FACTORING CRITERIA FOR RIFLED BARREL WEAPONS WITH ACCESSORIES* commonly referred to as “STABILIZING

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steel Horse Rider said:
So, are there any statistics on how many of these weapons are used in mass shootings or criminal activity in general? That might be a useful piece of information for any law that potentially restricts a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...
It was to back up the "handgun ban" where pistols were originally going to be put in the NFA and the short barrel rifle thing was only there to keep people from cutting down long guns to be more pistol sized.
No part of it was intended to make anyone safer, well except criminals.
And put handguns in reach for only the government, the wealthy and other criminals as a $200 tax added to every handgun back in 1934 would have been an impossible amount of money for about 90% of people to cough up and the government and criminals just exclude them selves from the tax.
 
tarosean said:
Have to wonder what in the heck that has to do with anything? It counts for a quarter of your points too!
Click to expand...
Standard rifle rear peep sights are tough to use for most folks at arms length. Almost all handguns have notch/blade irons for aiming while holding outstretched from body. No sights = how are you aiming?

People have been playing the wink-nod with braced pistols for some time now. I cannot tell you the last time I saw anyone shooting an AR or Drako one-handed for more than a few rounds at the range. At the same time, I cannot think of a single time I've seen anyone try to get a cheek weld on a Glock19.

So I suppose if you have to come up with a checklist to place guns into a category, this isn't the worst set of parameters. Not a pistol if: brace is long enough for comfortable length of pull/wide enough for comfortable shoulder fit instead of a design obviously made to wrap around your forearm; gun is set up with sights which don't work well at arm's length; or appears to be intended for 2-handed use with one hand holding the rear grip and 1 on the fore end (weighs more than 7-1/2 pounds unloaded, presence of front grips).

Edit ** The good news is if you make an ultralight build under 4 pounds with empty mag and sights then none of this applies. Pencil profiles and poly for the win! ** <-- this is wrong
 
Last edited:
illinoisburt said:
The good news is if you make an ultralight build under 4 pounds with empty mag and sights then none of this applies. Pencil profiles and poly for the win!
Click to expand...

My thing is the Roni/Kriss/mck type guns. They have a "brace" that has a strap. Way under 26 inches. Light unless its the 10mm/45acp with a light and optic. Would be over 4lbs im sure. Or was that with all removable things removed.

The ATF has went back and forward on those. With one complaining about it having a forward thumb rest. His "stock" ruling was withdrawn later with no explanation.

Comfortable length of pull? I'm 6 foot 3 and long armed. Vast majority of shotguns and no AR even has a "comfortable" pull for me.

Not trying to imply anything about your feelings on the issue but from your post I believe you and I see braces the same way. But I think they are "clarifying" in a way that will make things far more sketchy and less clear.

And then adding an "if we don't like you we can overrule all this anyway" clause.
 
Last edited:
crestoncowboy said:
My thing is the Roni/Kriss/mck type guns. They have a "brace" that has a strap. Way under 26 inches. Light unless its the 10mm/45acp with a light and optic. Would be over 4lbs im sure. Or was that with all removable things removed.

The ATF has went back and forward on those. With one complaining about it having a forward thumb rest. His "stock" ruling was withdrawn later with no explanation.

Comfortable length of pull? I'm 6 foot 3 and long armed. Vast majority of shotguns and no AR even has a "comfortable" pull for me.

Not trying to imply anything about your feelings on the issue but from your post I believe you and I see braces the same way. But I think they are "clarifying" in a way that will make things far more sketchy and less clear.

And then adding an "if we don't like you we can overrule all this anyway" clause.
Click to expand...
I'm not exactly a small dude myself LOL. Personally I don't much care about the pistol/rifle/SBR thing all that much, however it gets a bit frustrating when people play the game of putting rifles into the handgun category and end up creating excuses for government officials to apply existing laws to things which were specifically excluded when written like the bans some rifle ammunition we have already experienced on small scale.

We work hard to keep new laws from being enacted. Unfortunately there are a lot of regulations already on the books with which we are stuck. Anti-gunners are perfectly happy to hold up whatever item someone shoehorned into a category to pillory all guns while gleefully repeating our mantra of enforcing the existing rules. The general public hears the word handgun and we all know exactly what they likely think it means - revolver, duty pistol, etc. When someone on TV holds up what looks like a big military rifle and says "see what these whackadoodles are calling a pistol" you have pretty much no leg to stand on trying to tell folks otherwise. If anything it really hurts our cause with people who are otherwise ambivalent.
 
Steel Horse Rider said:
So, are there any statistics on how many of these weapons are used in mass shootings or criminal activity in general? That might be a useful piece of information for any law that potentially restricts a Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Not to them. They are driven by emotion and agenda, facts are of little concern.

Talk with any anti person and point out the fact that the US highest crime rates and firearm usage in those crimes are in places that have the strictest gun control measures in place. $10 to 1, the next words out of their mouth will have nothing to do with that fact. They will move on to another talking point or say something stupid like “If they never existed...”

If you can’t converse with a reasonable person that can observe and acknowledge cause and effect relationships, you are wasting your breath.
 
It was low hanging fruit that might be picked without difficult to pass legislation. Since SBRs had that rule structure and the braces were clearly an attempt to get around that, OMG - let's do something. Thus, the Administration can claim a victory. Each administration poses some BS that has no effect and claims victory, while real issues slide by.

Since the 'pistols' are evil looking and have even a less Swiss Army Knife purpose as a standard rifle, take them out. They might not be used for crime but have little use in EDC. We were all surprised the the Shockwaves didn't get some kind of hard look from antigunners.

The solution is for so-called progun legislators and justices to get rid of silly restrictions. Oh, wait - that isn't going to happen.
 
If you don't comply, then the gun is useless. Bury in the basement and so what. We have that discussion all the time. If an item is banned, we know there is low compliance but then what do you do with it. Most folks I knew with braces used them as SBRs in competitions or plinking. If banned, then you can't without legal risk.
 
GEM said:
Most folks I knew with braces used them as SBRs in competitions or plinking.
Click to expand...

Has to be "outlaw" competition, the sanctioning organizations, USPSA, IDPA, and SCSA, do not allow them. I know one guy who shoots a bonafide stamped SBR in PCC and that is it.

I saw a salesman with a "brace" strapped to his arm like we think the ATF thinks they are to be used, but he was just pushing a product. No shooters.
 
This form is more than confusing. Are points from section 2 added to section 3 or is the point total from 2 just required to be below 4 to move on to section 3?
 
So in my opinion just about every sb3/4ish based design is out. No matter what platform you have it installed on
"Not based on a known shoulder stock design" =+0
"Minimized rear surface lacking features,," = +1
"Adjustable or telescoping" = +2
"Cuff type PARTIALLY.." = +1

for a total of 4. To move on to section 3 it must be LESS THAN 4.
 
In ATF 2021R-08 , p. 35, they picked the SBA3 as the poster-child example of a brace that can't pass the new rules. Before factoring anything else in, they gave the SBA3 8 pts in section II.

Edit: attaching a pic of their worksheet. 2021-06-08 (2).png
 
Last edited:
There is no logic to any of this except: they want to keep guns out of citizens’ hands, and they are literally using the “bully power” of their agency to do so, at the behest of an anti 2A administration, because the administration can’t get its desired unconstitutional legislation passed. That’s it. Discussing any of the “meaning” and “logic” and how this “applies to crime” misses the point. It’s like wondering about the choice of curtains and trimmings by an oppressive jailer in a jail cell or gilded cage, while we enter it.
 
So if I'm following this correctly section ii is the criteria for determining if your brace isn't actually a stock and section III is to evaluate whether your pistol is a rifle or not and have separate scores.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F-111 John
  • Locked
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” [ATF Proposed Rulemaking]
Replies
9
Views
723
GEM
G
kje54
  • Locked
ATF Rule 2021R8 goes into effect January 31, 2023
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
210
Views
12K
kje54
kje54
O
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Direct Link to Stabilizing Brace Ban
Replies
1
Views
489
hso
hso
hso
  • Locked
ATF Stabilizing Brace "Objective Factors" Open Comment Period
Replies
20
Views
2K
vintovka
vintovka
Spats McGee
  • Locked
BATFE - Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces”
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
151
Views
7K
rust collector
R
Back
Top