ATF Rule on Braces Published Jan 31, 2023

[stolivar]

Do you have an AR rifle? Then don't destroy that arm brace. It's perfectly legal to attach an arm brace to a rifle.

If that brace is not connected to any other firearm it would be considered constructive making of a short barrel rifle.

 

[JohnKSa]

That is not correct. As long as you have a combination that would be legal to assemble, then you can have the brace. Where you get into trouble is if the ONLY possible way you could use the item is to make an NFA firearm.

 

[Pudge]

Anyone who spends money in good faith trying to conform to this rule is on a fool's errand. The rules will get changed.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The document is about defining SBRs, not about making a list of items that are unregulated.

My question relates to your assertion that "they are trying to keep ACTUAL stabilizing braces on ACTUAL pistols legal while also remaining consistent with the definitions in the NFA." If that is so, they should provide examples of "ACTUAL stabilizing braces on ACTUAL pistols". You are the one who made the assertion, so you are the one I am asking to document it.

Here is an example of one that is disallowed, does this look like anything other than something that wraps around the forearm?

 

[old lady new shooter]

Anyone who spends money in good faith trying to conform to this rule is on a fool's errand. The rules will get changed.

I think changing out the barrel should be a reasonably foolproof way to conform to the rule.

 

[JohnKSa]

The rules will get changed.

That's the whole point of the CFR, to have a system of regulations that can be maintained and updated as necessary without having to change the underlying federal law upon which they are based. But they do have to remain consistent with the federal laws.

" If that is so, they should provide examples of "ACTUAL stabilizing braces on ACTUAL pistols".

No, that's an incorrect assertion. The law doesn't typically provide examples of legal actions/items, it defines (and may provide examples) of things that are illegal/regulated.

Here is an example of one that is disallowed, does this look like anything other than something that wraps around the forearm?

The image isn't showing, but it doesn't really matter. If you got it from the document then there was discussion provided along with the picture. What does the explanatory text say about the item?

That doesn't really matter either, because if you honestly believe that the rule says that all stabilizing brace equipped firearms are regulated NFA items, then it doesn't matter what anyone else says since they won't be serving federal time for you or paying your legal fees. Get busy with one of the courses of action provided in the new rule.

 

[Lennyjoe]

I’ll make my decision in 119 days….

 

[Pudge]

I think changing out the barrel should be a reasonably foolproof way to conform to the rule.

Manufacturers, retailers and customers can invest with confidence, knowing that following the BATFE's rule, will be money well spent.

 

[DeepSouth]

You know the amount of people that supported the bump stock rule change and now are all bent out of shape about this one is astonishing to me. Some of us tried to tell you and you shrugged.

I hate to tell you guys, but this battle was lost in 2019, and about half of you didn’t care. Well looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. for those who need to hear it, I told you so.

*not speaking of anyone in particular, just sorting through the memory files and getting annoyed again…. Rant over.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Manufacturers, retailers and customers can invest with confidence, knowing that following the BATFE's rule, will be money well spent.

My comment was that changing out the barrel is the least bad solution IMO -- no uncertainties, no NFA status, and you still have your gun to shoot. That said, I think people shoudl wait to see how much traction the lawsuits get. Even if we don't get a decision before the 120 is up, there should be a good chance of getting implementation stayed until there is a decision.

 

[BreechFace]

We all know that *they* work for us…right???

 

[old lady new shooter]

The image isn't showing

I'll try again:

If you got it from the document then there was discussion provided along with the picture. What does the explanatory text say about the item?

Nope, no text. The document is at
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...acefinalruleguidance-commerciallypdf/download

Again, YOU asserted that "they are trying to keep ACTUAL stabilizing braces on ACTUAL pistols legal while also remaining consistent with the definitions in the NFA." So it's on you to back up that assertion.

 

[Styx]

You know the amount of people that supported the bump stock rule change and now are all bent out of shape about this one is astonishing to me. Some of us tried to tell you and you shrugged.

I hate to tell you guys, but this battle was lost in 2019, and about half of you didn’t care. Well looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. for those who need to hear it, I told you so.

*not speaking of anyone in particular, just sorting through the memory files and getting annoyed again…. Rant over.

Exactly...

 

[kidneyboy]

We all know that *they* work for us…right???

Ok, That's funny!!

 

[JohnKSa]

Nope, no text.

That picture didn't come from the rule, it came from a separate document. The Tailhook is mentioned in the rule document.

So it's on you to back up that assertion.

You've decided what you want to believe and that's your prerogative. The rule is there for people who haven't already made up their minds. As I said in response to another similar comment:

There's literally hundreds of pages of explanatory material provided. If you think it all boils down to: "Stabilizing braces are illegal." then that simplifies things considerably for you and also makes it abundantly clear how you should proceed. You should consider yourself fortunate to have so deftly avoided the confusion that others are troubled with.

 

[JohnKSa]

Ok, this is clearly a rant thread. That's fine, but I shouldn't have posted on it. I'll restrict my comments, should I have any, to the thread in Legal going forward.

 

[12Bravo20]

Ok, this is clearly a rant thread. That's fine, but I shouldn't have posted on it. I'll restrict my comments, should I have any, to the thread in Legal going forward.

You will still have the rants and personal attacks in the legal section too.

 

[Whiskeyhotel2020]

I took the there won't be any convictions side. since you wrote -
. That reads like you're expecting a trap.

In plain language, I do not think it is reasonable to expect there are going to be any mass felony arrests/convictions for folks that file Form 1s to register their pistols as SBRs.

We can't both take the same side so we have to find another sucker that thinks there are going to be hundreds upon hundreds of citizens entrapped by the Fed on this.

Ok but who wins when the convictions are overturned because of 14th amendment law suits?
I don't see where they got it wrong. I maybe the only one on here that agrees with the final decision. The braces became a work around (all though not initially intended) to be able to have a "cool guy gun". It didn't help when guys are flaunting them in the faces of law enforcement as 2a checks. I don't know think they're going to penalize the people that actually go through the process to make ensure that they are remaining lawful citizens. I don't agree with a lot of so called gun control measures and the fact that there's a regulation that requires registration of any firearm is bull excrement, however this ruling is imo solid.

 

[Mark_Mark]

Anyone who spends money in good faith trying to conform to this rule is on a fool's errand. The rules will get changed.

it already has… AFT said brace with a form 15 only apply’s if you can shoot one handed and hop on one foot

 

[old lady new shooter]

hat picture didn't come from the rule, it came from a separate document.

The document it came from shows photos of all braced pistols ATF says are SBRs. If ATF were truly trying to still allow braced pistols that it does not believe are SBRs as you assert, they would show examples of such, to help people who really want an AR pistol that can be accurately fired with one hand. The fact that they don't show any such reveals clearly that they don't care at all about the disabled folks, many of whom are veterans, for whom the original pistol braces were designed.

 

[illinoisburt]

The document it came from shows photos of all braced pistols ATF says are SBRs. If ATF were truly trying to still allow braced pistols that it does not believe are SBRs as you assert, they would show examples of such, to help people who really want an AR pistol that can be accurately fired with one hand. The fact that they don't show any such reveals clearly that they don't care at all about the disabled folks, many of whom are veterans, for whom the original pistol braces were designed.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Not sure where a person's feelings come into play when dealing with government agencies rulemaking. I'm fairly confident the number of handicapped persons who acquired a braced pistol is fractions of a percentage of the volume currently in circulation. It would seem if the common consumers were in fact handicapped, it would be much easier to bring suit under the ADA law mandating reasonable accommodations. The ADA is very liberal and broad in scope with strong enforcement powers. It would likely get favorable treatment in court to designated specific devices as medical aides for folks who need them.

What we are missing here is manufacturers selling their devices as a medical aide. Change the marketing and design for better 1-handed use.

 

[JohnKSa]

If ATF were truly trying to still allow braced pistols that it does not believe are SBRs as you assert, they would show examples of such...

If saying this again makes it more valid, then...

The law doesn't typically provide examples of legal actions/items, it defines (and may provide examples) of things that are illegal/regulated.

There's literally hundreds of pages of explanatory material provided. If you think it all boils down to: "Stabilizing braces are illegal." then that simplifies things considerably for you and also makes it abundantly clear how you should proceed. You should consider yourself fortunate to have so deftly avoided the confusion that others are troubled with.

 

[dogtown tom]

If that brace is not connected to any other firearm it would be considered constructive making of a short barrel rifle.

Nonsense.
First, there is nothing called "constructive making", its "constructive possession".......basically having the components in your possession that can only be assembled to make an NFA firearm. Having a rifle or a stripped AR lower negates that.
As long as you have any legal means to use that arm brace......its legal.
If the only firearm you own is an AR pistol, then yes, possession of an arm brace would be constructive possession if the assembled firearm is determined to be an SBR.

 

[dogtown tom]

Money out the door, just destroy it... why is there not a buyback through all of this.

Government can't "buy back" what it never owned to begin with.

No matter what you think of these, they were legal to buy, and now the rules have changed, and now small businesses, people, everyone is out, and the govt. now, sets a presidents that they no longer have to create a buyback program any longer, just an EO and change the law and forget trying to make anything right, as money, in the the govt. hands, is made out of thin air.

It's precedence, not president, and one isn't being set with this rule. Mostly because our government has regulated firearms since this countries founding and to my knowledge hasn't reimbursed the public when a type of firearm was banned or taxed.

Further, "EO"? Where on earth did you get the idea that the President issued an Executive Order? He didn't. This rule was issued under ATF's rule making authority. See the "Administrative Procedures Act". Its not new.

 

[dogtown tom]

You know the amount of people that supported the bump stock rule change and now are all bent out of shape about this one is astonishing to me. Some of us tried to tell you and you shrugged.

Huh?
I visit a number of gun forums and have yet to read of anyone who supported Trumps bumpstock ban.

I hate to tell you guys, but this battle was lost in 2019, and about half of you didn’t care. Well looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. for those who need to hear it, I told you so.

Oh please. You are taking credit for something I did in 1968. I was eleven years old and when I found out I couldn't buy guns from the back pages of the American Rifleman any more. I told my momma the battle was lost and complained that we didn't have chickens to begin with. I told you so.

Seriously, dude........this isn't new, you aren't psychic, antigunners have always existed and I'm surprised you didn't know that.