No, Pistol Braces Are NOT Banned . . . But ATF Is Attempting Further Restrictions

 

With the leak of a new letter showing that ATF is opening up a public comment period ahead of finalizing their “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with Stabilizing Braces” document, there is renewed fear of an impending pistol brace ban. That isn’t happening.

However, ATF is absolutely attempting to crack down on what it will consider a pistol, and what it will not. Basically, what type and configuration of firearm the rogue bureaucracy gives its blessing for adornment with a pistol stabilizing brace, and what type it claims is just a short barreled rifle in pistol clothing.

First, let’s not miss this gem from the document:

The planned “Objective Factors” document isn’t a brace ban and it isn’t a law. ATF’s claim is that it’s simply detailing in a clear, objective fashion the metrics by which it does, will, and has judged pistol braces. You know, for our benefit. So that the firearm industry and the public understand exactly what is and is not kosher when it comes to a pistol brace.

Unfortunately, in full-on Princess Bride fashion, I do not think “objective” means what BATFE thinks it means. Perhaps it’s more like the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Explosives Confusion Entrapment and Subjugation (or BATFECES)?

In fact, I would call these factors not objective, but objectively subjective. For example:

So this is, like, a rule that’s based on each individual person’s arm and wrist strength? You’re telling me that ATF’s fancy new “Objective Factors” document is comprised almost entirely of “we’ll know it when we see it” sort of generalizations? Yes, yes it is.

While you and I might believe an objective “so heavy that it is impractical” weight is 80 ounces and up, ATF somehow believes that these vague rules of thumb are “Objective Factors.” I find it very hard to believe this sort of subjective vaguery could possibly hold up in court.

Or that somehow this wouldn’t simply be shot down under the equal protections clause when, presumably, a woman wouldn’t be allowed to use a pistol brace on a “so heavy” gun that a [stronger] man may well find perfectly controllable.

I mean, isn’t increased control of large, heavy pistols the entire purpose of pistol stabilizing braces in the first place? In fact it is precisely because large format, heavy pistols such as AR-15 pistols are difficult to control with a single hand that ATF gave its stamp of approval to SB Tactical, inventors of the pistol brace, back in the day. Which they not only know, but explicitly state in this very document:

To be clear once again, pistol braces are NOT being banned (start with the first complete sentence below):

We’ve dealt with restrictions on what an acceptable brace format is in the past, such as the apparent 13.5-inch “length of pull” limit. ATF is now “informing” the public of other factors that it considers (and, allegedly, has historically considered; they just didn’t feel like telling anyone) when determining the validity of a braced pistol, such as choice of optic:

Effectively, all of these factors are intended to determine the pistol manufacturer’s and the end user’s intent. Was this firearm built with the intention of using it as a pistol or as a rifle? That’s the question that ATF is attempting to prosecute. Errr, answer. Or at least define. “Objectively,” only not so much.

Please refer to the document for the full list of “objective” factors by which ATF will determine “pistol” or “rifle.”

Some of these factors relate to the design of the pistol brace itself:

Not to put too fine a point on it here, but if ATF thinks these are “objective” metrics . . . I mean, seriously? Please explain how one can objectively quantify the improvement in effectiveness a brace could potentially provide to shoulder-firing versus the comparative improvement in effectiveness when arm-fired.

All of my ranting aside, the idea of objective, standardized, reliably-unchanging factors for how ATF determines firearms classification is a good thing. The industry has been demanding this for a very long time. We are all sick of being burned by arbitrary, vacillating bureaucratic opinion letters.

Firearm law is serious, and we law-abiding gun owners want to and intend to stay on the up-and-up. But we don’t want to walk on egg shells, we can’t be expected to have a law degree just to understand rulings, and we don’t have the time or resources to attend continuing education classes just to stay on top of ATF’s incessant shifts of opinion.

Besides, the more ATF goes back and forth on what is and is not acceptable, based not on actual, explicit law but rather on the ever-changing opinions of its personnel on how the agency interprets the law and intends to enforce the law, the less a well-intentioned public is going to care. The less it is going to comply. The less it can have any reasonable expectation of keeping up with these shifts in ATF’s interpretations and their objectively subjective rules.

Should you choose to comply with the latest in ATF’s waffling and indecision and absurd “standards” related to pistol braces, the agency is all too happy to help (in the “we’re from the government, and we’re here to help you” sense):

So, should your pistol not meet the “objective factors” detailed in this proposed document, fear not, you can register it as an SBR in an expedited process with the normal, $200 registration tax waived entirely. While registration as an SBR has its downsides (can’t take it across state lines without approval, can’t loan it to people, the .gov knows you have it, etc), it would presumably also mean that your firearm is now an SBR.

If you purchased that pistol brace in order to give your firearm a more balanced, more aesthetically-pleasing look and feel, then at this point you may as well ditch the arm brace and put a functional shoulder stock on it. Why not? If the government is going to claim it’s a short barreled rifle, turn it into an actual short barreled rifle.

Furthermore, our benevolent overlords are so graciously granting us clemency until such time as they aren’t. Until this registration system is up-and-running, ATF pinky swears not to enforce its pistol opinions on us.

As in interesting aside, there is now something on the order of five or six million pistol stabilizing braces in private ownership in the United States (the only country in which this is relevant, mind you, as effectively no other country regulates a “short barreled rifle” any differently from any other rifle). If short barreled rifles are so very dangerous, and ATF considers some percentage of these brace-equipped pistols to be short barreled rifles, why haven’t we seen a related increase in crime or in criminal acts committed with brace-equipped guns?

If “the purpose of the NFA is ‘to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes'” and we’ve seen practically zero crimes whatsoever committed with brace-equipped firearms over the last decade (which is, for the record, the actual fact of the matter! There’s literally one known case), then I move to remove SBRs from the purview of the NFA. The last decade has proven beyond any doubt that SBRs — if the ATF’s contention that many braced pistols are SBRs has any validity whatsoever — are not likely to be used for criminal purposes (less than 3 percent of murders are committed with any type of rifle).

Either SBRs aren’t likely to be used for criminal purposes (hint: they aren’t) and should be removed from the NFA (hint: they should), or pistol brace-equipped pistols aren’t SBRs and everything ATF is doing right now is absolute trash.

The public comment period on the proposed “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with Stabilizing Braces” document begins very soon. We’ll update this article with a link to the specific page at www.regulations.gov as soon as it’s available.

Let’s make ourselves heard. Not just there, but with our representatives.

In the meantime, give the document a read and post any questions in the comments.

The industry IS going to fight this.

comments

  1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    1. Just give them the Bump Stock. And we can keep our bolt action rifles.

    2. Just give them the pistol brace, and they will let us keep our pump shotguns.

    3. Just give them what ever they want so I can keep my single shot break action 22.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Oh, I forgot.
      /S

      1. avatar KenW says:

        One day this might be The truth about Slingshots ?

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Slingshots are illegal to make or sell in Massachusetts.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I have one in the drawer next to me as I write this, as a low-tech silent backup for shooing away noisy ravens in the 60-high tree outside my window. Slingshot a few small rocks up into the murder (of crows/ravens, donchaknow), and they skedaddle.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Slingshots are illegal to make or sell in Massachusetts.”

          And New Jersey, at least in 1980. I ignored it, along with my BB rifle…

        4. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          FYI
          Slingshots and BB guns are deadly weapons. They are used to kill small animals, and are very effective.

          In the middle east, slingshots kill people and cause serious injury to Jewish soldiers. Perhaps others as well.

    2. avatar Clowny Rapidfur says:

      Muh bumpstock, durrrrrrrr!

      1. avatar Trump STOLE my Bump Stock says:

        Stfu you dumba$$ POS

        1. avatar Bumpo Tardo says:

          They got your sweet bumpstock too? Durrrrrrrrr.

  2. avatar Scott says:

    I know this will probably not happen, but perhaps instead of limiting the use of pistol braces, short barreled rifles be taken off of the NFA list as the widespread use of pistol braces have not lead to a new wave of pistol brace crimes.

    1. avatar Rusty - Always Carry - Chains says:

      Well, yeah but ATF doesn’t have the power to do that. Write your Congressman and your Senators if you think that will do any good. While we are at it the hearing protection act is a good idea but the better one would would to dump the NFA and GCA and all the rest of that garbage.

      1. avatar Scott says:

        I realize ATF doesn’t have that power and this new Congress won’t, but I am a scientist and we have seen some uncontrolled experiments about the rationality of keeping certain NFA weapons on the list over the last decade. Another example is the sawed off shotgun that is less concealable than either Keltec’s KSG or any number of legal handguns up to 12 gage none of which appear to have generated a crime wave.

        1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          100% absolutely. If ATF thinks these are SBRs, then the millions and millions of them that have been in private hands over the last decade are absolute, irrefutable PROOF that SBRs present no unique danger of criminal misuse.

          Which, of course, we’ve always rationally known is true because criminals don’t care about these inane laws anyway. As if some stupid law saying the barrel has to be 16 inches in order to have a shoulder stock on the gun is going to keep someone intent on breaking FAR more serious laws such as murder from sawing off the barrel or putting a shoulder stock on a pistol and proceeding to do whatever the heck they please.

          The rational result of this push by ATF is to push legislation to remove SBRs from the NFA.

      2. avatar Red in CO says:

        The ATF has the power to do whatever it wants, irrespective of law, a claim to which there is AMPLE evidence (the latest of which being the recent raid on the offices of Polymer80). It they can decide federal law doesn’t matter, that can work both ways, either with more “rules” being added or with current “rules” being tossed aside.

        Not that a “law enforcement” agency of the US federal government would EVER act in a way that *reduces* the scope of it’s own power, but if you think that such petty concepts as “clearly written law”, “precedent”, or even “consistency” have even the slightest bearing on what the ATF does or doesn’t do, than I have some beachfront property in Oklahoma to sell you

        1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          Their claim is that they’re enforcing the existing federal law. They have, by law, been given the authority to interpret and enforce the law as they believe is correct. So this is actually a power ATF has. Ultimately the court system will decide whether ATF’s interpretation of the law is correct. The first and only time I know of that ATF went after a pistol brace did not turn out well for them: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-suffers-rare-court-loss-in-ohio-short-barrel-rifle-prosecution/

          This is a massive problem with the entire bureaucratic state. Instead of the legislature actually creating laws, they simply give authority to a giant government agency to interpret a really broad law and to enforce it as they please. Congress will pass the “only good stuff happens” law and then assign the GSA (good stuff agency) to create and enforce rules and regulations as it sees fit to further the intent of the new federal law (the extent of which is that only good things should be legal). It’s legislation by fiat, by bureaucracy, by unelected officials, because our actual legislators are too afraid to stick their necks out and sign their name to specific, well-crafted laws and they’re also too lazy, since there’s really no incentive for them to create good law anymore.

          Ben Sasse gets way into this stuff and he’s right on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJK2JveCAbI

          blah blah etc etc

        2. avatar Dude says:

          “there’s really no incentive for them to create good law anymore”

          The incentive would be to work for your constituents and help your country. Unfortunately, that’s not at all how it works. Members of congress don’t write the laws. They grandstand and fund raise. Lobbyists write the laws. The ambiguous wiggle room in laws left up to the agencies is probably by design. Lobbyists influence agencies as well.

          It’s funny that people still think congress works for the voters. They can’t be bothered with your little pistol brace issue. There are bigger fish to fry.

        3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “This is a massive problem with the entire bureaucratic state. Instead of the legislature actually creating laws, they simply give authority to a giant government agency to interpret a really broad law and to enforce it as they please.”

          Clarence Thomas and another Justice have expressed interest in clipping the wings of bureaucratic over-reach, and maybe this could be the way to do it…

        4. avatar Mad Max says:

          “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.”

        5. avatar Scott says:

          I used to work for a state agency that had, during my tenure and before, been useful to state government, but had fulfilled its original purpose in 1939. I was there from 1976 to 2017 and it is still in existence. I will guarantee you that the first order of business for every employee of ATF and every other federal and state agency is to keep the agency going and as well funded as possible

  3. avatar Debbie W. says:

    To brace or not to brace. If I brace the wrong way wouId I be let out of jail like the dirtbags in NY and CA who actually misuse firearms? No and Hell No.

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Don’t worry, they will know if they should let you out with no bail or not when they see you. It’s objective! Er, it probably depends on income or lack of, your past (extensive) criminal history, zip code, whether you live in an urban area that strongly votes Democrat…

      If you are one of those right wing militia hate crime people then no, you need to do the time!

  4. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    It has no force of law as per their statements. That sounds like either entrapment or they have no ability to regulate the subject at hand……

    1. avatar Frank Rizzo says:

      Either way they will shoot your dog…I’m surprised PETA hasn’t gone blitzkrieg swamp donkey on them yet.

      1. avatar Sam Wells says:

        What are you talking about? PETA loves to steal people’s pets and then euthanize them. They literally justify it as freeing them from a life of slavery, subjugation and/or servitude.

        They’d probably applaud the ATF for cutting out the middle steps of actually taking the pet before killing it.

  5. avatar John in FL says:

    Free SBR?
    I’ll take 10 please.
    All built on 80% lowers labeled #2, #3, #4 etc

    1. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Hope this is sarcasm…Why build an SBR on an 80% lower? Look, I registered my, homemade, untraceable firearm and put a serial number on it!

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “All built on 80% lowers labeled #2, #3, #4 etc”

      Jeremy can clarify, but as I understand it, an NFA serial number has to be a certain way to be legal. #1 or #2 won’t cut it.

      But I’m kind of with you on the free SBR angle, it will greatly simplify how I want to configure it…

      1. avatar John in FL says:

        Yeah, I can (crooked row uneven spacing) punch whatever numbers they want.
        Why would I care what numbers are on it?

  6. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Whatever. I’ve never even seen an ATF agent. I will not comply…edicts from entities that cannot create laws are not law…even if they attempt to base their “rules”, and I use the term lightly, based on existing laws. Like a child that is acting up, we must simply refuse to acknowledge its childlike behavior.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      I’ll bet you have seen ATF agents, but didn’t realize it. They look and dress in casual street clothes like you and I do. I once went into a local shop and encountered a whole crew examining presumably new 4473s in a back area not visible from the street. If they left one or two at a time no one would notice.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        usually identifiable by the frown on their faces…these guys rarely, if ever….smile….and I used to work alongside them…..

  7. avatar GunnyGene says:

    So are they gonna go after my wooden shooting stick that I cut from a tree in my back yard? I guess I won’t be submitting it to them for “Objective Assessment”. I’ll just take my chances on prison time.

  8. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, poops like a duck. It is a duck.
    Shrinking a rifle doesn’t make it a pistol. They are different. I agree with the ATF in that this is an attempt to trick the system. On the other hand I agree that firearms should not be regulated by the government.
    Tricking the system is not beating the system, just puts honest people into jeopardy unnecessarily.
    You should have voted for Trump.

    1. avatar Travis L Pike says:

      Trump is the president right now…. He’s nothing to rein in the ATF

      1. avatar Scott says:

        You have heard nothing about unelected bureaucrats in the deep state acting on their own without guidance from anyone but other unelected bureaucrat over the last four years? This is somebody in the ATF making assumptions and not reporting to anyone.

        1. avatar Matt says:

          No, they’re already reporting to Biden/Harris. Is it any surprise this and the Polymer80 raids came only days after the ATF had an official sitdown with Biden/Harris. I guarantee that the ATF buracrats have been in communication with people in the DNC and Biden/Harris team for months making plans.

    2. avatar Mike V says:

      “I agree with the ATF in that this is an attempt to trick the system.”

      No offense, but fuck that. You’re supposed to be free.

      The fact that we are even discussing this is disgusting.

      1. avatar Big E says:

        I’m with him ^^^. To be double clear FUCK THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE “LAW”.

    3. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      The real question coming out of this may not be “is sticking a brace on an AR pistol creating an SBR or AOW”, eg, the brace is the issue, but if they are going to say that AR pistol isn’t even a pistol even without the brace.

      Braces going away would certainly hinder the popularity of a lot of short guns, but if “large pistols” get called rifles or something else, a lot of the imports will be killed, sub gun styles like scorpion, APC, sp5 or mp5 guns, Bren, etc. They would need to come in as single stack mag well sporting rifles, I hope that isn’t where this is going.

    4. avatar Mercury says:

      Is this a pistol or a rifle?

      https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/12142/12219251_1m.jpg?v=8CED985A1A5E420

      How about this one?

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/MY_AUTOMAG_III.JPG

      Depending on how you define rifle, it could be either, both or neither. ATF says number one is, and number two isn’t. Mechanically both are pistols (but then so are most submachineguns.) Cartridge-wise only the first is a pistol. If you only take stocks into account, like ATF, only the second is a pistol. This is why we need OBJECTIVE, WELL-WRITTEN CRITERIA to define what a stock is and isn’t to them. A piece of bent wire is no better a stock than a floppy rubber arm brace, but until now the arm brace wasn’t a stock. Why? Because it had a primary design function that wasn’t to shoulder? If they decide not to look at it that way, what’s to stop them from deciding buffer tubes are stocks? (Rhetorical question, the answer is absolutely nothing.) If a law is not clearly defined, it is not a law at all. This is why legal loopholes exist in the first place. Because a judge can’t just go “well clearly that’s not what the law was supposed to be about, so I’m going to treat this case as though it were written differently.” Unelected bureaucrats certainly can’t be allowed to do that. Only a jury gets to decide the merits and reach of a law as it relates to a particular case, based on “common sense” alone. Anyone else has to use sound logic based on well defined language, or else there’s no point in having laws at all.

  9. avatar Dale Menard says:

    BATFE will do what they are told. And citizens affected will have to sue to the SCOTUS. And we know how anxious they are to hear a 2A case.

  10. avatar Travis L Pike says:

    Huh who is the President right now?

    Huh

    Who is doing nothing?

    Mmm telling

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      A second class status amongst our own, just glad he never let us down…

      1. avatar Bizquick says:

        Except for that time he banned bump-stocks (an unregulated un-serialized accessory) with an executive order. Thanks Trump, Diane Feinstein approves.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Seriously?

          With everything going on the past 4 years?

          I know you don’t want to hear this, but in the grand scheme of politics POTG are a minority voting bloc.

          There is only 24 hrs in a day and btw…who has owned the house for the last four years?

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “I know you don’t want to hear this, but in the grand scheme of politics POTG are a minority voting bloc.”

          I don’t buy that. We *vote* our guns. It’s an afterthought for most Leftist scum.

          Besides, gun ownership is greatly under-reported among Leftist scum. They just keep it on the down-low for fear of being ostracized. They hate us having guns, but they are just fine having one tucked away somewhere, probably an inherited handgun or deer rifle…

  11. avatar Newshawk says:

    All this talk about the requirement to shoot AR pistols with one hand makes me wonder… Is shooting a “pistol” pistol two handed also illegal?

    Things that make you go “hmm?”

    1. avatar HEGEMON says:

      I suppose technically firing a pistol with two hands could be considered an illegal act.

      https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-pistol

    2. avatar Scott says:

      Pretty much like my sawed off shotgun argument above. When you examine many ATF regulations they are pretty arbitrary.

    3. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Shows the arbitrary nature of the ATF’s enforcement. Add a 2nd pistol grip onto a pistol, and its an NFA Any Other Weapon that needs to be registered. Manufacture pistols with a hook on the front of the trigger guard that has no Earthly purpose other than to facilitate a 2-handed grip? Not an issue they’ve ever raised.

  12. avatar Ben Bow says:

    here is the REAL question. Can ATF hold an “amnesty” for only one kind of NFA firearm, and not all?

  13. avatar Paul R Laska says:

    A few scant years ago, there was no such animal as pistol braces. They were SBRs, short and sweet. A manufacturer brought a concept to ATF and ATF approved it under a skillful read of the NFA…but with the proviso that this was not an across the board approval, but rather to be a review of each item submitted to ensure it follows the concepts laid forth. Now a manufacturer has been distributing a brace that was apparently never submitted to ATF, and ATF reacted to that. Now, in a little over a month, may the incoming President direct ATF that braces are not permitted? Indeed yes, as Trump did to bump stocks. The same has occurred with 80% frames…a manufacturer decided to market an 80% frame with all the necessary parts to complete a firearm. Too much in ATF’s estimation. In mine, a greedy manufacturer who should have recognized the rabbit hole and avoided it…but instead endangers a concept of great interest to all of us who enjoy tinkering and building our own firearms. We can be our own worst enemies!

    1. avatar Travis L Pike says:

      Or as the 2A simply says “shall not be infringed.”

      1. avatar Paul R Laska says:

        And yet the 2nd and other BoR Amendments find themselves infringed. Blame Congress, blame the President, blame the Courts…and then hold the American people responsible for accepting such governance. In the meantime, ATF is assigned responsibility for Federal firearms enforcement…it is, like most law enforcement agencies, answerable to politicians. It is trying to find loopholes…and firearms folks keep screwing up what they try to accomplish.

        1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          “…but with the proviso that this was not an across the board approval, but rather to be a review of each item submitted to ensure it follows the concepts laid forth. Now a manufacturer has been distributing a brace that was apparently never submitted to ATF…”

          This is not accurate. You have chosen to believe the implication from a government bureaucrat over the truth. ATF requested that the industry stop constantly sending things for approval. They were overwhelmed and couldn’t keep up. They informed brace manufacturers who already had braces approved that, as long as the functional aspects of the brace weren’t changed, there was no reason to submit further variants for individual approval. For instance with SB Tactical as one example, as long as their braces retained the strap and the flexible rubber arm cuff (perhaps another feature or two; I no longer recall all of the specifics) they could change the aesthetic design and the mounting system and the size to some degree (as long as it still fits on a forearm) etc etc etc and NOT have to re-submit. When SB Tactical wanted to make a functional change — length adjustment — they submitted that and were approved. Beyond that, all of their braces follow the exact same formula and PER ATF DIRECTION there was no reason to submit each and every variation just because they made one in FDE and they made one to attach to gun X instead of gun Y or they changed the side profile to look more angular or more square so it matches a given firearm’s look, etc. With SB and other companies this was 100% above board and literally, specifically done at ATF’s direction. This was further borne out by the fact that pistol manufacturers submitted complete pistols for ATF designation and ATF agreed they were pistols “despite” the fact that they had pistol brace models attached that ATF had never before seen. They approved those guns because the braces followed the recipe of previously-approved braces.

        2. avatar Paul Laska says:

          When the first shoulder brace was approved, ATF stated it was item based. If they changed that, it has not been well reported. But that is not the important point; braces would not exist without the compliance of ATF and their read of the brace as not an SBR.

    2. avatar Scott says:

      If Biden is actually sworn in Bloomberg will be calling the shots for ATF — he bought and paid for it!

    3. avatar Mater says:

      Yep those damn peasants got greedy with freedom….

  14. avatar Nonips says:

    How about We the People Fire all atf, epa, ira nsa, cia, fbi, tsa, all these corrupt organizations then start with the communist, socialist, Islamist, atheists, queers out of OUR OUR government then all corrupt politicians as well some to prison, some Deported citizenship revoked, other Firing Squad, it’s way past time to put this country back on the Right Track done with anything perverted or darn right wrong is good, and All that is good honorable is wrong No time to end this We are the boss NOT the government and none are above the Law Biden and his vile son need prison immediately

  15. avatar bigtex says:

    trump. After burning the constitution, trying to become a dictator. Most of ya’ll dumb asses still support him. The ATF should be defunded. Please can we have a real republican to vote for instead of these traitors.

  16. avatar DrewR55 says:

    I may have to get a couple stripped lowers and register them as SBR’s for free.

  17. avatar Gasmd says:

    Please register your ar pistol with brace with the NFA. Look we will even waive the fee. So when the government grows tired of its armed citizen it now has great records of where to go to round up the guns. No need to dig through hard copies of 4473s. Just look at the NFA database. Nice ploy

    1. avatar Gavin says:

      My thoughts exactly!

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “So when the government grows tired of its armed citizen it now has great records of where to go to round up the guns.”

      That has the stink of plausibility about, depressingly… 🙁

  18. avatar RobinTN says:

    Lol, what’s a “real” republican? Mitch McConnell? Paul Ryan? They’d all sell their mothers into slavery to keep their places on capitol hill.

    1. avatar possum says:

      It’s not the party , it’s the man.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        he gots biden weefee!

  19. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    Atf should consider pistols like the do machine guns. Once a pistol always a pistol. That way SBR regulation could go back to the way it was intended to when the nfa was written , just preventing cutting rifle barrels shorter to skirt regulations on hand guns.

  20. avatar Larry says:

    Just like bump stocks; regulating shoulder braces or even having the category of a Short Barrel Rifle is 1) meaningless, 2) adds unnecessary bureaucracy, and 3) pushes currently law abiding gun owners to the edge of becoming felons. Many people will chose to not comply with what they feel is an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights. This is what happened with Bump Stocks. There were well over 500K of these items, and very few were turned in or destroyed. Thus most owners of these items appear to have thumbed their noses at the rule. For those that would not comply with additional shoulder stock regulations and brake the law, it becomes much easier to consider breaking other laws. This becomes a slippery slope and weakens the power of the government to enact and enforce “legitimate” rules and laws. It is far better to not pass laws that either won’t be followed or won’t be enforced because this delegitimizes those institutions responsible for setting the rules.

    1. avatar Casey McHannin says:

      You forget, to a bureaucrat, all bureaucracy is necessary. And the more there is, the more it validates their existence to those holding their leashes.

      1. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

        I agree with you up to the point of “those holding their leashes”.

        Who, EXACTLY, do you think that is??

        Or, perhaps, are they part of a group – some inside government, many outside – who firmly believe that they are, and SHOULD be, holding OUR leashes?

        Trust me, bureaucrats do NOT consider themselves answerable to you, even indirectly. They are convinced (and they have substantial evidence to support that conviction), that they can influence elections, make subjective and inconsistent rules to suit their whims, engage in wildly disparate “enforcement” of their stupid “standards”, write legislation (as “advisors” to legislators), and get the result they want.

        They ain’t on leashes, my friend – but they sure as hell want us to be.

        1. avatar Lazy elites says:

          I would say “friend” like you did, but you ain’t my friend. … .. so i’ll just give this to you straight…..
          They ARE on leashes controlled by the same elites who don’t have time for politics, but control EVERYTHING…..

          You have a lot to learn about the world…. you live in a fantasy world where nobody is controlled by money..

    2. avatar John Smith says:

      Spot on. The government depends on the vast majority of citizens choosing to follow the law to function. Look at how they went into a cold sweat over all the rioting and protests this summer when only the tiniest fraction of the population were participants.

      When times are good, most people will comply with the law, even if they don’t agree with it because the threat of punishment. When times are bad, the government needs people to voluntarily comply with authorities when they are stretched thin and don’t have the resources to compel compliance.

      Arbitrary rules and capricious or malicious enforcement undermines the good will people have for the government. This is likely invisible to them now, because times are relatively good, but they’re in for a nasty surprise when times turn bad and they try and lean on a populace that doesn’t believe in them.

  21. avatar Anymouse says:

    I’m fine with deterministic definitions ( X length, Y weight, etc). “Too heavy to shoot one handed” is meaningless. I’m a big guy and with one hand and an extended arm can empty a Benelli M1 Super 90 loaded with 3″ 12 GA from a 7 round tube, or a full power round from a .460 revolver. My wife can do neither. Do I get to have heavier pistols, or am I limited to what a 98 pound weakling can handle? There have been .50 BMG pistols for decades that weigh 15+ pounds, which is a lot more than any AR pistol you’ll find.

  22. avatar tonytwv says:

    Serious question about pistol/optics/intent:

    To my understanding, ar pistols can have slings on them and can be fired with a cheek rested on the buffer tube without any of the peculiar “reclassification” going on. If I am able to make the platform more stable via sling and cheek weld, it would then be conceivable that an lpvo could be run on an ar pistol very well. Add qd mount and buis, offset reflex, or any other site combo, and the pistol becomes usable from both cheek and forearm brace without ever being shouldered like a rifle.

    As there are seemingly green-lit uses for these pieces of gear, how does the “intent” aspect have any legal credence? It seems like law enforcement arguing “I didn’t actually see him speeding, but his engine is capable of speeding, so he should be guilty of speeding”

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      Totally accurate. There are even accessories specifically designed as cheek rests for pistols, which are ATF-approved in form and function and put your face the correct distance for any normal rifle optic: https://www.thordsencustoms.com/ar-pistol/cheek-rest-kits.html

  23. avatar possum says:

    The first time I saw a pistol brace I thought that’s just a wanna be stock and don’t no how that’s legal. Then I thought why should a pistol stock be illegal , it helps you shoot straighter, and if “They” don’t want you to shoot straight why aint sights illegal, so then I thought the BATFE must just like to fck with people because none of it makes any sense. I ain’t into the SBR’s, when I used to hand load I was always trying to milk another hundred feet per second out of her, but if you want one why not. ,,,,,,,Bump stocks is a machine gunm, well if that’s true then the army should save the U. S. taxpayer a lot of money because bumpstoxks are cheaper then a machine gun. Sawed off shotguns, can’t see the reason behind not being able to have one with as short a barrel as you’d like. If its because gangsters use them in hold ups then the batfe should make all gunms with sights illegal. ,don’t make no sense to me.,,, I’ve got a long barreled ruger SBH,just thought , if I add a bumpbracestock then use a rubber band that cocks the hammer back when the bumpbracestock bumps is it a fully semiautomatic revolver machingunm? Probably have to grind the sights off to make it legal tho. Makes sense to me.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      so why can’t I have one of those stocks for my hi-power?….always thought that was a worthwhile addition…

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        and the five hundred meter sights start to make sense.

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Good your back!

      Thought you got hit by a f150 or something..

  24. avatar Steve says:

    I’ve read the criteria ten times.

    While it would seem a few items are not open to interpretation, most are, and most are not clearly stated in any meaningful way.

    For example, it would appear any magnified optic that is not a long eye relief pistol scope would make the pistol a rifle. Maybe.

    That foregrip issue is weird, and it’s already illegal to put a 90 degree grip on a pistol. So an AFG would make it illegal? Does this mean that a braced pistol is the ONLY handgun you are never allowed to fire with both hands?

    A 60 round mag might or might not make the pistol a rifle, based on weight making it impractical. If you have wussy arms. Maybe Is a pistol that is ‘light enough’ no longer ‘light enough’ if you attach a flashlight? A heavier optic?

    Someone tell Ruger that shipping the Charger pistol with a bipod means it’s a rifle.

    How large a caliber is too large?

    It looks to me like all the criteria highly subjective and each and every pistol would have to be submitted for examination to know for sure. Which is quite impossible.

    It would appear the options are: Live with what you think is legal based on the extremely vague criteria, and never get into a situation that might have the police take the weapon and submit it to ATF for a determination.

    Or register it as an SBR.

    There would appear to be a path to determination of legality for licensed firearm manufactures through submission to ATF. And long as the end user adds NOTHING by way of an accessory of any sort. For the rest of the brace users, it’s a crapshoot.

    There would seem to be no path to enforcement unless the pistol is used in a crime or winds up in police hands and the BATF’s.

    There is also no path to legal certainty for brace owners but ATF determination. So one can only conclude that BATF seeks to, via lack of clear criteria and standards, browbeat everyone into the registration.

    For obvious reasons. Eventual confiscation probably.

    I suspect no braced Shockwave or TAC-14 would be acceptable, but who knows. I’m seen people shoot the unbraced ones one handed. Impractical? Maybe. But is a rifle caliber bolt action silhouette pistol impractical?

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      so how about that rifle in “Cold Pursuit”?….

  25. avatar Toklat31415 says:

    I think that the draft BATFE document is longer than the US Constitution. So, if the stabilizing brace is the odious accessory determining the difference between pistol and SBR, can I just replace the SB with a large rubber door stop? Does any addition to the buffer tube cross the pistol-to-SBR fuzzy line? It’s going to be a long, long four years (and I hope not longer).

  26. avatar Shire-man says:

    Comply, comply, comply.
    What does it get you?
    The past 2+ years have demonstrated actively not complying gets you whatever you want plus protected hero status.

    I feel like a lot of gun owners like complying. They like 922r and other bullshit. Like statistician nerds or LARPing lawyers stacking fantasy sports teams. They get off on collecting stamps and ATF opinion letters. They like confronting people at ranges to inquire about things that aren’t any of their business just to see if you share their fetish for compliance.

    1. avatar Thomas Jefferson says:

      Exactly where are all the riots now? Where are all the BLM protesters now? Where are all the deaths from this plandemic? After the stolen election was over everything just got quiet. People never wake up until it’s too late. Trusting the government and the media is trusting China. Weve all been conditioned by TV and movies to act like sheep. That’s why there paying people off like Biden and Swalwell so they can slowly get what they want. Biden hates guns cause China hates us having them. Joe just does what china wants It’s as simple as that. Traitors who swore an oath to uphold constitution? That joke is on us.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        A little chilly out there for their activities. Next April the cops will plug someone and it will be back on.

  27. avatar Ron says:

    Looks to me like they’re fixing to ban anything that resembles an SBR…

    This is the same strategy they used last time, and it worked.

    1. avatar Umm . . . says:

      What / when was that?

  28. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    .
    ……..…../´¯/)………… (\¯`\
    …………/….//……….. …\\….\
    ………../….//………… ….\\….\
    …../´¯/…./´¯\………../¯ `\….\¯`\
    .././…/…./…./.|_……_| .\….\….\…\.\..
    (.(….(….(…./.)..)..(..(. \….)….)….)… )
    .\…………….\/…/….\. ..\/……………./
    ..\…………….. /……..\……………..…/
    ….\…………..(…………)……………./

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      ASSCI art is so…

      1992…

      1. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

        Because “emojis” are SOOOOOO much cooler?????

        As for ASCII art? Well executed, I think it’s cool . . . and that example is both cool, and effective.

        But go back out and yell to the kids to get off your lawn.

    2. avatar Farts says:

      Awesome!

  29. avatar Quasimofo says:

    Would this also apply to something like Thordsen Customs cheek rest kits, as the leaked letter seems pretty specific about “arm braces”?

  30. avatar Dude says:

    “Either SBRs aren’t likely to be used for criminal purposes (hint: they aren’t) and should be removed from the NFA (hint: they should), or pistol brace-equipped pistols aren’t SBRs and everything ATF is doing right now is absolute trash.”

    This is exactly why they HAD to end pistol braces. If an increase in short barrel rifles with pistol braces didn’t cause problems, then how could they possibly justify continuing with SBRs as an NFA item? Wouldn’t doing away with SBR permission slips be COMMON SENSE based on….SCIENCE?

  31. avatar see-dubya says:

    The orcs are at the outer ring: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-siege-of-minas-tirith-or-how-to-turn-fudds-into-gun-rights-supporters/

    I don’t own one of these, but I’ll go to bat for those who do.

  32. avatar endDClies says:

    Let me start off by stating that restrictions on short barreled rifles and shotguns are asinine. The restrictions are only there for one reason and one reason only, to make purchasing and owning one more difficult. This being said, now I will state something that will be very unpopular, though it is the truth. Pistol braces were originally designed to assist persons with a disability. The braces have been refined into a stock that has a remote resemblance to a brace. We all know this yet we will not admit it. The industry has pushed the envelopes to a point and now the BATFE has decided to push back. Did anyone expect anything different to happen? If you did, you just are not very smart. What we should be doing is fighting to remove restrictions on short barreled rifles and shotguns. Now, as long as the liberals and RINO’s remain in power, this will never happen. The same liberals and RINO’s will be hitting us with a barrage of gun control schemes. Hopefully we can get the NRA to rid itself of Wayne and his gang so it will actually have leaders that fight for our rights instead of their bank account statements.

  33. avatar Bla bla bla bla bla government playing with our constitutional rights!!! says:

    2A, no infringement! Let me explain while we still have a constitution! Government interference! Didn’t Trump have an executive order that said two regulations had to be removed prior to any new ones? The new gwot (law abiding citizens) !

  34. avatar Alan says:

    I’ve said this before, and will repeat myself once again.The ATF and Dept.of Justice, where it currently hangs it’s hat, are both a load of bureaucratic crap respecting anything having to do with firearms The fact that the bureaucratic rubbish, decrees of faceless paper pushers have and retain the force of law is nothing other than a giant zitz on the face or behind of The Congress. When, if ever, will the populace wake up to this plain fact, and exercise the power that it has. For instance, there are how many millions of law abiding citizens who are gun owners? Precisely why should they tolerate the bureaucratic rubbish that is foisted off on them, seemingly with the aid and consent of their elected representatives is question I cannot provide an answer to. Perhaps wiser heads can. If so, they should.

  35. avatar Aus_Schwaben says:

    Someone needs to start up production of the Puckle Gun and give the ATF something else to worry about.

  36. avatar ThatOneGuy says:

    So what happens if you make or acquire one after the letter was posted?

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      For the time being, I suppose try to stay within the “objective” factors…if you’re inclined to care. Brace-equipped pistols are still legal. If you want to be comply then you’d make sure to use a long eye relief optic and whatever other stuff they’re attempting to push on us.

  37. avatar James Harris says:

    I use two hands to shoot my CZ-P10 C. Does that make it an SBR??
    FATD can suck a FATD

  38. avatar GS650G says:

    When the Indian Jamaican princess takes over she will have the ATF declare all ARs illegal just like that. Then we can reminisce about the good old days when bump stocks were considered a hill to die on.

  39. avatar MtnDewey says:

    oh now I need my stuff moderated??? ATF must have gotten to TTAG as well.

  40. avatar MtnDewey says:

    you will all cave, even the site is moderated and controlled by ATF and FBI.

    1. avatar possum says:

      Yes it is, but not just TTAG

  41. avatar Pbz says:

    ATF and DOJ needs a rewrite/abolish. Leave the legal alone and don’t infringe simple common sense even, but not from these seriously. You classify a fully automatic weapon as a weapon with a trigger pull that fires multiple projectiles, not the bump. You want to classify a pistol as a SBR you just made us felons a handgun is a handgun you made it. You went for poly80 after you sent letters stating that there items are not firearms….come on now when does it stop ✋. Keep rattling the cage.

  42. avatar Concerned citizen says:

    “Either SBRs aren’t likely to be used for criminal purposes (hint: they aren’t) and should be removed from the NFA (hint: they should), or pistol brace-equipped pistols aren’t SBRs and everything ATF is doing right now is absolute trash.”

    Or…both? Not sure why this is an either-or. Also, the NFA is trash that’s very much counter to the point of the 2A. But hey, who asked me.

  43. avatar Please comment @ link below about this infringement & tell all ur friends too! says:

    Please comment @ link below about this infringement & tell all ur friends too!

    Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces”

    Comments are due 01/04/2021 at 11:59 pm

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces#open-comment

  44. avatar Liberty or Death! says:

    Resist or don’t complain. The real question is who want’s to take a slap on the wrist and get permission to be American or who is willing to fight for America, the land of the free?..

  45. So this weight thing, ANY and all pistols of any caliber & model that accept magazines can & will be outlawed if some one designs & builds a big enough magazine? In regard to the standards they are rewriting for arm braces-related to caliber & a host of what seems like a never ending list of issues that can make a pistol illegal or a short barreled rifle etc. I mean it’s written so completely incompetantly you would need a team of lawyers just to make a determination. . I mean if I make a 32LBS magazine for a 9MM M&P Shield that pistol is now capable of accepeting a magazine that makes it impossible to wield with just one hand. So ANY AND ALL handguns could EASILY be banned by how vague & expansive the ATF’s incompetently written regulations are written. I mean arm braces were ok, then holding it to the shoulder was a crime, then it was not. Green tip ammo was to be made criminal, then that was reversed. What kind of morons are at the ATF?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email