BATFE - Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

[old lady new shooter]

Literally impossible.
And thats why ATF stopped issuing determination letters on arm braces. They were getting hundreds of photos of braces not attached to a firearm. Being that they dont regulate accessories they required submissions to be attached to a fire,oarm. They also warned that if that submission was determined to be an NFA firearm they would not return it.

That effectively ended further submissions.

No one can look at an particular arm brace BY ITSELF and say....."that is/is not an SBR". One would need to look at the entire firearm because it is the entire firearm that is evaluated.

You're arguing against something I didn't say.

They have photos of braced firearms which they say are now SBR's.

I'm saying they should have photos of braced firearms that they do NOT consider SBR's, otherwise they are disenfranchising the disabled shooters for whom the braces were originally designed.

 

[12Bravo20]

His videos never seem to live up to the clickbait title, do they?

No they sure don't. Unless you are into all that doom and gloom, the sky is falling stuff.

SUBSCRIBE NOW!

Yeah thanks but no thanks. I made the mistake of watching a few of his video. That is time I will never get back.

 

[SharpDog]

The same things that have been required since 1968.
I don't know which is sadder, you and GOA thinking this is "news" or that dealers didn't already know it.

I guess they didn't need that FOIA request after all.

I suspected, but did not know that they kept an electronically searchable database of 4473s.

Not all of us already know everything.

 

[dogtown tom]

You're arguing against something I didn't say.

They have photos of braced firearms which they say are now SBR's.

I'm saying they should have photos of braced firearms that they do NOT consider SBR's, otherwise they are disenfranchising the disabled shooters for whom the braces were originally designed.

They want you to submit the entire firearm for determination, not by looking at photos.

 

[dogtown tom]

I guess they didn't need that FOIA request after all.

Yup

I suspected, but did not know that they kept an electronically searchable database of 4473s.

They don't.
4473's are kept by the dealer until he discontinues business. Then his business records are sent to West Virginia and stored in shipping containers in a parking lot. During a firearm trace, ATF employees will grab a flashlight and go hunt down the 4473 they need.

There is no "searchable database of 4473s" because ATF is only in possession of out of business records. Form 4473's are held by an FFL until he goes OOB. Until last year, the dealer could destroy those form once they reached age twenty.

All you need to know about the absolute uselessness of ATF's firearm traces is answer my phone. The last three trace requests ATF called me about were on forms in their parking lot. When I changed to an 07FFL from an 01, I had to send in my old records........twenty bankers boxes full.

Not all of us already know everything.

FFL business record storage and these mythical secret "searchable databases" have been discussed ad nauseum on THR and many other gun forums.

 

[old lady new shooter]

They want you to submit the entire firearm for determination, not by looking at photos.

They WANT is not the question.

Laws (or "rules" promulgated by agencies) are supposed to be clear and unambiguous, so the citizenry understands what is legal or not legal. They IMPLY that only certain braced pistols are SBR's, but don't explain or show photos what configurations of braced pistols are NOT SBR's.

 

[old lady new shooter]

4473's are kept by the dealer until he discontinues business.

Ergo, the more FFL's they put out of business by pulling their licenses, the more records they get.

 

[dogtown tom]

They WANT is not the question.

Laws (or "rules" promulgated by agencies) are supposed to be clear and unambiguous, so the citizenry understands what is legal or not legal. They IMPLY that only certain braced pistols are SBR's, but don't explain or show photos what configurations of braced pistols are NOT SBR's.

Well, it was clear and unambiguous right up until they issued that first arm brace determination in 2013.

This rule revokes that determination.

ATF doesn't have to provide nonNFA configurations, only show what are regulated by the NFA.

 

[dogtown tom]

Ergo, the more FFL's they put out of business by pulling their licenses, the more records they get.

If ATF wanted 4473's, they could require dealers to fax, email or ship them to WV without revoking the FFL.....all they would need is another regulatory change.
They dont want that because they can't store what records they have now.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Well, it was clear and unambiguous right up until they issued that first arm brace determination in 2013.

This rule revokes that determination.

ATF doesn't have to provide nonNFA configurations, only show what are regulated by the NFA.

They go through this whole spiel about braces per se are not illegal. But they don't show what a legally braced pistol looks like.

And the angle of the bore relative to the grip does not change by putting a brace on the pistol. So it's still a pistol.

 

[illinoisburt]

They have photos of braced firearms which they say are now SBR's.

I'm saying they should have photos of braced firearms that they do NOT consider SBR's, otherwise they are disenfranchising the disabled shooters for whom the braces were originally designed.

I would suggest right now there are no commercially produced braced pistols devices with positive current determination. I would expect that if a manufacturer had a product which did meet the criteria they would be shouting from the hilltops, "this one is approved!"
Whenever the legal challenges play out someone likely will come up with an item truly intended solely for disabled users. It was fairly obvious the marketing of the past decade was not directly primarily to disabled users.

 

[JohnKSa]

But they don't show what a legally braced pistol looks like.

Laws are generally designed to describe and illustrate that which is illegal/regulated. They do not, in general describe and illustrate that which is legal/unregulated--rather, that which is not regulated/illegal is automatically unregulated/legal. There is no implied responsibility for a law/regulation to provide examples of legality nor is the absence of such examples an indictment of a law/regulation.

And the angle of the bore relative to the grip does not change by putting a brace on the pistol. So it's still a pistol.

1. How is the angle of the bore relative to the grip different in an AR-15 rifle vs. an AR-15 pistol?
2. Given the answer to #1, explain how the angle of the bore relative to the grip is useful in definitively differentiating between rifles and pistols.
3. Using the definition of "stock" in federal law (U.S.C.) show how a stabilizing brace attached to the back of a firearm that allows it to be fired from the shoulder differs from a "stock".
4. Using the definitions of "stock", "rifle" and "pistol" in federal law (U.S.C.) demonstrate whether one or both of the two types of firearms is, by definition, equipped with a "stock".

 

[dogtown tom]

They go through this whole spiel about braces per se are not illegal.

Absolutely false. ATF has consistently stated they do not determine whether accessories are legal/illegal, only firearms.
You know this as its been repeated dozens of times.

But they don't show what a legally braced pistol looks like.

Again, they don't need to. They describe what requires NFA registration. If you have something that you want a determination on you send it in.

And the angle of the bore relative to the grip does not change by putting a brace on the pistol. So it's still a pistol.

Literally never the definition of a pistol.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Laws are generally designed to describe and illustrate that which is illegal/regulated. They do not, in general describe and illustrate that which is legal/unregulated--rather, that which is not regulated/illegal is automatically unregulated/legal. There is no implied responsibility for a law/regulation to provide examples of legality nor is the absence of such examples an indictment of a law/regulation.1. How is the angle of the bore relative to the grip different in an AR-15 rifle vs. an AR-15 pistol?
2. Given the answer to #1, explain how the angle of the bore relative to the grip is useful in definitively differentiating between rifles and pistols.
3. Using the definition of "stock" in federal law (U.S.C.) show how a stabilizing brace attached to the back of a firearm that allows it to be fired from the shoulder differs from a "stock".
4. Using the definitions of "stock", "rifle" and "pistol" in federal law (U.S.C.) demonstrate whether one or both of the two types of firearms is, by definition, equipped with a "stock".

When I originally raised this point I stated that it was made in one of the new lawsuits, that I didn't remember which one or the exact details, and that I couldn't find the definitions online. So you can go read the lawsuits to find it and then if you think it's misstated there, attack the law firm.

 

[F-111 John]

From the ATF website https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firear...on-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-pistol

Firearms - Guides - Importation & Verification of Firearms - Gun Control Act Definition - Pistol

18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11

The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:

• a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);
  
  
• and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
  

 

[12Bravo20]

The grip (stock) of a pistol can be at any angle as long as it is designed to be used with one hand and extends below the line of bore (barrel).

The ATF said themselves that they are not regulating accessories such as an arm brace. They are regulating how accessories are used on a firearm.

It was a few years ago that the ATF stopped issuing determination letters for accessories unless said accessories are attached to a firearm and the entire firearm is submitted to the ATF.

The ATF has been requesting photos of firearms for a while when needed for NFA items. All they want to see is the manufacturer's name, address, caliber marked and serial number. They are not requiring a photo of the entire firearm.

The ATF has required all records be sent to them when a FFL closes and gives up their license since the passage of the 1968 GCA. Up until a few years ago, a FFL could destroy any records that were 20 years old or older. Now all records must be sent in regardless of age.

It was fun sending years worth of 4473s along with multiple A&D books in when I gave up my FFL. I had quite a lot of 4473 since I was a Pawn Broker and would have customers pawn the same firearms multiple times per year. And depending on the customer/situation, I would have them fill out a 4473 and run the NICS check when pawning a firearm. And of course all that had to be done again if/when they got their firearm out of pawn.

 

[dogtown tom]

The ATF has required all records be sent to them when a FFL closes and gives up their license since the passage of the 1968 GCA. Up until a few years ago, a FFL could destroy any records that were 20 years old or older. Now all records must be sent in regardless of age.

Yep
Rule 2021R-05F, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/definition-frame-or-receiver had this buried in it:

J. Record Retention
Given advancements in electronic scanning and storage technology, ATF's acceptance of electronic recordkeeping, the reduced costs of storing firearm transaction records, the increased durability and longevity of firearms, and the public safety benefits of ensuring that records of active licensees are available for tracing purposes, the Department proposed to amend 27 CFR 478.129 to require FFLs to retain all records until business or licensed activity is discontinued, either on paper or in an electronic format approved by the Director,[61]

at the business or collection premises readily accessible for inspection. Also, a proposed amendment to 27 CFR 478.50(a) would allow all FFLs, including manufacturers and importers, to store paper records and forms older than 20 years at a separate warehouse, which would be considered part of the business premises for this purpose and subject to inspection. These amendments would reverse a 1985 rulemaking allowing non-manufacturer/importer FFLs to destroy their records after 20 years.[62]

A little more than a year ago, I mentioned to my IOI that I was going to drop my 01FFL and get an 07FFL. She said to do it fast as this rule would have required me to keep all my old 4473's.

It was fun sending years worth of 4473s along with multiple A&D books in when I gave up my FFL.

I had two, five drawer lateral file cabinets jammed packed with forms. It took eighteen cardboard bankers boxes for the 4473's and one box for the bound books. It filled her little mini van.

 

[JohnKSa]

When I originally raised this point I stated that it was made in one of the new lawsuits, that I didn't remember which one or the exact details, and that I couldn't find the definitions online. So you can go read the lawsuits to find it and then if you think it's misstated there, attack the law firm.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The fact that someone raised the issue in their lawsuit doesn't mean it has legal merit. That remains to be determined in court.

I'm not attacking anyone by pointing out the general philosophy of criminal law--it's just a general observation about how the law works.

By the way, the questions I raised are interesting, and doing the work to answer them will be very enlightening.

 

[SharpDog]

 

[old lady new shooter]

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The fact that someone raised the issue in their lawsuit doesn't mean it has legal merit. That remains to be determined in court.

I'm not attacking anyone by pointing out the general philosophy of criminal law--it's just a general observation about how the law works.

By the way, the questions I raised are interesting, and doing the work to answer them will be very enlightening.

Great, looking forward to seeing what you find out.

 

[JohnKSa]

Great, looking forward to seeing what you find out.

I've already done the work, that's how I picked appropriate questions and how I know that the process of discovering the answers is enlightening.

If you just want simple answers, they are provided below, but you'll be cheating yourself if you just take that route. Not only do people learn better if they work through something on their own, there's also a lot of knowledge that will be accumulated in the process of going through the laws to find the answers that won't be gained from reading simple answers.

1. How is the angle of the bore relative to the grip different in an AR-15 rifle vs. an AR-15 pistol?
There is no difference.

2. Given the answer to #1, explain how the angle of the bore relative to the grip is useful in definitively differentiating between rifles and pistols.
It is not useful at all.

3. Using the definition of "stock" in federal law (U.S.C.) show how a stabilizing brace attached to the back of a firearm that allows it to be fired from the shoulder differs from a "stock".
There is no definition of "stock" in federal law and therefore no definitive method provided in federal law for distinguishing a conventional rifle stock from a stabilizing brace that attaches to the back of a firearm and allows it to be fired from the shoulder.

4. Using the definitions of "stock", "rifle" and "pistol" in federal law (U.S.C.) demonstrate whether one or both of the two types of firearms is, by definition, equipped with a "stock".
As already mentioned, there is no definition of "stock" in federal law.
Pistols are said to have stocks that extend below, and at an angle to the line of the bore. So, pistols are, by definition, equipped with a stock.
There is no mention of the word "stock" in the definition for a rifle. There is nothing in federal law that requires a rifle to be equipped with a stock.

 

[SharpDog]

 

[old lady new shooter]

The amended complaint of the SAF was filed on February 17th. You can see it at https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Doc.-50-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf.

They cite the existing statutory definitions of rifle and pistol in the Facts section.

 

[SharpDog]

 

[old lady new shooter]

The amended complaint of the SAF was filed on February 17th. You can see it at https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Doc.-50-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf.

They cite the existing statutory definitions of rifle and pistol in the Facts section.

Here ArmedScholar (a licensed practicing attorney specializing in gun rights) discusses the SAF's amended complaint. He cites several points they bring:
1. The rule contradicts the statutory definitions of "rifle" and "pistol".
2. Chevron deference does not apply when violation of a proposed rule is proposed to be a criminal act; in such a case the rule of lenity has to apply. The rule of lenity states that where there is a choice of interpretation and one choice involves criminal penalties, the interpretation favorable to the people must be used. If this rule were to be enabled, millions of people would suddenly be deemed felons for owning tools that were legal when purchased.
3. The rule does not consider the data and factors laid out in the Bruen decision, i.e. whether the rule reflects the history and tradition of firearms regulation in the US at the time the Second Amendment was written.
4. The rule violates the principle set forth in Heller that firearms in common use may not be banned.
I summarized this as best I could but if you disagree with any of the above please watch the video and compare it to the text of the amended complaint which I previously posted, IOW feel free to restate anything in the complaint you think I didn't accurately report, but don't shoot the messenger.