ATF Rule 2021R8 goes into effect January 31, 2023

[old lady new shooter]

@hso has a brilliant (IMO) suggestion in Activism, see post https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...brace-rule-through-the-federal-budget.913755/. If we could accomplish this the whole problem would go away.

 

[jonnyc]

So...anything happen today?

 

[12Bravo20]

So...anything happen today?

NOPE nothing happened today.

According to Washington Gun Law, the ATF might release the final ruling in January 2023. Washington Gun Law is guessing it will be released on Jan 13th, but that is only a guess. Here is a video from Washington Gun Law

 

[DMW1116]

Looks like the new rule was published today.

 

[valnar]

So if I'm reading this right, my CZ Scorpion EVO 3 PISTOL with a 7.5" barrel can no longer have a stabilizing brace?

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...finalruleguidance-non-commercial1-10/download

 

[tarosean]

Looks like everything with a brace is now an SBR if you keep the brace. No tax if form1 within 120 days of the federal register date. (I read a poorly written article that stated next week sometime)

I didn’t see any compensation instructions if you choose to remove it.

 

[fireman 9731]

Seems to me like a lot of people will be getting free SBRs with a little paperwork.

 

[valnar]

Seems to me like a lot of people will be getting free SBRs with a little paperwork.

If only that were true. Between the passport photos and fingerprint sheets, it's not exactly free (or easy). I just went through this for an SBR. What a pain.

 

[armoredman]

The first linked article said it was signed today, not published yet. What time frame for that? Have the first legal challenges been filed?

 

[JohnKSa]

Looks like everything with a brace is now an SBR if you keep the brace.

Probably MOST of them are, but certainly not all.

It's worthwhile to read the entire contents of this link.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...armswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/download
"On June 10, 2021, the Department published an NPRM in the Federal Register titled, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’,” 86 FR 30826. The NPRM proposed amending ATF’s definitions of “rifle” in 27 CFR parts 478 and 479 to expressly state that the term may include firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace,” even though such firearms were already implicitly included in the definition by virtue of the fact that they were designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder."
...
"The revised definition in this final rule clarifies, consistent with the best interpretation of the statutory provision, that firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace” can possess objective design features that make them “rifles,” as that term is defined under the NFA and GCA. If a firearm with an attached “stabilizing brace” meets the definition of a “rifle” based on the factors indicated in this final rule, then that firearm could also be a short-barreled rifle depending on the length of the attached barrel, thus subjecting it to additional requirements under the NFA and GCA. However, a firearm with an attached “brace” device is not a “rifle” as defined in the relevant statutes if the weapon is not designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The rule, as proposed and finalized, does not ban “stabilizing braces” or prohibit firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace,” regardless of the firearm’s classification."
...
"While firearms equipped with “stabilizing braces” or other rearward attachments may be submitted to ATF for a new classification determination, a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” are likely to be classified as “rifles” because they are configured for shoulder fire based on the factors described in this rule."


If you want a stabilizing brace on your pistol then you can have one. It needs to really be a stabilizing brace, and not a shoulder stock that is masquerading as a stabilizing brace, or even a true stabilizing brace that is designed so that it contains features that are common to shoulder stocks but not required in a stabilizing brace. Reading the entire document in the link helps explain this.

What is over with as of this rule's issuance is the use of "stabilizing braces" (note the quotes) to circumvent NFA restrictions. If you want to have something that is designed to function as a shoulder stock on your pistol then you need to go through the NFA hoops.

 

[valnar]

It will be difficult to meet their requirements and have it not be an SBR.

 

[armoredman]

Query - it's a special Form 1, so is the newly minted SBR stuck as-is forever, or is it a true SBR where brace users can get a real stock and replace the brace? I didn't see markings requirements for the firearm, are there special engravings that need to be done on the firearm before submitting the Form 1? i know dadgum little about NFA.

 

[kje54]

Probably MOST of them are, but certainly not all.

It's worthwhile to read the entire contents of this link.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...armswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/download
"On June 10, 2021, the Department published an NPRM in the Federal Register titled, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’,” 86 FR 30826. The NPRM proposed amending ATF’s definitions of “rifle” in 27 CFR parts 478 and 479 to expressly state that the term may include firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace,” even though such firearms were already implicitly included in the definition by virtue of the fact that they were designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder."
...
"The revised definition in this final rule clarifies, consistent with the best interpretation of the statutory provision, that firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace” can possess objective design features that make them “rifles,” as that term is defined under the NFA and GCA. If a firearm with an attached “stabilizing brace” meets the definition of a “rifle” based on the factors indicated in this final rule, then that firearm could also be a short-barreled rifle depending on the length of the attached barrel, thus subjecting it to additional requirements under the NFA and GCA. However, a firearm with an attached “brace” device is not a “rifle” as defined in the relevant statutes if the weapon is not designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The rule, as proposed and finalized, does not ban “stabilizing braces” or prohibit firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace,” regardless of the firearm’s classification."
...
"While firearms equipped with “stabilizing braces” or other rearward attachments may be submitted to ATF for a new classification determination, a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” are likely to be classified as “rifles” because they are configured for shoulder fire based on the factors described in this rule."


If you want a stabilizing brace on your pistol then you can have one. It needs to really be a stabilizing brace, and not a shoulder stock that is masquerading as a stabilizing brace, or even a true stabilizing brace that is designed so that it contains features that are common to shoulder stocks but not required in a stabilizing brace. Reading the entire document in the link helps explain this.

What is over with as of this rule's issuance is the use of "stabilizing braces" (note the quotes) to circumvent NFA restrictions. If you want to have something that is designed to function as a shoulder stock on your pistol then you need to go through the NFA hoops.

So basically, the way I'm reading this (please correct me if I'm wrong) is fixed stabilizing braces are legal but stabilizing blades are not.

 

[CapnMac]

I did not read that the Form 1 were going to be expedited. So, you'd have to wait the 180-270 days with all the parts separated.
And, nothing yet published is a guarantee, either.
Like maybe they pull their "king's x" out and blanket state that Brand A, Brand E, and Brand X, all all in "violation." Even after taking your Form 1.

 

[armoredman]

Signed on Friday the 13th, how appropriate.

 

[JohnKSa]

It will be difficult to meet their requirements and have it not be an SBR.

Not if you really want a stabilizing brace for a pistol and get (or make) one that is a stabilizing brace and not intended to serve, or also serve as a functional shoulder stock.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...armswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/download

They give a number of examples of both items that qualify as braces and items that qualify as shoulder stocks. It's pretty simple--if it's a stabilizing brace and clearly designed and intended to be a stabilizing brace and not a shoulder stock/also a shoulder stock, and **if it's put on a pistol and not on a firearm that qualifies as a short-barrelled rifle or shotgun then it's a stabilizing brace. (**If you want to know what this part means, read the document and look at the examples.)

If it has features that are shoulder stock features that serve no purpose for stabilizing braces, then it's a shoulder stock. One example listed had texturing on the back of the stabilizing brace where it would serve to hold the stock in place against the shooter's shoulder but which would serve absolutely no purpose in a stabilizing brace.

So basically, the way I'm reading this (please correct me if I'm wrong) is fixed stabilizing braces are legal but stabilizing blades are not.

It would be more accurate to say that true fixed stabilizing braces are legal but whatever you call it, if it's made with design features that are peculiar to shoulder stocks and serve no purpose for stabilizing braces, or if it's being put on an item that is not a pistol (read the full rule if you want to know what this means), then it's regulated per the NFA.

The document is quite extensive and contains a lot of explanation, definitions and even examples. Anyone who really wants to know what's going on should read through it. It's nearly 300 pages long--whatever else people think about it, it's definitely thorough.

I'm not a fan of the NFA, by any means, but it's hard to see how this outcome was unexpected.

 

[BreechFace]

It's nearly 300 pages long

And that ladies and gentlemen is on purpose.

What a joke all this has become, the fact we allow a nearly 300 page document, explaining a restriction on a firearm accessory is crazy.

The original US Constitution was written on 5 pages.

 

[JohnKSa]

The more creative the "work-around" is, the more complicated the rule to eliminate the workaround will be. The document goes through the entire progression starting with the first submission of a stabilizing brace and what led to it being approved, while other similar (or not so similar) submissions were not approved. It contains a lot of helpful information as well as responses to comments provided during the timeframe while the rule was being considered. It's not that it's long and confusing, it's just long because it covers a huge amount of material.

 

[mcb]

The question that seem most pertinent. If I use the 120 day period to register my pistol brace firearm what is the classification of the NFA registered gun? Is it a Short Barrel Rifle (SBR) or some new category (ie pistol braced firearms or similar). This is critical because if its a SBR and can throw the brace away and put a real stock on it.

 

[maxxhavoc]

Query - it's a special Form 1, so is the newly minted SBR stuck as-is forever, or is it a true SBR where brace users can get a real stock and replace the brace? I didn't see markings requirements for the firearm, are there special engravings that need to be done on the firearm before submitting the Form 1? i know dadgum little about NFA.

Yes, you can replace three brace with a stock. Markings depend on whether there are factory markings or not. That's how I read it at last.

Source: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-correctedpdf/download

 

[12Bravo20]

I'm not a fan of the NFA, by any means, but it's hard to see how this outcome was unexpected.

And after reading through all 291 pages, it is obvious that we ARE our own worse enemies in this particular case. Between all of the letters asking about braces to all of the videos showing people shouldering braces (to include TV shows) to worse of them all(manufacturers and retailers) stating how the braces allow one to circumvent the NFA.

The way that braces are/were advertised along with all of the online videos showing people using them a shoulder stocks, it is no wonder why the AFT ruled the way they did. Again brace wonders shot themselves in the foot on this one.

While I am not a fan of this ruling or of the NFA and GCA, we did, as firearm owners, bring this on ourselves.

 

[mcb]

And after reading through all 291 pages, it is obvious that we ARE our own worse enemies in this particular case. Between all of the letters asking about braces to all of the videos showing people shouldering braces (to include TV shows) to worse of them all(manufacturers and retailers) stating how the braces allow one to circumvent the NFA.

The way that braces are/were advertised along with all of the online videos showing people using them a shoulder stocks, it is no wonder why the AFT ruled the way they did. Again brace wonders shot themselves in the foot on this one.

While I am not a fan of this ruling or of the NFA and GCA, we did, as firearm owners, bring this on ourselves.

I would argue just the opposite. The ATF did it to themselves. Give us a stupid gun law and we will create a stupid gun gadget that will take advantage of any and all loophole we can find. The pistol brace was always a way around the NFA. Yes a vanishingly few users actually needed the braces and used them as designed but for most it was a way to skirt the NFA with a wink and a nod of the head. The pistol brace was the same as bump stock, binary triggers, forced reset triggers, etc. Give us a dump gun law and you almost always get a dump gun gadget that attempts to get around it.

 

[rust collector]

Because the thread title refers to an effective date of December 28, it should probably be amended to the actual effective date. I have not read the document released today. Those who have, what is your understanding of effective date and any other relevant time constraints on this document?

 

[12Bravo20]

Because the thread title refers to an effective date of December 28, it should probably be amended to the actual effective date. I have not read the document released today. Those who have, what is your understanding of effective date and any other relevant time constraints on this document?

Correct in that the rule was signed today but not published today.

 

[12Bravo20]

I would argue just the opposite. The ATF did it to themselves. Give us a stupid gun law and we will create a stupid gun gadget that will take advantage of any and all loophole we can find. The pistol brace was always a way around the NFA. Yes a vanishingly few users actually needed the braces and used them as designed but for most it was a way to skirt the NFA with a wink and a nod of the head. The pistol brace was the same as bump stock, binary triggers, forced reset triggers, etc. Give us a dump gun law and you almost always get a dump gun gadget that attempts to get around it.

Agree to disagree then

Because before SIG/SB Tactical started advertising the brace as a work around for the NFA, it was a little known accessory that when used as originally designed did in fact help people with disabilities.

I originally bought my SIG SB15 shortly after they came out to use as intended since I am disabled and have limited mobility/strength.