When is decision regarding braces expected by ATF?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since it's more political and less fact based, they will use it to maximum pol. benefit IMHO. So that would indicate, closer to an election cycle, and NOT when they are self buttering and self turning on the grill i.e. border crisis, inflation etc.

But sooner then later, they WILL publish, I know ppl just wanting to know, holding off buying / building pistols or other goodies.

Be prepared for the HEAVIER LIFT after the ruling is my opinion, which is donate $$ to XYZ firearms advocacy group for the inevitable court challenge(s) .
 
I ran across one estimate in a firearm news blog. They claim they recieved over 200,000 comments, which is good as that means they didn't aggregate hundreds into one lump complaint. It was estimated by the ATF they will take four months to examine them and then make their determination, which has to be published for scrutiny before going into affect.

That pushes it into 2022.

In the meantime I will look forward to using my braced pistol for Alternate Methods season here in MO. As usual.
 
There has been software fed agencies can and do use to scan public comments for keywording to aggregate similar comments and their main points. A consulting company I worked for about 15 years ago had semi-pioneered this software for U.S. EPA. I suspect this platform is widespread and will be used to the the fullest extent on the massive number of comments. Four months to go through the comments and make changes, and I suspect they will make some minor tweaks as pre-decided give-backs to show how reasonable they are.
 
In the dead of night.
On a random Friday.
When we’ve taken our eye off the ball and started looking at some other 2A issue.

That’s when they’ll issue their royal decree.

There's a term for that, dropping bombshells on Friday nights to mollify immediate negative repercussions.

What's it called again?
 
I ran across one estimate in a firearm news blog. They claim they recieved over 200,000 comments, which is good as that means they didn't aggregate hundreds into one lump complaint. It was estimated by the ATF they will take four months to examine them and then make their determination, which has to be published for scrutiny before going into affect.

That pushes it into 2022.

In the meantime I will look forward to using my braced pistol for Alternate Methods season here in MO. As usual.


This is the latest news I have read also
 
walks, talks, shoots like a gunstock…IT’S A FRIKKIN STOCK. C’mon, now.

That said, seems like anything that assists with accuracy should be promoted by the ATF; all the better to prevent collateral damage.

One one hand I agree most braces are being used as stocks in practice. No doubt a few are being used as intended. The issue is the ATF told us for nearly a decade it was not a stock and now they want to change their mind.

IMHO the solution is to removed short barrel rifles and short barreled shotgun from the NFA. The distinction between pistol, rifle, and shotgun is arbitrary and pointless. It's a firearm and the law should be, for the most part, agnostic to the configuration of said firearm.
 
IMHO the solution is to removed short barrel rifles and short barreled shotgun from the NFA. The distinction between pistol, rifle, and shotgun is arbitrary and pointless. It's a firearm and the law should be, for the most part, agnostic to the configuration of said firearm.

HEY! You can stop that right now, mister! Let's not have any use of common sense or consistency, here!

:p

Seriously, though...you're spot on with this.
 
Read another article which mentioned a Jan date would be scheduled. Maybe the 20th.

Agreed, if their was no 34 NFA, there would be no problem at all. That legislation was originally an anti handgun bill - the intent really was to disarm us. They were trying that long ago.

For some reason we keep remembering our heritage is to not take crap from our Public Servants as they are neither royalty nor constitutionally above us, They are SUBSERVIENT and some of them really need to be treated that way publicly and often. The constant reminder would do them good.
 
For some reason we keep remembering our heritage is to not take crap from our Public Servants as they are neither royalty nor constitutionally above us, They are SUBSERVIENT and some of them really need to be treated that way publicly and often. The constant reminder would do them good.
There's not a single politician that works for the people anymore. Oh they'll say it, but they're really just working for themselves.
Somewhere along the way, the idea of working for the people turned into being a "career politician"
 
Read another article which mentioned a Jan date would be scheduled. Maybe the 20th.

Agreed, if their was no 34 NFA, there would be no problem at all. That legislation was originally an anti handgun bill - the intent really was to disarm us. They were trying that long ago.

For some reason we keep remembering our heritage is to not take crap from our Public Servants as they are neither royalty nor constitutionally above us, They are SUBSERVIENT and some of them really need to be treated that way publicly and often. The constant reminder would do them good.

Not to turn this political at all. I think it's important to understand most of our rulemaking on firearms is more or less knee-jerk reactions when our elected officials feel endangered more so than a direct reaction of the public's perception of criminals.

When it comes to the 1934 and 1968 gun control both were in in some ways a response to assassinations and threats against politicians. 1934 was an attempt on Roosevelt the prior year with a handgun which killed a Chicago mayor. There were plenty of politicians very fearful of violence and retribution from organized crime outfits in large cities. As originally proposed it was started as an outright ban on any concealable firearm and silencers plus machine guns and explosives. Handguns were way too numerous and popular so they ended up dropped from the scope of the law. The courts warned Congress a ban was likely unconstitutional so instead a huge tax and permission from your local police to transfer was enacted. (This was a time when a heap of new laws were enacted during very public animosity between the Supreme Court and the other branches of government.) Fast forward to 68 when a number of high profile people had been killed and once again major unrest in large cities resulted in another round of tightening access to guns - this time basically cutting off most cheap foreign firearms and creating a dealer system to put restrictions on sales of all guns. This was around the time just about every major city enacted gun bans of their own and most states set up their current regulatory schemes. Dressing it up as crime fighting for public consumption makes good talking points even if it was not the primary intent. A quick read through contemporary books and articles by various ban enthusiasts makes it abundantly clear the motivations and hope-for results.
 
Last edited:
Not to turn this political at all. I think it's important to understand most of our rulemaking on firearms is more or less knee-jerk reactions when our elected officials feel endangered more so than a direct reaction of the public's perception of criminals.

When it comes to the 1934 and 1968 gun control both were in in some ways a response to assassinations and threats against politicians. 1934 was an attempt on Roosevelt the prior year with a handgun which killed a Chicago mayor. There were plenty of politicians very fearful of violence and retribution from organized crime outfits in large cities. As originally proposed it was started as an outright ban on any concealable firearm and silencers plus machine guns and explosives. Handguns were way too numerous and popular so they ended up dropped from the scope of the law. The courts warned Congress a ban was likely unconstitutional so instead a huge tax and permission from your local police to transfer was enacted. (This was a time when a heap of new laws were enacted during very public animosity between the Supreme Court and the other branches of government.) Fast forward to 68 when a number of high profile people had been killed and once again major unrest in large cities resulted in another round of tightening access to guns - this time basically cutting off most cheap foreign firearms and creating a dealer system to put restrictions on sales of all guns. This was around the time just about every major city enacted gun bans of their own and most states set up their current regulatory schemes. Dressing it up as crime fighting for public consumption makes good talking points even if it was not the primary intent. A quick read through contemporary books and articles by various ban enthusiasts makes it abundantly clear the motivations and hope-for results.

Absolutely.

The Mulford Act is another excellent example of exactly this. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is another. And, of course, we can go back to the beginning of modern gun control with the various Jim Crow laws.

Funny how gun control laws favor the government so much and not the people.
 
There's not a single politician that works for the people anymore. Oh they'll say it, but they're really just working for themselves.
Somewhere along the way, the idea of working for the people turned into being a "career politician"

They are the new aristocracy. As in, "Tale Of Two Cities" genre.

In that book, Monseigneur the Marquis ran over a child and threw a coin at the grieving parent. Congress has run over America (stolen election, stolen Republic) and tossed us a coin (stimulus checks; extended unemployment benefits to buy us off).

They are the new aristocracy. And they are untouchable. Nothing they do has any consequences and they know it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top