Op-Ed on ATF Pistol Brace ruling.

[Elkins45]

, how do they bring cases against the remaining 95% of people who don't comply.


One by one?

That’s how they’ve brought every case for every gun law violation since they were created. How would this be any different? What other way is there?

 

[SharpDog]

 

[SharpDog]

Maybe so but tens of thousands in 1934 compared to tens of millions present day? I would have to think the logistics of enforcement and compliance is something that concerns them at least a lil bit.... but maybe not, I think thousands vs millions is quite the gulf and if there are millions of these guns in circulation and 2.5% register them and 2.5% bring them into compliance, how do they bring cases against the remaining 95% of people who don't comply.


One by one?

The ATF has a massively increased budget for confiscation action in 2023 as well as a new fund to compensate agents' families if they are killed in the line of duty.

 

[JohnKSa]

What was proposed was a 14% increase overall to the BATF budget (still probably not what most would call massive) but the final bill gave them an 11.5% bump which works out to a 5% effective increase after inflation.

None of that funding was earmarked for firearm confiscation--the closest that anything came to that would be the increase in funding for Byrne-Justice Assistance Grants designed to fund states with respect to a number of issues related to firearms enforcement. Potentially some of that could be used to encourage the passage of red-flag laws at the state level.

The appropriation for humanitarian expenses for agents' families was not just for agents killed in the line of duty, it also covers serious injury or illness. It was also not just for BATF agents, it was also for FBI, DEA, IMS, the Federal Prison System, the and the United States Marshals Service.

Where did you get your information?

 

[Choctaw]

ATF routinely asks for photos of markings and has for years.
Mostly because people don't read directions, follow instructions or generally have a clue as to what they are doing.

I'm aware.

 

[dogtown tom]

Maybe so but tens of thousands in 1934 compared to tens of millions present day? I would have to think the logistics of enforcement and compliance is something that concerns them at least a lil bit.... but maybe not, I think thousands vs millions is quite the gulf and if there are millions of these guns in circulation and 2.5% register them and 2.5% bring them into compliance, how do they bring cases against the remaining 95% of people who don't comply.


One by one?

Same sized pond, more fish.
ATF doesn't have to worry about tens of millions, just the ones they choose to arrest.
If ATF and the USAO were to only arrest and prosecute a dozen violators it doesn't mean they are ignoring the other ten million.

They go after the low hanging fruit, like Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler.

 

[Elkins45]

They go after the low hanging fruit, like Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler.

Sometimes the fruit picks itself.

 

[12Bravo20]

Sometimes the fruit picks itself.

Especially when you poke the bear as hard as those guys did with the auto key cards. Or those selling catch cans that only needed holes drilled to be a functional suppressor.

 

[wally]

Compliance with the NFA remained essentially unchanged since 1934.

It was only about 10 years ago when someone got “clever.” and created a mess. Pistol braces were a recently-invented loophole for everyone except maybe the 0.01% of users who actually only had one arm.

I take issue with it being a "loophole". It was invented by/for a disabled veteran and when approved the design was picked up by a major gun maker (SIG). Other makers followed and got approval for "improved" models. Like wheelchair accessible ramps they proved to be useful to the general public as well. I hope the ADA aspects of the device is part of the lawsuits against the ruling.

At the end of the day if the ATF can say what was a pistol for 10+ years is now a rifle because of the way might now hold it, what gives them any authority over how we choose hold our guns? If this and the bump stock ruling stands what stops them from declaring that every semi-auto firearm is now a machine gun because every semi auto can be "bump fired" with a sloppy enough grip.

 

[BreechFace]

I take issue with it being a "loophole". It was invented by/for a disabled veteran and when approved the design was picked up by a major gun maker (SIG). Other makers followed and got approval for "improved" models. Like wheelchair accessible ramps they proved to be useful to the general public as well. I hope the ADA aspects of the device is part of the lawsuits against the ruling.

The SBR verbiage needs at the very least be redefined. A 10" AR whether folding stock or not is not very concealable. And short barreled AR's be it pistols or SBR's are very handy for weaker adults, or kids to defend themselves. Yes, I said kids, in a world of responsible gun families, children can be trusted and counted on to help defend a home. There are quite a few incidents that don't get covered by mainstream news of under 18 children stopping home invasions and several with AR15's.

But because the federal government and ATF got their ONE case of a person using a "pistol AR" they can now call it a pandemic.

At the end of the day if the ATF can say what was a pistol for 10+ years is now a rifle because of the way might now hold it, what gives them any authority over how we choose hold our guns? If this and the bump stock ruling stands what stops them from declaring that every semi-auto firearm is now a machine gun because every semi auto can be "bump fired" with a sloppy enough grip.

Hey now, I've been told for quite some time that one cannot use the "slippery slope" argument, of course that was when I was at the top of the slope before we started sliding down.

 

[Styx]

This has been debated ad nauseam already. One camp thinks the ATF is overreaching by creating law, and the other side thinks bump stocks and braces were always NFA items. The latter doesn't care about the text of the law just like the antis do not.

The antis believe private sales is a loophole, and gun owners, many of which are on this board, believes bump stocks and braces are loopholes. Everyone agrees that only Congress or state legislators can change the NICS laws to include the "loophole" private sales; however, we have some who hypocritically believes the ATF has the power to change NFA laws on their own without going through the legislative process to close the bump stocks and braces "loophole" ... Make it make sense!!

Here's how I can destroy the argument made by several members in this post... How can you claim it's a loophole, and then in the very same breath say the ATF shouldn't have had ever approved it? That's a contradiction within itself because to concede that they are loophole in the first place means you're admitting to the fact that they ARE legal!

It all boils down to the same usually older revolver, hunting rifle, and traditional rifles senior citizens who aren't interested in owning AR pistols, bump stocks, etc agreeing with something shouldn't be allowed, not because it breaks the plain text of the law, but because it's a loophole they're not interested in participating. You know, similar logic anties use for wanting to ban everything.

 

[Styx]

It's not a stock. It's an arm brace. Per the text of the law, they are legally NOT a SBR. How you use something does change what it is. The government bans hammer. In the definition of the hammer ban, it says "designed or redesigned to drive in nails." If I "circumvent the law" by using a rock to drive in nails, the rocket doesn't morph into being the legal definition of a hammer, and I am still NOT in violation of the law. They will have to amend the law to encompass rocks (or the act of driving in a nail) if they want them to be covered by the hammer ban law.

The ATF is writing law for the political purposes. The Biden administration told to ban braces, and they choose to follow orders. Some people foolishly believe violating the "spirit" of a law is the equivalent to violating the text of the law. It is not. Seem that the plain text of the law and words have no meaning anymore. It's "spirit" and "feelings" that take precedent. They are de facto creating new law when they clearly are interpreting the text of the law to mean something it doesn't say. If the law says knife with a 3" blade or less is legal, and an unelected state agency unilaterally interpret and deicides that a knife with a 3.000000000000001" blade should also be covered by the original law, then they de facto changed or rewritten the law. The original law now means something other than what it states.

Rifle: "The term 'rifle' means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through."

A pistol brace wasn't designed, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder by the manufacturer. How the end user deicides to use it isn't addressed in current law therefore whatever isn't explicitly illegal is legal by default. Pistol braces are CLEARLY legal per text of the law. Again, there is nothing in the text of the Federal NFA law that has the word "misuse" in it with regards to defining what a rifle is. That is, it's perfectly LEGAL for the end user to misuse, "skirt the law," or use a "loophole" by shouldering a pistol with a brace on it as braces were NOT designed, made/manufactured, and intended to be used as a stock! This is just plan logic and common-sense IMHO.

I'm surprised by how many gun owners on this forum are using illogical antigun rhetoric and reasonings to support the idea that the ATF is right, bump stocks and braces should have never been approved, and/or they are NFA items...

 

[12Bravo20]

It's not a stock. It's an arm brace. Per the text of the law, they are legally NOT a SBR. How you use something does change what it is. The government bans hammer. In the definition of the hammer ban, it says "designed or redesigned to drive in nails." If I "circumvent the law" by using a rock to drive in nails, the rocket doesn't morph into being the legal definition of a hammer, and I am still NOT in violation of the law. They will have to amend the law to encompass rocks (or the act of driving in a nail) if they want them to be covered by the hammer ban law.

The ATF is writing law for the political purposes. The Biden administration told to ban braces, and they choose to follow orders. Some people foolishly believe violating the "spirit" of a law is the equivalent to violating the text of the law. It is not. Seem that the plain text of the law and words have no meaning anymore. It's "spirit" and "feelings" that take precedent. They are de facto creating new law when they clearly are interpreting the text of the law to mean something it doesn't say. If the law says knife with a 3" blade or less is legal, and an unelected state agency unilaterally interpret and deicides that a knife with a 3.000000000000001" blade should also be covered by the original law, then they de facto changed or rewritten the law. The original law now means something other than what it states.



A pistol brace wasn't designed, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder by the manufacturer. How the end user deicides to use it isn't addressed in current law therefore whatever isn't explicitly illegal is legal by default. Pistol braces are CLEARLY legal per text of the law. Again, there is nothing in the text of the Federal NFA law that has the word "misuse" in it with regards to defining what a rifle is. That is, it's perfectly LEGAL for the end user to misuse, "skirt the law," or use a "loophole" by shouldering a pistol with a brace on it as braces were NOT designed, made/manufactured, and intended to be used as a stock! This is just plan logic and common-sense IMHO.

I'm surprised by how many gun owners on this forum are using illogical antigun rhetoric and reasonings to support the idea that the ATF is right, bump stocks and braces should have never been approved, and/or they are NFA items...

Part of the problem was manufacturers making statements in their advertisement and in videos on how their braces were a work around for SBRs and the NFA. SB Tactical was one of the companies doing this. This along with all of the Youtube videos showing people shouldering braced pistols was used by the ATF in the final rule.

 

[Elkins45]

I take issue with it being a "loophole". It was invented by/for a disabled veteran and when approved the design was picked up by a major gun maker (SIG). Other makers followed and got approval for "improved" models. Like wheelchair accessible ramps they proved to be useful to the general public as well. I hope the ADA aspects of the device is part of the lawsuits against the ruling.

The practical definition of a loophole is “it’s legal but I don’t like it.” The original arm brace was legal, but once people started making things that were clearly intended to function as a stock ATF started to “don’t like it”…and yet they still didn’t do anything about it until Biden made them.

A pistol brace wasn't designed, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder by the manufacturer. How the end user deicides to use it isn't addressed in current law therefore whatever isn't explicitly illegal is legal by default.he idea that the ATF is right, bump stocks and braces should have never been approved, and/or they are NFA items...

Can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me this thing isn’t a stock? This wasn’t designed to be an arm brace, it was designed to pretend to be an arm brace. Why would an arm brace ever need a 13” adjustable LOP? I bought one precisely for that reason. I kept expecting ATF to pull the rug out but after a few years they didn’t so I rolled the dice. I lost. I’m not angry nor am I surprised. The only surprises to me are (1) it lasted as long as it did and (2) they gave us an option to Form 1 them. I expected them to just order everyone to saw them into pieces like they did with bump stocks.

 

[Styx]

Part of the problem was manufacturers making statements in their advertisement and in videos on how their braces were a work around for SBRs and the NFA. SB Tactical was one of the companies doing this. This along with all of the Youtube videos showing people shouldering braced pistols was used by the ATF in the final rule.

How are people who shouldered braces on YouTube a problem when what they were doing was perfectly legal? Some braces are designed to be strapped to the arm, and others are designed to be a "stabilizer" aka make the pistol more stable when firing with one hand via the brace resting against the forearm. The most important fact that of the matter is non of these braces were designed, redesigned, or made to rest against the shoulder by the manufacturer! We all know it's a work around for around for SBR and the NFA laws, but it's still legal. If it were illegal, then you would consider it a "workaround." The fact that people freely admit to using a "workaround" on tax codes, construction codes, or even background checks (via private sales) doesn't make them guilty of a braking the law they're bypassing.

 

[BreechFace]

It's not a stock. It's an arm brace. Per the text of the law, they are legally NOT a SBR. How you use something does change what it is. The government bans hammer. In the definition of the hammer ban, it says "designed or redesigned to drive in nails." If I "circumvent the law" by using a rock to drive in nails, the rocket doesn't morph into being the legal definition of a hammer, and I am still NOT in violation of the law. They will have to amend the law to encompass rocks (or the act of driving in a nail) if they want them to be covered by the hammer ban law.

The ATF is writing law for the political purposes. The Biden administration told to ban braces, and they choose to follow orders. Some people foolishly believe violating the "spirit" of a law is the equivalent to violating the text of the law. It is not. Seem that the plain text of the law and words have no meaning anymore. It's "spirit" and "feelings" that take precedent. They are de facto creating new law when they clearly are interpreting the text of the law to mean something it doesn't say. If the law says knife with a 3" blade or less is legal, and an unelected state agency unilaterally interpret and deicides that a knife with a 3.000000000000001" blade should also be covered by the original law, then they de facto changed or rewritten the law. The original law now means something other than what it states.



A pistol brace wasn't designed, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder by the manufacturer. How the end user deicides to use it isn't addressed in current law therefore whatever isn't explicitly illegal is legal by default. Pistol braces are CLEARLY legal per text of the law. Again, there is nothing in the text of the Federal NFA law that has the word "misuse" in it with regards to defining what a rifle is. That is, it's perfectly LEGAL for the end user to misuse, "skirt the law," or use a "loophole" by shouldering a pistol with a brace on it as braces were NOT designed, made/manufactured, and intended to be used as a stock! This is just plan logic and common-sense IMHO.

I'm surprised by how many gun owners on this forum are using illogical antigun rhetoric and reasonings to support the idea that the ATF is right, bump stocks and braces should have never been approved, and/or they are NFA items...

Too much logic. Now lets get back to talking about them being a loophole...

 

[BreechFace]

Can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me this thing isn’t a stock? This wasn’t designed to be an arm brace, it was designed to pretend to be an arm brace. Why would an arm brace ever need a 13” adjustable LOP?

Is everyone's forearm the same? Popeye the sailor would disagree that we don't need adjustable arm brace LOP.

 

[BreechFace]

If we cannot create items in accordance to laws on the books (bumpstock is a prime example) without fear of the item being, banned, controlled, registered without representation of our duly elected representatives then we have a problem.

Congress is abdicated their powers, and because of this should not be paid for their employment; and ultimately should be removed from office.

If Congress has a problem with the laws on the books then change should come in the form of a bill and work it's way through the process established by our founding documents.

 

[Styx]

The practical definition of a loophole is “it’s legal but I don’t like it.” The original arm brace was legal, but once people started making things that were clearly intended to function as a stock ATF started to “don’t like it”…and yet they still didn’t do anything about it until Biden made them.

Can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me this thing isn’t a stock? This wasn’t designed to be an arm brace, it was designed to pretend to be an arm brace. Why would an arm brace ever need a 13” adjustable LOP? I bought one precisely for that reason. I kept expecting ATF to pull the rug out but after a few years they didn’t so I rolled the dice. I lost. I’m not angry nor am I surprised. The only surprises to me are (1) it lasted as long as it did and (2) they gave us an option to Form 1 them. I expected them to just order everyone to saw them into pieces like they did with bump stocks.

Yes, it is designed to be a brace. I don't know of ANY stocks that have a hook on them like that do you? Serious question that I respectfully ask for an answer on. It's designed to hook under the arm when opened to "stabilize" the firearm while shooting one handed. The length is adjustable for the length of an individual's arm. There are videos from the manufacturer and others using it in it's design function as a brace, AND a handicapped gun owner CAN use it as a brace. Because we all know we can get around the law by not using the brace that has feature that aid the handicap in using it as a brace does make it illegal per the text of the law.

 

[12Bravo20]

How are people who shouldered braces on YouTube a problem when what they were doing was perfectly legal? Some braces are designed to be strapped to the arm, and others are designed to be a "stabilizer" aka make the pistol more stable when firing with one hand via the brace resting against the forearm. The most important fact that of the matter is non of these braces were designed, redesigned, or made to rest against the shoulder by the manufacturer! We all know it's a work around for around for SBR and the NFA laws, but it's still legal. If it were illegal, then you would consider it a "workaround." The fact that people freely admit to using a "workaround" on tax codes, construction codes, or even background checks (via private sales) doesn't make them guilty of a braking the law they're bypassing.

Take all that up with the ATF, they are the ones using all of that as evidence that people are using braces as shoulder stocks.

No need to argue with any here on the forum or get upset with other members. We all know the Brace rule is wrong. What I am stating is facts that are easily found by reading the entire final brace rule. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), the ATF is using manufactures' advertising and Youtube videos against us.

 

[Styx]

Take all that up with the ATF, they are the ones using all of that as evidence that people are using braces as shoulder stocks.

No need to argue with any here on the forum or get upset with other members. We all know the Brace rule is wrong. What I am stating is facts that are easily found by reading the entire final brace rule. Whether we like it or not (and we don't), the ATF is using manufactures' advertising and Youtube videos against us.

Respectfully, this is a gun forum were we discussing/debating opinion. I'm merely stating mine on the topic of the OP. That's one of the main purposes of a forum.

 

[12Bravo20]

Respectfully, this is a gun forum were we discussing/debating opinion. I'm merely stating mine on the topic of the OP.

Too many times discussing/debating turns into arguments and personal attacks. And this is especially true here lately on this forum and about this topic. Many of the different threads about the brace rule have been locked due to the discussion/debates turning ugly.

 

[Styx]

Too many times discussing/debating turns into arguments and personal attacks. And this is especially true here lately on this forum and about this topic. Many of the different threads about the brace rule have been locked due to the discussion/debates turning ugly.

True, but I think I stayed on topic, and only attacked arguments and and opinions. If I didn't, point it out, and I'll edit my post.

 

[WestKentucky]

I fully support everyone’s right to an opinion and to express their opinion, but many ideas about the brace situation and opinions of the same are just flat out silly.

It’s been put in writing. Repeatedly. It’s been published in a gazillion places. Repeatedly. Asking for a photo seems senseless but because they are asking for it and offering amnesty then they really can’t legally do anything to people now. That would be entrapment. No this idiotic situation is not under the same administration as the MG amnesty and registration, but it is set up to be similar. What was legal is no longer legal. Here’s notice, comply by X date. If you wish to keep your toy then you can do so, just register it by filling out these forms. It’s not something I like, but it is no grand conspiracy like a lot of folks are making it out to be.

 

[dogtown tom]

.... I hope the ADA aspects of the device is part of the lawsuits against the ruling.

The ADA has NOTHING to do with firearms. NOTHING. Again, NOTHING. The ADA is about protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities. The ADA also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
Building a gun range open to the public? The ADA may require accessibility for those in wheelchairs. It doesn't require you to provide arm braces on your rental guns.

At the end of the day if the ATF can say what was a pistol for 10+ years is now a rifle because of the way might now hold it,

You didn't read the Rule did you?

what gives them any authority over how we choose hold our guns?

Nothing. Mostly because ATF doesn't care how you hold a gun.

If this and the bump stock ruling stands what stops them from declaring that every semi-auto firearm is now a machine gun because every semi auto can be "bump fired" with a sloppy enough grip.

Because of the definition of "machine gun" that's why. And sloppy grip has nothing to do with anything.