giggitygiggity
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,251
The ATF is expected to release the final rule on braces, possibly as early as April 2022 according to some sources. Essentially, the rule applies a subjective, arbitrary, and capricious standard to braces firearms. Essentially, the combination of certain features of the firearm and brace may mean that the braced firearm is an SBR in the ATF’s eyes.
Many firearms are sold with braces included, the most popular appearing to be the SB Tactical SBA3. Under the expected final rule, there are few, if any, configurations that will not be considered SBRs if using the SBA3 and other popular braces.
I am curious if gun manufacturers and/or retailers will use the brace rule as an opportunity to make more profit. Specifically, if Manufacturer ABC previously offered their AR pistol with brace for $850 and the new rule results in Manufacturer ABC having to either sell it as an SBR or remove the brace, will Manufacturer ABC remove the brace and continue to sell the firearm for $850 or will Manufacturer ABC do the right thing and sell it for $850 minus the cost of the brace?
I am bringing this up because if any firearm manufacturers/retailers see this thread, please realize that customers like me will watch to see how you respond.
The bottom line is that the good companies will refrain from charging the braced-configuration price for a firearm that does not contain a brace after the final rule, provided no other features change.
Ideally, more people will do what I did and write a pointed email to their reps in Congress and the Senate to explain the ATF’s overreaches including the brace rule, frames/receivers rule, illegitimate prosecutions, ridiculous Valentine’s Day tweet, and demand that Congress and the Senate reign in the ATF. When an anti-2A politician replies that they think the ATF should have wide latitude, I then ask if they will maintain that same stance if a pro-gun President is elected and directs the ATF to make rules beneficial to gun owners.
Many firearms are sold with braces included, the most popular appearing to be the SB Tactical SBA3. Under the expected final rule, there are few, if any, configurations that will not be considered SBRs if using the SBA3 and other popular braces.
I am curious if gun manufacturers and/or retailers will use the brace rule as an opportunity to make more profit. Specifically, if Manufacturer ABC previously offered their AR pistol with brace for $850 and the new rule results in Manufacturer ABC having to either sell it as an SBR or remove the brace, will Manufacturer ABC remove the brace and continue to sell the firearm for $850 or will Manufacturer ABC do the right thing and sell it for $850 minus the cost of the brace?
I am bringing this up because if any firearm manufacturers/retailers see this thread, please realize that customers like me will watch to see how you respond.
The bottom line is that the good companies will refrain from charging the braced-configuration price for a firearm that does not contain a brace after the final rule, provided no other features change.
Ideally, more people will do what I did and write a pointed email to their reps in Congress and the Senate to explain the ATF’s overreaches including the brace rule, frames/receivers rule, illegitimate prosecutions, ridiculous Valentine’s Day tweet, and demand that Congress and the Senate reign in the ATF. When an anti-2A politician replies that they think the ATF should have wide latitude, I then ask if they will maintain that same stance if a pro-gun President is elected and directs the ATF to make rules beneficial to gun owners.