Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” [ATF Proposed Rulemaking]

Status
Not open for further replies.

F-111 John

Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2011
Messages
1,312
Location
Holt, MI
From the ATF website found here:

On June 7, 2021, the Attorney General signed ATF proposed rule 2021R-08, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is “intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

The proposed rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act.

What is Proposed in this Rulemaking?
The proposed rule would:
  • Amend the definition of “rifle” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each definition to clarify that the term “rifle” includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached “stabilizing brace” that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder.
  • Set forth a worksheet “Factoring Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with Accessories commonly referred to as ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” ATF Worksheet 4999, to aid the firearms industry and public in understanding the criteria that ATF considers when evaluating firearm samples that are submitted with an attached “stabilizing brace” or similar component or accessory.
This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock.

Read Proposed Rule 2021R-08 (PDF, 4.2 MB)

Here is the Proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 that scores a weapon based on objective criteria in much the same way the ATF scores a pistol for possible importation:


At least this time the ATF is proposing objective measurements in their determination of when a pistol crosses the line and becomes an SBR subject to the NFA tax and registration. something sorely lacking in their aborted December 2020 rulemaking attempt. But in proposed Worksheet 4999 there is this caveat:

NOTE: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a “stabilizing braces” for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a “short-barreled rifle” and circumvent the GCA or NFA.​
[Emphasis added]
Such a caveat nullifies the entire proposed Worksheet, and in my opinion needs to be removed from the final rule. If a firearm scores under the proposed maximum allowable score, then it should be deemed a pistol, period.

Obviously I would much rather that the entire proposed rule be dropped entirely as an infringement upon the Second Amendment, but at least objective, independently measurable criteria are being proposed here.
 
Objective? It is so ambiguous as to be almost impossible to follow, which is exactly what ATF wants. This makes it much easier to file cases on otherwise law abiding citizens. How can anyone determine what the manufacturer's intent was? No hand stops, no back up sights yet you also get dinged for having no sights? This is simply an unlawful bureaucracy being allowed to run amok.
 
Such a caveat nullifies the entire proposed Worksheet, and in my opinion needs to be removed from the final rule.

Yep. Its like having a 10 page worksheet and the last line saying....this worksheet can be over ridden if the atf so decides at any time.


This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle.

I have looked at the proposed form. It seperates brace with wings and a strap. Brace with wings and no strap........ etc etc. So if they (on their own worksheet) are calling it a brace then how is it not affected if its a brace.....

So in essence this whole thing is going to clarify exactly nothing. The ATF ruled on a RONI earlier this year. All of a sudden it was a stock. Then quickly removed the ruling and went back to "no wait. Its a brace".

Braces are not new. When I was a kid my slingshot had one very similar....

If the guys writing the definition of a brace can't even tell then maybe the definition is a bit vague.
 
Braces are not new. When I was a kid my slingshot had one very similar....

A bit off topic, but the braced slingshot, sometimes known under the trade name "Wrist Rocket" is illegal in some states and cities.

It appears to me that the ATF is attempting to objectively define the intent to shoulder a brace-equipped pistol by determining if the brace is functional as a brace (i.e. it has all of the straps in place, the length of pull is not longer than an average forearm, etc.,) and the pistol isn't set up so you cannot shoot it at arm's length (i.e. a short eye relief scope or dot magnifier, total weight unloaded exceeding 7.5 lbs, etc.)

As I said in the original post, if they get rid of the "we can ignore the points system any time we want" caveat, this is at least something to use to determine if any single setup is legally a pistol without having to get a meaningless determination letter.

There does need to be some clarity as to what the ATF means by certain criteria, such as what constitutes a "hand stop," what constitutes a "secondary grip," why the presence of spacers to lengthen pull or folding adaptors matter as long as the overall length of pull is under the 13 1/2" specified as non-compliant in the first section of the Worksheet, and why the presence of flip-up sights has anything to do with being or not being a pistol. (If my pistol has an infinite eye-relief red dot, why can't I also have backup iron sights?)

Also, a total score of 4 points makes the firearm "designed to be fired from the shoulder." I think the total number of points should be higher than that, if a failing score is 4 in any of the three sections. You should be able to score up to 9 points, with no more than 3 in any section, to pass muster as a Pistol.
 
Interesting, but not surprising, that they picked the SBA3 as the poster-child example of a brace that can't pass the new rules.
 
A bit off topic, but the braced slingshot, sometimes known under the trade name "Wrist Rocket" is illegal in some states and cities.

At a loss of words but doesn’t surprise me.

9BA5D802-BCCE-427D-A85C-BAFD6BE04FAB.jpeg

“Outperformed” all ammunition...” with only 99 ft/lb...

8C804B40-03EA-4B5B-BF91-DFC3F55F3C2F.jpeg

FWIW if you held a 16 lb bowling ball, 12 inches above my hands and let go it would impact my hands with about 255 ft/lbs of force. Might as well shoot me with a .380 instead...no wait...on second thought, that’s a bad idea.
 
Will there be an outright ban (like bump stocks) or grandfathered requiring a tax stamp? I'm thinking the former.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top