FL Congressman says ATF planning to ban pistol braces

[mdauben]

So we're talking about 700K out of 3,000000. That's 23% What model owns 23% of the arm brace market?!

No one is suggesting any manufacturer owns 23% of the market. It was just a "what if" remark for the sake of discussion.

 

[psyopspec]

Join the NRA.

A cursory search didn't turn up any evidence that they're pushing back on the matter, and I'm not interested in expanding WLP's suit collection. I'm not sure what the NRA is about these days, but fighting gun control doesn't appear to be it.

 

[psyopspec]

Because it is a sham. If not for the NFA nobody would use them.

Rather than pushing hard for changing the rules for SBRs, people were lazy and half-assed a workaround. Now that the lazy loophole is potentially going away, people are suddenly realizing that their half-assed solution wasn't so great.

It has nothing to do with being our own worst enemy. It had to do with people falling in love with a half-assed idea and getting bit by it.

Why does it have to be mutually exclusive? For decades I've donated, written letters, and even asked WLP to his face during a Q&A to repeal the NFA.

But because there's an AR pistol in my safe with a brace, I'm just a lazy exploiter of a loophole. What sense does that make?

 

[LiveLife]

Wait a minute everyone ...

Why are members of gun forum pointing out ways a gun accessory should be banned? We should be focusing on reasons why a gun accessory should remain as it benefits all gun owners regardless whether they have one arm or two arms, injury/weakness of arms, medical condition/arthritis, etc.

I believe the "stabilizing brace" was originally meant for gun owners who may have temporary/permanent conditions that would be helped by reasons I listed above including many of us who presently have or will have in the future. And perhaps this was why after ATF ruled in 2015 that shouldering of "stabilizing brace" was not permitted, maybe some pointed out gun owners with physical limitations should have the option to use the "stabilizing brace" one hand, two hand, or even shouldered to have ATF change their ruling in 2017.

If they make braces illegal, then people who use them to shoot one-handed can't have them either, how fair is that? There have to be a lot of veterans in that group, who gave an arm for our country and have the brace in order to still be able to shoot with the other arm.

How many of us broken bones that needed to be casted?

Let's say you injured your shooting hand/arm. Well, that doesn't mean the criminals will give you a pass and not rob you until you are healed and can shoot with your strong hand/arm. While you recover, I bet the "stabilizing brace" will certainly come in handy when shooting with your weak hand, particularly for home/self defense. And what if the injury becomes permanent?

Many gun owners have visual issues that require the aid of glasses/bifocals/progressives which may be temporary/permanent and use red dot/scopes to help us enjoy our hobby of shooting. I see "stabilizing brace" in the same light. And for those who will be negatively affected by loud indoor gunshot (Which is everyone according to OSHA) and/or cannot actuate the trigger quickly against violent/multiple home intruders/robbers/murderers/rapists, use of sound suppressors and binary triggers should be considered in same light to benefit the home owners/defenders.

So, let's shift our focus of discussion to why the "stabilizing brace" is beneficial to gun owners and why ATF should maintain current ruling.

And if a particular manufacturer was found to have not met the "spirit" of the "stabilizing brace", to me the worst case scenario is a product recall with product revision/update with replacement offered to the customers ... not talk of ban of gun accessory beneficial to gun owners.

As the Supreme Court ruled in Heller case and voiced by many judges and justices in subsequent newer cases that modern gun accessories as product of technological advancement should be protected under the Second Amendment just like First Amendment protecting modern means of free speech like email, text, online forum posts, etc.

Let's all get on the same page to protect our Second Amendment instead of helping the antis take away our modern "arms". And yes, increasing number of judges and justices have called one modern class of gun accessory, the ammunition storage device AKA magazines, "arms" protected under the Second Amendment - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/‘take-weapons-of-war-off-our-street’.858098/page-4#post-11275211

So what will disabled persons and those with physical weakness use to stabilize their shooting arm?

What is a home owner, perhaps a veteran, with one arm to do for home defense or recreation? I could see ADA being a factor on this one.

"My bet is ATF banning stabilizing brace is DOA, but it sure will fire up the AR-style "pistol" owners.

From Sig Sauer - https://www.sigsauer.com/store/sb15-pistol-stabilizing-brace.html

"The SB15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace is a shooter's aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.

... This veteran-designed and U.S.-manufactured accessory enhances accuracy and reduces felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

... The Pistol Stabilizing Brace uses the operator's forearm to provide stable support, thereby minimizing accuracy-robbing spin and shift. A flexible cuff with two adjustable nylon straps allows the SB15 to be custom fit to any user.

* ATF has reviewed this product and determined that attaching the SB15 to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control."​

 

[Ed Ames]

The effect of all this would be to make pistol braces just as useless and illegal as bump stocks.

That depends on how it is done. Another alternative would be for them to say “if it’s possible to shoulder a firearm in any way, it’s a rifle not a handgun”, in which case everyone with a short barrel AR upper, who didn’t already have an SBR AR, would be in constructive possession of an illegal SBR as soon as that went into effect. Millions of people would need to figure out how to remove the receiver extension from their AR pistol to avoid being a felon.

 

[LiveLife]

Once again, ATF has ruled in 2017 that shouldering a "pistol stabilizing brace" does not make it a SBR and that ruling has not changed.

Why are we arguing against ATF ruling that benefits all gun owners whether disabled or missing an arm or have physical weakness, etc. (Believe me, in time, as we age, we will all experience reduction of muscle strength in our shooting hands/arms ... I promise).

ATF Clarifies Ruling on Pistol Stabilizing Braces - https://www.sigsauer.com/press-releases/atf-clarifies-ruling-pistol-stabilizing-braces/

Published Date: 04/25/2017

SIG SAUER, Inc. announced news of a welcomed clarification from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on pistol stabilizing braces (PSB). The ATF’s refined position is that placing a PSB against the shoulder does not, in and of itself, necessarily alter the classification from pistol to short-barreled rifle (SBR).

In a letter dated March 21, 2017, ATF reexamines its earlier position, which stated that shouldering a PSB-equipped firearm could constitute the making of an unregistered short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act (NFA). ATF now states:

With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not ‘make’ a short-barreled firearm because … it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder.” The letter continues: “Therefore, an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock — even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder.”

The following passage from the letter acknowledges the confusion surrounding the January 2015 “Open Letter on the Redesign of ‘Stabilizing Braces’”, and clarifies that ATF does not consider shouldering a PSB-equipped firearm, in and of itself, to render it an SBR.

“To the extent the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational ‘use’ of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute a ‘redesign,’ such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.”​

 

[Demi-human]

The effect of all this would be to

..cause the most amount of pain to the gun owners, without causing an actual pushback for our eroding rights.
After all, we are the minority. And one that doesn’t riot.

What model owns 23% of the arm brace market?

The Shockwave. Most rigid and stock like, that is most prolific, as it’s the cheapest.

 

[HB]

Why are members of gun forum pointing out ways a gun accessory should be banned?

Literally 0 commenters on this thread have said it should be banned.

I have never seen a brace being used one handed. I own a bladetec... if it was it was supposed to be used as a brace it was poorly designed. It is similar to a thin stock.

It’s like a bong store’s sign “FOR NOVELTY USE ONLY”. I don’t think anybody is smoking tobacco from them. And like the brace, just a symptom of govt overreach. The brace work around should have never existed.

 

[Elkins45]

No one is suggesting any manufacturer owns 23% of the market. It was just a "what if" remark for the sake of discussion.

If you read the text of the Congressman’s letter that sure seems like exactly what he is saying.

 

[LiveLife]

Literally 0 commenters on this thread have said it should be banned.

Perhaps I should have been more eloquent with my words but you post this

The brace work around should have never existed.

So gun owners with one arm, disabled with medical conditions, elderly with weakness/arthritis, etc. should not be afforded gun accessory option to help them better defend themselves?

There are many gun owners who benefit from the use of "pistol stabilizing brace" and our discussion focus should be that.

 

[Ed Ames]

There are many gun owners who benefit from the use of "pistol stabilizing brace" and our discussion focus should be that.

It is also important to understand the potential threats, so we don’t counter the wrong thing.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Ban pistol braces? They won't have to ban pistol braces when they pass AWB2. You know it's coming. Too many yeahs and not enough nays to stop it. I'm surprised the ATF hasn't already changed their minds about braces. The only thing keeping them from doing it is a phone call.

 

[LiveLife]

I'm surprised the ATF hasn't already changed their minds about braces. The only thing keeping them from doing it is a phone call.

They already did in 2017 to allow shouldering ... And it probably took a phone call from the White House.

They won't have to ban pistol braces when they pass AWB2. You know it's coming. Too many yeahs and not enough nays to stop it.

Vote people.

And talk to everyone you can, especially new younger gun owners who never owned guns before.

The way the Supreme Court has been ruling recently, 2020 may be our last chance "D-Day" to secure the future of SCOTUS to rule in favor of 2A. IMO, if we can't sway SCOTUS to pro-2A, we can kiss our 2A goodbye with all the anti-gun laws many states are passing to be challenged in courts.

 

[HB]

So gun owners with one arm, disabled with medical conditions, elderly with weakness/arthritis, etc. should not be afforded gun accessory option to help them better defend themselves?

I’ve seen one armed dove hunters and 3D archers shoot with their teeth. Its not like the sig brace was the next dialysis machine.

The brace issue is not about disabled people. Its is about circumventing the NFA. I do not agree with the NFA or its enforcement. However, I can see why the ATF might feel a bit foolish.

 

[Walkalong]

Once again, ATF has ruled in 2017 that shouldering a "pistol stabilizing brace" does not make it a SBR and that ruling has not changed.

Which makes sense, all you did was shoulder a pistol.

 

[AlexanderA]

It's an old British legal tradition to come up with "fictions" or "workarounds" instead of actually amending laws when they need to be updated. (For example, that's how they got "equity" versus "law," with parallel court systems.) In America, by contrast, the idea was that laws should be explicit, written, and codified rather than "notional." That's why we have a written constitution rather than a British-style unwritten one.

That's my basic objection to "fictions" such as "pistol braces" and, indeed, the very notion that an AR can be a "pistol." Once we go down that rabbit hole, everything becomes subject to arbitrary and capricious interpretation, which is exactly what we've seen in the ATF's shifting positions. This is the sort of stuff that makes the funny pages, and holds the whole system up to well-deserved ridicule and contempt.

 

[.38 Special]

To all declaring braces are work arounds and act shocked the BATF handled the classification thereof by easing up on draconian enforcement, the commissars have you well trained.

There really is no call to be quite so obnoxious. I doubt anybody here is against pistol braces. Frankly, I doubt anyone here believes short barrel rifles should be treated any differently than other rifles. The issue is simply that pistol braces are obviously meant to be used as shoulder stocks, so it is surprising that ATFE ever allowed them. I honestly don't understand why that is a controversial opinion, let alone one that causes people to treat fellow gun owners as the "enemy".

 

[LiveLife]

In 20-40 years, most of us will be needing "pistol stabilizing braces" and other braces, canes, walkers, etc. to help us ...

Time does not discriminate and we all get old, weak and suffer from medical conditions.

the very notion that an AR can be a "pistol."

ARs are chambered in more than typical .223/5.56.

When/if I start getting shaky hands, I hope technological advancement will include "shaky pistol stabilizing brace" so I can continue enjoying my 9mm/40S&W/45ACP AR based pistols.

 

[MistWolf]

Why is the notion an AR can be a pistol a fiction?

 

[.38 Special]

Perhaps I should have been more eloquent with my words but you post this

"The brace work around should have never existed."

So gun owners with one arm, disabled with medical conditions, elderly with weakness/arthritis, etc. should not be afforded gun accessory option to help them better defend themselves?

There are many gun owners who benefit from the use of "pistol stabilizing brace" and our discussion focus should be that.

It seems painfully obvious that when HB wrote that the brace work around should have never have existed, he meant that it should not have had to, because SBRs should not be illegal in first place.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but it seems to me that a few of you are too eager for a fight with people who are already on your team.

 

[HB]

In 20-40 years, most of us will be needing "pistol stabilizing braces" and other braces

I typically brace my AR pistol against my shoulder. My deer rifle’s action is braced against my should too but its different because that one is wood and called a stock. But my AR pistol doesn’t have a stock because its called a brace. And the only reason I can’t call it a stock is because the ATF likes it when I call it a brace but doesn’t like it when I call it a poorly designed little stock.

 

[LiveLife]

Why is the notion an AR can be a pistol a fiction?

Yes, why? To me, as long as the firearm meets the criteria set, it is a qualifying pistol - https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-gun-control-act-definition-pistol#:~:text=The term “Pistol” means a,with, the bore(s);

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).

If AR based firearm, or any other firearm, meets the GCA/CFR criteria for pistol, it is a pistol. And as many justices and judges ruled and opined already, modern types and forms of firearm with technological advancements that did not exist at the time of writing of the US Constitution are still protected under the Second Amendment as they are "arms", to include ammunition storage devices we call magazines.

American Sign Language did not exist at the time of writing of the US Constitution but it is still is a modern form of speech and protected under the First Amendment.

 

[jmorris]

Types and accessories should NOT MATTER as long as you're using it for lawful purposes. They don't put governors on cars to prohibit speeding...you break the limit, you get punished. People would not tolerate these prohibitive laws in any other aspects of their life.

I agree, if as many people owned machine guns as automobiles, the registry wouldn’t have been shut down in ‘86.

The reality is the numbers of owners are very small and other folks that should support them are happy to throw them under the bus, like the bumpstocks.

The only tiny groups that get a lot of support are on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Maybe they should all be made in rainbow colors and only marketed to the LGBT crown, they would be safe then.

 

[Ed Ames]

...indeed, the very notion that an AR can be a "pistol."

What about it is inherently unlike a pistol?

There have been pistols with similar magazine arrangements e.g. the broomhandle Mauser. There have been large heavy pistols e.g. the Walker Colt. There have been high power bottle neck cartridge pistols e.g Remington XP-100. These are examples that go back 60+ years so not new ideas at all. The AR pistol has properties of all of those other pistols. How does the combination of pistol features add up to something that isn’t a pistol?

 

[rust collector]

Not every pistol fits the same mold. Here's a 19th century model: