are “the choice of violent felons, domestic abusers, and extremist terrorists”. In saying so, they are automatically categorizing me as a violent extremist terrorists due to my simple possession of my braced 80% build, and I must go through another background check. They are turning the Constitution’s jurisprudent premise of “innocent unless proven guilty” to “we say you’re guilty and you must go through our hoops to prove your innocence to our satisfaction”.

          That argument by itself would stop all gun control and BGCs in any high school debate class exercise, but somehow it’s the law of the land that even SCOTUS won’t touch. We’re living in Bizarro World.

        • The problem with this would be that folks do not remain pure and innocent necessarily, someone could easily be convicted of a crime after they received the blessing of some earlier BGC.

        • “The problem with this would be that folks do not remain pure and innocent necessarily, someone could easily be convicted of a crime after they received the blessing of some earlier BGC.”

          And there we have it, people. The difference between them and us.

          We, the way it should be, “Innocent until proven guilty”.

          Them, meaning *you*, Fascist Scum, “A gun owner is someone who isn’t a criminal yet, but soon will be”.

          Ing below was 100-percent right about you, “You just don’t quite have this “I’m a real American” thing nailed yet, do you, Miner.”

          Get cancer and die alone, ‘miner’… 🙁

        • The democrats-in-charge always have cared about the little guy and still do. They’ll happily take your “donation” no matter what size you are.

        • Geoff, you seem to have misread my post, I never suggested anyone should not be “innocent until proven guilty”.

          I stated: “someone could easily be convicted of a crime”.

          I understand you may not be familiar with the American jurisprudence system, but negative consequences of committing a crime are not imposed upon an individual until they are actually “convicted of a crime” as I stated.

      • “I’ll need to go thru yet a fourth if/when I apply soon for a Lis Angeles CCW.”

        Wait – I thought LA was, for all practical purposes, a “No-Issue” realm?

        Or, do you know someone on the inside to ‘expedite’ your application?

        • Don’t know if this is still true, but the way to get a CCW in LA USED to be to donate $10,000 to the re-election campaign of the County Sheriff. Since Sheriff is an elected position, in LA, these were usually Democrats. Nice to know that the Democrats believe in equal justice, and favor ‘the little guy’, eh??

        • Of CA’s 58 counties, Los Angeles has been a “no issue” realm for decades, but last year’s “mostly peaceful protests” and the L.A. City Council’s approval of severe budget cuts to law enforcement (virtue signalling) caused a huge rift between LASD Sheriff Alex Villanueva and the City of Los Angeles. While we are still a “may issue” area, he has relaxed requirements. I myself have already taken the shoot portion of the application, and know of a few individuals who have received their CCWs. Unfortunately, our applications are more stringent than most. In addition to the shoot test and instruction/class hours, we also must endure a class on our State’s Penal Code (which would likely make a CCW holder more knowledgeable of our gun laws than the average cop, I suppose). Then there’s a 30-minute telephone interview, the submission of your reasons for “good cause”, and the fees. And let’s not forget that CA CCWs are valid for only two years instead of the five to seven years in most other States. Oh, and the permit is not a general license…you must register a specific handgun (up to three maximum) for approval and inclusion on your permit, and you may only carry those approved guns.


  3. Makes it more accurate. And here I thought accuracy was a good thing, if for no other reason than to minimize collateral casualties.

      • Silly me. But let’s take this Accuracy=deadlier=evil concept to it’s logical conclusion – beyond merely pistol braces. What else would fit under that umbrella. Optics certainly. How about rifling, training and practice, handloaded ammo, and a multitude of other improvements to accuracy over the past 500 years.

        • Gun control fanatics only want their “Goldilocks” guns. Not too accurate, but not inaccurate. Not too long and not too short. Not too heavy but not too light. Minimum power for deer but not too powerful.

      • “Stop thinking. Our enemies don’t.”

        Oh, yes they do. Very smart ones are plotting and planning right now to strip you of your rights…

    • Oh yes; “they’re inaccurate” was one of their complaints about “Saturday night specials”. There’s apparently some narrow window of acceptable accuracy for a handgun.

  4. but you already DO the background check when buying from an FFL… there is always somebody getting background checked.
    the lies.

  5. Yes, the NFA restrictions on SBRs (and SBSs for that matter) are useless, anachronistic, and bizarre. Yes, they should be discarded, along with most, if not all, similar restrictions on otherwise ‘normal’ firearm types. Yes, the entire idea of deeming one common firearm type ‘more shootier’ and thus somehow more dangerous than another merely due to its looks, configuration and attachments is ridiculous on its face.
    No, it was NOT a good idea to create a device that, when attached to a heavy, unwieldy ‘rifle pistol,’ an odd contraption in its own right, could effectively turn it into an SBR while circumventing the restrictions of the NFA, and then blatantly and sneeringly wave it in the faces of those BATF Pecksniffians with the legal power to do something about it.

    Don’t poke the bear in its den.

    • So much fail with that outlook –
      the bear wants to eat you regardless of how much you try not to annoy it

      • Tell you what. . . I’ll stay out of holes in the earth from whence emanate the sounds of a sleeping bear, and from whence the pungent smell of bear wafts gently, and you can blithely crawl in there with a pointy stick and poke whatever soft, furry, large carnivorous animal that you find within several times in the ribs to prove your bravery. Then we’ll see which of us lives, and which of us is consumed, or at least rendered consumable.
        Oh, and never get involved in a land war in Asia.

    • It remains to be seen how wise it was…I remember seeing an ad for a sig with a brace (I already had some SBRs). Whoa, wait, how do they sell that?

      The ATF approved it, they could have said no. The upside is there are a ton more SBR type guns made and imported because of it, and a ton more people were exposed to the guns than would ever happen with the secret SBR that everyone assumed was illegal anyway.

      Now the cat’s out of the bag, tons of companies have made them, and millions of people have enjoyed the freedom of a 4″ to 14.5″ gun, try to make those illegal? Hopefully those millions of people will say “no way.”

      There is a better case now than ever to either deregulate SBRs or keep braces legal, and the brace is to thank for that.

      • Obama/Biden’s ”ATF approved it, they could have said no.”

        Then Donald Trump and his ATF moved forward, attacking the pistol braces because reckless POTG posted countless videos featuring shouldered braced pistols and taunted the ATF, daring them to enforce the law.

        Like we used to say in high school, ‘smooth move, bowels!’

        • Um, no. There was no sneering. Initially, the BATFE said no shouldering of braces lest they be instantly and miraculously transformed into SBRs. There may be a few that poked the bear, but all I recall are people making clear that it’s not touching their shoulder or is on their face. Later, BATFE said shouldering it ok and braced pistols remain braced pistols, and then shouldering became the norm because it was ok. No sneering involved.

        • When F-Troop suddenly allow something they previously disallowed, it is probably
          a trap.

    • “blatantly and sneeringly wave it in the faces of those BATF”


      The ego driven posturing of the tacticool wannabe police and soldiers is one of the worst tactics employed by the POTG.

      • That’s an action, not a tactic; sneering at fascistic bureaucracies like the ATF comes naturally for real Americans.

      • Minor IQ,

        Even if I accepted your flawed and baseless generalization (which I do not), please explain what, EXACTLY, that has to do with the legality of the firearm in question, or how it supports the clearly unconstitutional stanceof the ATF? Bonus points if your response is as blindingly stupid as most of your comments.

  6. American historians will proclaim theBiden administration as one of the greatest in history.
    Because they’ll have to.

    • Have you already forgotten that it was the Donald Trump administration that moved forward with plans to ban the pistol brace?

      It was the Obama/Biden ministration it approved them in the first place, the situation was fine until idiot POTG begin their ego gratification efforts by publicly taunting the ATF with video of illegal employment of pistol braces.

      Of course, there’s no danger that anyone will think the Trump administration was the greatest administration in history, actually it will provide endless comedic relief throughout the foregoing centuries.

      • It wasn’t really the Trump administration that tried the ban pistol braces 1.0 thing, it was a rogue agency trying to impress the incoming bunch of tyrants thinking they could get away with it during the post election/COVID mess. Of course the ATF has a history of highly questionable and illegal activities, so nothing new about that.

        Although I could have done without most of his Tweets, his administration did a far better job than anyone else in the last hundred year or so.

  7. Ummm…when I first got seriously into buying a gat some 11years ago I remember buying a dead tree magazine with short barreled AR’s. No braces then…can’t y’all just get back to that? And keep yer “pistol”??? No I’m not shilling for ATF. I’m keeping my 16″ barrel AR no matter what.

    • My .300 BLK is optimized for a 10.5″ barrel, so my AR has a 10.5″ barrel. Makes sense, yes?

      Now Sleepy Joe wants to say it’s evil? I’m not giving up my SBA3 braces, but if Joe and his Keystone Kops pull this off, you *know* what’s going to happen. The buffer tubes will simply go “cheekweld minimalist” and some enterprising soul out there will release a file that allows you to 3D print a special cap for the tube that doesn’t meet any definition of a “brace/stock”, yet allows for shouldering to aim the gun.


      • They could call it a carrying handle, you carry the gun pointed at the ground(for safety).

        • Hmm. I like that. Market it as being intended for use with 1-point slings (regardless of how it’d be used by the AR owner…it’s the marketing that declares intention of use by the vendor).

      • “Now Sleepy Joe wants to say it’s evil? I’m not giving up my SBA3 braces, but if Joe and his Keystone Kops pull this off, you *know* what’s going to happen.”

        You in California have it the worst – You have no way to register an AR-pattern pistol as an SBR if that goes into effect, even if you wanted to. What do they think *millions* of Californians with braced pistols (that cost them a *LOT* of money) will do? Just hand them over to the cops?

        This might have a silver lining for you, Haz. This might force them to legalize possession of an SBR in slave states like California… 🙁

  8. It’s not fair and I’m being picked on. Trump took away bumpstocks and it was okay, all I want is to take away pistol braces.
    That’s all I want, I promise.

    • It’s not fair that a nitwit like you thinks they have a podium to compare POTUS DJT to a scumbag like joe biden. FYI…Had POTUS DJT not acted following Vegas CONGRESS WOULD HAVE and that means the Binary Triggers and other accessories you see advertised on this forum would be history. It’s twerps like you who run around regurgitating crap that comes from the likes of some gun talking jackazz with 30,000 plus posts consisting of incomplete sentences. To make a long story short…gfy.

    • That was ‘then,’ this is ‘now.’ How is anyone to know that you have gone completely batfeces crazy since your last background check without running another background check, and then a background check on the background check, and a background check upon the background check upon the background check?
      Just because you haven’t gone out and massacred a whole hospital/nunnery/shopping centre full of babies, minorities, and puppies with those OTHER guns you already have, it just might be this NEW one you want that does the trick and sends you ’round the bend, and we can’t have THAT, now, can we?

  9. Rest assured election fraud Jim Crow Gun Control joe and his KKK Gun Control Rat Party have more than braces protecting their worthless self serving behinds 24/7. And whereas you and yours do not and never will enjoy such luxury.
    However if you are one of the pasty mouth politically inept twerps who permeated forums like this with your disdain for POTUS DJT you can take a seat in the snot nosed useful idiot section of the biden administration.

      • minor49IQ…That was “election fraud Jim Crow Gun Control joe and his KKK Gun Control Rat Party.” Certainly a bozo like you is no part of such yuk…Yes or No?

      • The Democrats are committed to a free, fair, transparent election process. That’s why Maricopa county has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent a recount. That’s why nationally they’ve fought to avoid recounts, accountability, and banned the footage of fraud and suspicious activity. Seriously Miner, at this point all you’re doing is keeping the fraud in the public eye. In a way you’re doing us all a favor.

        The Democrats screamed fraud in 2016, so the right agreed to recounts – which found none. Despite this for 4 years the left screamed that Trump had “stolen the presidency” because he won fairly via the electoral college system.
        Conservatives now get to point at the obvious fraud and malarkey of the past election, which the Democratic party responded to by blocking recounts. We get to scream that Biden stole the election for 4 years. The only question is whether Beijing Biden will have a country left to preside over by 2024.

        Though given your general views, I’m sure you view the US falling apart at the seams politically, socially, militarily and financially as a good thing.

        • “The Democrats screamed fraud in 2016” – revisionist history at its finest. Trump & co. claimed fraud, and even set up a commission to look into it. They quietly disbanded after it was clear that the claimed fraud didn’t exist. But, we’re supposed to believe him this time, despite a lack of evidence and however many failed court cases.

        • “The Democrats are committed to a free, fair, transparent election process. That’s why Maricopa county has been fighting tooth and nail to prevent a recount.“

          Friend, you need to check your news sources, you seem very confused.

          The Maricopa county election process is run by Republicans, not Democrats.

          “This week Republican leaders in the state’s largest county pushed back against the recount and Trump’s misleading and false claims about the Arizona election, calling the process “a grift disguised as an audit.”

 county election commission Republicans&client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&source=hp&ei=yDClYO3FKJrdtAa5lLugAw&oq=Maricopa county election commission Republicans&gs_lcp=ChFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocBADMgUIABDNAjIFCAAQzQIyBQgAEM0CMgUIABDNAjoICCkQsQMQgwE6AggpOgQIKRBHOggIABDqAhCPAToCCAA6CAgAELEDEIMBOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjoICC4QsQMQgwE6BQgAEMkDOgUIABCxAzoICC4QsQMQkwI6BQguELEDOgIILjoOCC4QsQMQgwEQxwEQrwE6BggAEBYQHlDmHViORGCWSmgBcAB4AIAB2gGIAcwOkgEGMC4xMC4zmAEAoAEBsAEe&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp

          The same is true in other states where grifter-in-chief Donald Trump is claiming election fraud, such as Georgia which is blessed with a Republican Secretary of State and a republican elections commissioner.

        • “The Democrats screamed fraud in 2016“

          Hmmm, which democratic presidential candidate claimed fraud and requested a recount in 2016?

      • Just wait for it, Miner. The Arizona audit is still ongoing. There must be some reason why the Dems are fighting against it so hard, yes?

        I mean, if Sleepy Joe really *did* win so handily, wouldn’t this be the perfect opportunity for the Dems to slam dunk the GOP and Trump supporters, by letting the “truth” be proven for all the world to see? Wouldn’t that shut down the “but muh election fraud” protesters once and for all? You’d think the Dems would be totally supporting this audit…

        …except they ain’t.

        • “There must be some reason why the Dems are fighting against it so hard, yes?“

          Well you know, the Republican elections officials in Arizona are fighting the audit, they’ve made it clear that the cyber ninjas, a firm with zero experience in election recounts, lacks the professional credibility to perform a valid recount.

          And hiring partisan politicians to perform the audit is a basic compromise of the chain of custody.

          But whatever, sore losers are going to be sore.

        • NeverTrumpers come from all backgrounds, and even you must be aware of the longstanding disdain by conservatives of the worthless RINOs in the GOP. These are politicians who ran for office under the (R) banner, but vote alongside Democrats and are hypocrites.

          So let’s clarify my earlier comment, and say “NeverTrumpers”. That includes both the Democrats and your RINOs in Arizona who are against an audit.

          I mean, who can seriously be against an audit? It’s simply a verification of the truth. After all, Biden was the first Democrat Presidential candidate to “win” Maricopa County in 72 years since Harry Truman did in 1948, so wouldn’t it be nice to confirm that and shut everyone up for good?

        • Trump is not loved in the deep republican party, either. He has worked on old time Democratic values.
          Both parties have been infiltrated with Corpracrats, those that support to overturn of our country’s(as well as the rest of the world’s countries)politicians, to do their bidding.
          Very few politicians will even try to stand up to these forces(call it NWO). They are inside all the alphabet agencies, they want control over American citizens, they don’t want them to have guilds or unions(except for those inside their watch(anyone who works for the government), the rest of us are rabble, ready to be mowed down.

        • “There must be some reason why the Dems are fighting against it so hard, yes?” – Can one apply the same principle to every investigation that Trump resisted and/or obstructed during his term? Does it apply to those Republicans now arguing against the 06JAN21 commission?

        • My ophidian friend, are you expecting the Trump conservatives to have internally consistent positions?

          “Does it apply to those Republicans now arguing against the 06JAN21 commission?“

          Hmmmm, I wonder why the Republicans would not want a full investigation of the attack upon the United States capital during a joint session of both houses of Congress debating our presidential election under the rules of the United States Constitution?

        • “NeverTrumpers come from all backgrounds, and even you must be aware of the longstanding disdain by conservatives of the worthless RINOs in the GOP.“

          Wow, the “No true Scotsman fallacy” makes its appearance on TTAG, I’m glad I was here to see it, thanks!

      • Nah, Minor IQ, I don’t think you’re gay (“not that there’s anything wrong with that!”) – I just think you’re ignorant, uneducated, stupid, and a fascist. THough I do hear a lot of those meth-tweaking SS dudes were gay, so maybe I overlooked an obvious connection.

      • Lamprey, I have no idea if any members of the SS were gay, but I’ll take your word for it.

        You sure have had some interesting experiences, perhaps you should write a book, there is much interest in Nazi Germany these days and your first hand account would probably be quite popular.

      • Well, Minor IQ, I guess if I NEEDED further proof of your towering historical illiteracy, you just provided it. The whole “gay SS” thing has been written up in literally dozens, if not hundreds, of WW2 histories. Thanks for confirming your ignorance (not that I needed any confirmation – you manage that on the daily).

  10. Depriving disabled Americans of accessories necessary for their shooting needs, I bet the SAF already has a lawsuit written up.

      • Not so fast minor49IQ…You actually expect any honest concern for disabled Americans to come from the political party that based Gun Rights/Civil Rights on a person’s skin color? And don’t go there with this happened long ago crap. During the era of bill clintoon Black Americans living in fear in public housing were denied their 2A Rights. Thanks to the NRA the democRat mayors behind the bigoted Gun Control sleaze were defeated in court. Hopefully a court will toss biden’s insanity back in the toilet.

        • When are any of you going to understand it isn’t about skin color anymore, it is about one’s station in life. If you are a high school dropout, you are destined for prison. If you only have a high school diploma, you could be ok, as long as you stay in you singlewide or subsidized housing.
          If you belong to the 2 classes above, the powers that be do not want you to have a firearm.
          Now, if you work the government, you might be trusted(by them) with a firearm. If you are a college grad, you might be in that camp, but you have to jump through the hoops to prove yourself.

          Believe me, most in both parties think this way. Just because one party has taken a stand against firearms, does not mean the other party has your back.

        • “If you are a high school dropout, you are destined for prison.“

          Please, allow me to slightly edit your statement:

          If you are stupid enough to be a high school dropout, you are destined for prison.

      • No, Minor IQ, the “issue to pursue” is the obvious unconstitutionality of the ban (and all such “firearm bans”), as well as the obvious and inept arbitrary actions by the ATF . . . but thanks for playing. The obvious ATF answer to your “obvious” argument is simple . . . “OK, you can have a pistol brace if you can demonstrate that your are disabled, and the pistol brace is a ‘reasonably accomodation'”. But then, I wouldn’t expect a genius like you to understand how to frame a legal argument.

        • The fact is, Congress is given the authority to “discipline the militia” and the constitution requires that states impose upon the militia “the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

          Under the Constitution, Congress writes the laws and sets the standards for the rules and regulations promulgated under those laws.

          Civics 101.

        • “OK, you can have a pistol brace if you can demonstrate that your are disabled, and the pistol brace is a ‘reasonably accomodation’”

          *Highly* Illegal to do so. You cannot force someone with a disability to prove they are disabled to get an accommodation.

          The ‘Americans With Disabilities Act’ has some very sharp legal teeth in it to force compliance.

          We need to start publicly pushing this hard and fast…

        • “Civics 101”.

          Civic, genius, isn’t a college level course (well, perhaps in the remedial “college” you went to). It’s usually a PRIMARY SCHOOL course – and you either skipped it, or slept through it.

          But if you want to talk “Civics”, the EXACT language of the relevant portions of Aritcle 1 of the Constitution are as follows:


          To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of TRAINING the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

          When you read it, this time, read the parts I’ve capitalized (which you are apparently either too stupid to understand, or to dishonest to reference). Now, show me how (1) ANY Federal law that did not relate to specifying the TRAINING of the militia, or did not apply solely to militia “employed in the service of the United States, would be valid (and they can’t bootstrap alleged training standards into a law that they themselves don’t have the power to pass), (2) WHERE the Congress properly called up the unorganized militia for a proper purpose, and (3) how ANY of that could override the express language of the 2A. Or are you illiterate, or are you the lying, partisan hack you regularly prove yourself to be?????? (But embrace the healing power of “and”!!!)

          GFY, Minor IQ, GFY. Dishonest, lying, ignorant twit.

        • Lamprey, how did you miss this part:

          “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,”

          The Constitution of the United States of America requires that Congress “provide for disciplining the militia,” it could not be chore clear.


          “according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

          The constitution only grants to the states the authority to appoint the officers and to conduct the training of the militia, but only under “the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

          The mechanism Congress may use “provide for disciplining the militia” is legislation, and the promulgation of rules and regulations as approved by Congress under this legislation.

          And whatever regarding grammar school versus college, you may want to avail yourself of an informative documentary in the school house rock series: ‘How a bill becomes a law‘

          Here’s the information presented in a form that may be more readily understandable for you:

        • Well, Minor IQ, you never fail to disappoint. I guess, in Minor IQ’s Bizarro Progressive world, “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” can be translated into “backdooring gun control regulation, THAT WE HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OR AUTHORITY TO PASS, by claiming it is “militia discipline” – when contemporaneous documentation makes it clear that it meant NO SUCH THING. Oh, and when to I get my government-provided M4????????? So, y’all “Progressives” claim the right to regulate my ability to OWN a gun by claiming that it is a proper exercise of the power to “discipline” the militia?? I guess you flunked grammar school English, too.

          Congress has the power to “discipline” me, as part of the unorganized militia, when I am “employed in the service of the United States”. I’m not, and there is not, and hasn’t been for over a century, any call up of the “unorganized militia”. I know you “Progressives” don’t believe in the 9th and 10th Amendments (and you’ve managed to euchre SCOTUS into supporting that obviously inaccurate and ahistorical position), but they still exist, and they still mean EXACTLY what they say they mean – Congress has ONLY the powers SPECIFICALLY designated to them. I know you come all over with goose bumps and cream your undies at the idea of being able to tell others what to do, but . . . you have neither than right, nor that power, and neither does the Gummint. No matter how much your fascist wet dreams take you there.

          And your IDIOTIC comment about “legislation” is both stupid, and a gigantic self-own. Stupid, because that presumes that ANY legislation passed by Congress takes precedence over the Constitution – it doesn’t – or that ANY legislation regulating ownership of guns is constitutional – it’s not. Congress is SPECIFICALLY limited to legislation to carry out its DELEGATED POWERS. It has no power to “regulate guns”, and attempting to bootstrap that into “discipline of the millitia” as overriding the CLEAR LANGUAGE of the 2A (which was written AFTER Articles 1, so if that was their intention, since they MENTIONED the militia, they could have done) is the kind of sophistry only idiots, drunk college kids and “Progressives” engage in.

          It is a giant “self-own”, because no such legislation exists. I would be more than happy to litigate the constitutionality of a statute saying, “In furtherance of Congress’ duty to discipline the milia, and provided in Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution, Congress hereby declares that no member of the militia may own any weapon other than the ones on our list, and then only if they meet certain criteria. That’s discipline, folks. Oh, by the way, we haven’t called up the unorganized militia for ANY proper purpose, but they are still, nevertheless, “employed in the service of the United States”, even though there is no insurrection or invasion.” Brilliant, genius. Implied powers (which require a tortured reading of that clause of Section 8) to “discipline” the militia can be translated into express powers to override the 2A – make that argument, even to OUR pathetic SCOTUS, and watch yourself get laughed out of the room.

          Oh, and what ya gonna do about me??? I’m technically not part of the unorganized militia, because I’m over 45 – so your “discipline” argument falls on its ass, right there. Find another argument to override the clear language of the 2A that would apply to me. Oh, you can’t????? Sucks to by you, dunnit??

          As far as your simplistic, idiotic Youtube video??? AYFKMRN??? That was literally at a “Schoolhouse Rock” level, historically inaccurate and agenda-driven. I’m sure it was a struggle for you to make it through, but you didn’t learn much, even from that. I prefer to consult the original language and contemporaneous writings of the Founders themselves. They were smarter than you . . . but then my dog is smarter than you.

        • Sorry Lamprey, there’s no requirement that the movie should be called up in order for Congress to have the authority to “discipline the militia”.

          You just made that up.

          In fact it is clear that Congress prescribes the discipline for, among other things, the training of the militia which would not occur if the militia was in active conflict.

          And to paraphrase Albert Einstein, if I was wrong you wouldn’t have needed 16 paragraphs to prove it.

        • Geoff,

          You are correct, sir, in your reading of the ADA and cases interpreting it. Now, do “I don’t have to show an ID unless the officer demanding it has “reasonable suspicion” that I have committed a crime or am about to commit a crime”, and apply that to being required to show your ID to buy a gun.

          But, then, the ATF isn’t exactly known for its adherence to the Constitution, is it??

          It could, however, legally be pursued by the ATF this way – they make a regulation permitting braces ONLY for people who require them as a “reasonable accomodation” under the ADA. Then, if any cop busted you for having a wrist brace when he “reasonably believed” you didn’t have a disability, because he watched you drive into the parking lot at your gun range and unload your range bag and carry it in using your “bad” hand, you would have to present some evidence that you did, indeed, need the “accommodation”.

          My point was that the “ADA argument” doesn’t work, for obvious reasons. I know there are disabled folk out there who use wrist braces for valid reasons related to the “disability”, but there are far more who just want an SBR, and an AR pistol with a brace is as close as they can come without getting the tax stamp (and letting the ATF give you a documentary rectal examination, and getting on their PERMANENT database). Sorry, to me that is a flawed “solution” that doesn’t even address the underlying problem – the entire ATF regulatory structure is a hideous and ongoing violation and perversion of the 2A. But, then, the argument was advanced by Minor IQ, so my expectations of rationality were non-existent.

        • Gee, Minor IQ, apparently your “talents” extend beyond illiteracy and ahistoricality. At a minimum, they include innumeracy – five is not sixteen. I took FIVE paragraphs to fully rebut your stupidity. And you apparently went right past the part that specified that Federal control applied when the militia was in the employ of the United States. And you skated right past the obvious argument that EVEN IF the Congressional right to “discipline” could be stretched to cover gun control in obvious violation of the 2A (pro tip: It can’t), how do you stretch from there to that giving Congress the right to dictate gun control for NON-militia members (like me; I’m outside the defined term), since that couldn’t POSSIBLY be considered “training or disciplining” the militia. Thought experiment (assuming you’re capable of thought – a contention that remains unproven): Would you agree that the right of Congress to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” would certainly extend to specifying uniforms? I would certainly say that it did (although it is my contention that is fully limited by the remainder of the provision, which makes it clear that that power applies when they are “in the employ” of the United States). Do you contend that that “power”, whatever its extent, could be extended to mandating that, for example, militia members cannot wear boots at home? Obviously not, and not even you are stupid enough to advance that argument. But even if you surprise me, and prove you ARE that stupid, would you then contend that those same rules could be enforced against people who are NOT members of the mlitia???? If the (obvious) answer to both questions is NO, then how the hell do you shoehorn gun regulation into those clauses????

          Minor IQ, you came up with an argument (or, more likely, read it in some Leftist rag), and thought it was cute. It isn’t; it’s stupid. It’s also ahistorical, contradicts not only the SUBSEQUENT 2A, but also numerous federal statutes. You will find LITERALLY zero support for your argument, or for your basic contention of the government’s right to control guns, in ANY writing of ANY of the Founders. I would say “Nice try”, but it wasn’t really much of a nice try.

          Article I does not say what you contend it says. Article I has never, to my knowledge, been argued to any Federal court as you’ve articulated it. It’s a stupid argument, from stupid, agenda-driven “Progressives” to try to advance their unconstitional schemes. You’re not clever; the nitwit that wrote whatever Leftist screed you pulled it from is not clever; the argument isn’t clever.

          It’s stupid. It’s contrary to ALL known federal jurisprudence (well, there may be some blithering idiot from the 9th Circus who’s written something that dumb, but no REAL court). It flies in the face of the historical record. It contradicts ALL known contemporaneous writings of the Founders. Frankly, it’s dumb as shit (kinda like you).

          Seriously, if that’s the best you got??? Ya got nothin’.

  11. Time to get rid of the NFA, GCA, etc. ATF is also in question, because crime is domain of FBI. All these overlapping enforcement agencies do not inspire confidence in law enforcement to be competent and just. Making citizens criminals because they own something is ludicrous, action not possession was the basis of our laws.

    • Wow, is this what you folks call ‘triggered’?

      I might give your position more merit if you had not engaged in the multiple ad hominem attacks, just how many times did you call me stupid, anyway?

      I bet you’re hot stuff with a hat pin…

  12. I agree, all gun laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down by SCOTUS and ignored by the populace.

    That said, as someone who enjoys shooting one handed, it WOULD be nice if these braces were actually intended for use as such. When a “brace” can’t fulfill it’s purpose.. and looks an awful lot like a stock.. it is no longer a brace. Just my view on it.

    If you want to use the “brace” argument to circumvent SBR’s (which most everyone is) at least leave yourself plausible deniability.

    • “all gun laws are unconstitutional”

      Well you know, the Constitution of the United States of America gives the authority to “discipline the militia” to the Congress.

      Congress discharges this duty by passing laws regarding the militia.

      Under the constitution, the states are required to exercise the “discipline prescribed by Congress”.

      • Minor IQ,

        I’ve spanked you over this stupid, ahistorical, innaccurate “exigesis” of the constitution before, and yet you persist. Congress has the power to “discipline” the militia when and if it has JURISDICTION over the militia (i.e., when the militia is properly called up by Congress), and from whence cometh your assertion that this IMPLIEDLY gives Congress the right, OUTSIDE of a call up, to regulate firearms???? If Congress wants to call up the “unorganized mlitia”, in the manner and under the circumstances contemplated in the Constitution (and explained in detail in contemporaneous writings), and specify that when I show up, I have to bring my “Brown Bess” musket, I would follow that stupid directive – while simultaneously exercising my INHERENT right to arm myself with a real weapon, as well.

        There is no historical or legal basis for that absurd argument, so please stop wasting our time with it. The right to self-defense, and to keep and bear arms in furtherance thereof, was acknowleged and agreed to before, during and after the writing and adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – and the DoI, and various state constitutions. Just p*** off with that weak sauce.

        • You really need to read the militia calls of the United States Constitution a bit more closely.

        • “militia calls”??? Is that anything like a jody call???

          There is no currently effective “call up” of the unorganized millitia. And the Federal government adopted detailed laws for “calling up” the ORGANIZED millitia, and THAT requires either an emergency, or CONSENT OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE FROM WHICH THE NATIONAL GUARD IS CALLED.

          Show me where those have been done and are currently in effect?? And note the fact that Gov. Abbot WITHDREW the Texas militia from D.C., and neither Senile Gropey Joe nor Malig-Nancy Pelosi said to did squat.

          You seem to enjoy getting curb stomped on this issue; you keep putting your face on it. You’re really not only ignorant, you are a pathetic, partisan, historically-ignorant, fascist liar.

        • That should be clause and not calls.

          Sadly, this speech recognition software seems unable to deal with my high mountain hillbilly accent.

          I understand such a simple error may have caused great confusion for you, and for that I must express my apologies.

        • No, your inept use of language didn’t cause me confusion, it actually made more sense than when you went back and “corrected it” – jody calls make more sense than your idiotic and tortured attempt to take language from a clause of Section 8 of Article I, completely ignore another MAJOR, OPERATIVE part of that same Section, and claim that a passing refernence to “discipline” the militia (when read with the following clause, that clearly applies only to militia “employed by the United States” – Congress only has the power to tell the STATES how to “discipline” the militia, unless they are in the employ of the United States.

          So, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you were slow and less-than-facile with the English language – instead of the ignorant, ahistoricaL, lying fascist that you are.

          I’ve already destroyed your STUPID, ahistorical, illiterate argument about the “proper” interpretation of Section 8 of Article I, above.

          Have a nice day.

      • Well good for the militia, the second ammendment also gives any freeman the right to bear arms.

        • “the second ammendment also gives any freeman the right to bear arms“

          Oh my opossum, you’ve clearly indicated that you are a resident of the former Confederate states of America.

          I must point out, the second amendment clearly grants this right to “the people”, not just freeman.

          Of course, a close reading of the second amendment only grants the right of forming a militia to the residents of a “free State” so any slaveholding state was exempted from the Second Amendment.

          How interesting to consider that possibility

        • No, Minor IQ, he is being historically accurate, by referencing the language of the Militia Act of 1792 (most closely contemporaneous with the ratification of the Constitution), which defined the militia as “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States”. I guess you’ve never read the Militia Act of 1792; your lot rarely does, because you don’t like the OBVIOUS conclusion from reading what the FOUNDERS intended when they referenced the “militia” in the 2A.

          And EVERY US citizen, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, was a “freeman”, no matter what state they lived in – slaves weren’t citizens. I guess you didn’t know that. Now, if you want to argue that the Constitution permitting/continuing slavery was a horrible mistake, and a betrayal of our founding principles??? I am in total agreement; it is my single biggest beef with the Founders, and Jefferson and Madison in particular. But that WAS the law, at the time.

          I know historical accuracy isn’t a thing with you, but I understood EXACTLY what Possum meant . . . because historical accuracy IS a thing with me. As you’ve come to find out, to your chagrin. Frankly, curb stomping your ignorance is becoming boring. Get a new schtick; you aren’t very good at this one.

          You can prevaricate all you want, but your pathetically silly, ignorant, ahistorical and illogical “interpretation” of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and the 2A, not only isn’t persuasive, it isn’t the “law of the land” – you cannot find a SINGLE SCOTUS decision taking that position. And you never will, unless you fascists succeed in packing the court with Sotomayor clones (God forbid!).

        • I’m with you Miner49er on taking the gunms from everyone who lives, has lived, or will live in a former Confederate state.
          Me? Kansas born , and still here.(ah shucks , that gibe went to hell) but I’m letting that slide.
          So when are me and you going to start this ass stomping gunm confiscation on them Johnny Rebs.

          I better pack a lunch.
          I’ll make one for you too, I got your back comrade.

        • Opossum, I think you’d be one hell of a battle buddy in a tough situation, your clear eyed grasp of the situation and ready humor are exactly what’s needed in a tough situation.

          I’m glad to hear you’re in Kansas, but boy howdy, have y’all had your share of strife regarding the issue of freemen and slaves.

          “Bleeding Kansas describes the period of repeated outbreaks of violent guerrilla warfare between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces following the creation of the new territory of Kansas in 1854. In all, some 55 people were killed between 1855 and 1859. The struggle intensified the ongoing debate over the future of slavery in the United States and served as a key precursor to the Civil War.”

          And who can forget that wacky guy John Brown, what a nut.

          While I appreciate you volunteering to pack my lunch, I’m not sure my dietary requirements are congruent with the typical cuisine of a opossum…

          And I’m serious, the most useful survival trait a fella can have is the ability to find humor in adversity.

          I might recommend an excellent book that bears this out, ‘The Jungle Is Neutral’. That is, assuming you’ve got a good reading lamp in your burrow. Most opossums I know spend a lot of time in the trees, usually good natural light for reading up there.

  13. Except it does not transform it into an SBR. Now to be fair, SBRs should be removed from the NFA and the problem is solved. A short barreled weapon is far better for home defense than a longer barreled one (especially if the round is still able to dump its energy into the target from a shorter barrel).

  14. Maybe this will be version 2.0 of “what is an arm brace” guidance that went up in flames a few months ago. Given the ruling that Chevron deference doesn’t apply to criminal acts, it’ll be interesting to see how they treat the braces that have explicit letters saying they are braces. Even though it’s only one district, the BATFE has tended to cite district court decisions in their proposed regulations.
    The legal ramifications of this are a lot less than bump stocks or home built firearms, which unfortunately will probably make it harder to fight. Bump stocks were called machine guns and made unregisterable contraband. If a brace is ruled a stock, the owner will probably be allowed to either register it as an SBR or remove the brace. The newly labeled stock can still be kept, so no loss of property, but BATFE needs to clear up intent if a suitable rifle is not currently possessed.

  15. Right on the heels of Clint Smith crapping all over brace owners. And every gun writer, and YouTuber giving him a free pass. Imagine that.

    I’ll bet Wayne LaPierre signed off on this as well.

    Wayne and Clint make some strange bedfellows.

Comments are closed.