Stabilizing Braces-ATF Proposed Rule - Dropping prices of PCCs?

[PCparabellum]

What are your opinions of prices changing on PCC or AR from ATF proposed rule?

 

[bearcreek]

I think prices will go up. Demand will almost certainly go up, especially for private sales.

 

[CapnMac]

Not appropriate for Legal.
Also, I've not seen PCC prices dropping.
The new Rule is still in Public Comment, and is not in effect. If it is put into effect, there will be some period, like 90 days before it can be enforced. At that point we would see prices change.

 

[wiscoaster]

I think your connection is tenuous at best. The proposed rule mainly affects firearms that shooters are viewing as pistols (now) and SBR's (at worst) if it goes into effect; whereas PCC's are mainly viewed by shooters as rifles.

 

[PCparabellum]

Good info, thanks all. Will listen more

 

[Gridley]

The new Rule is still in Public Comment, and is not in effect. If it is put into effect, there will be some period, like 90 days before it can be enforced.

Legally speaking you are quite correct... but does anyone here think the ATF won't go through with it? (Honest question - if you think they might back down I'd like to hear why, since I see no cause for optimism myself.)

At that point we would see prices change.

Except markets can anticipate demand. *IF* we accept that PCC's would be more popular in a post-armbrace-restriction world, and if there is a reasonable chance that the regulations will go through, then it would be quite reasonable to see prices rising. I expect there are a lot of people who, like me, believe the proposed rulemaking being implemented is a given, perhaps with some very minor changes.

However, while I don't own one myself, it seems to me that the arm brace fills a different niche than the PCC. I thus don't personally expect the arm brace regulations to cause a rise in demand for PCCs when (excuse me, if) they go through. Thus even if I'm right that the 'market' expects the rules to go through, it won't have an effect on PCC pricing.

 

[CapnMac]

(Honest question - if you think they might back down I'd like to hear why, since I see no cause for optimism myself.)

ATFE has backed down on a number of Proposed Rule Changes, usually related to the volume of Public Comments received. They are legally required to respond to every Comment brought, which includes specific qustions within the comments.
ATFE has, in fact, seen some of the comments about procedures and enforcement and changed their minds as a result.
If you point out that there are nearly a million of these braces out there, and they'd need a couple thousand more Agents to sift through them all, they pay attention to such things.
If you point out the increase in documentation paperwork the Rule Change will require (more work for them, not less), they pay attention to such things.
Pointing out that the thing winds up as arbitrary and capricious (see the top line of Section 1--none of the "scoring" matters if ATFE has already ruled--is effective, too. As more than one Rule has been struck down for being unenforceable. ATFE does not like all the work it takes to get a change in the CFR to be invalidated by a single court decision (because these are Rules and involve separations of Branches, there are no long Appeals; it's typically, one strike and you're out)..

 

[Gridley]

ATFE has backed down on a number of Proposed Rule Changes, usually related to the volume of Public Comments received. They are legally required to respond to every Comment brought, which includes specific qustions within the comments.
ATFE has, in fact, seen some of the comments about procedures and enforcement and changed their minds as a result.

No argument about the theory or the history - and I've seen the FAA do the same thing on 14 CFR 25. I'm looking at *this* rule change under *this* administration, and seeing no reason to believe they're going to back down even if they have to spend the next year responding to comments (I'm especially looking at how soon this came out after the receiver definition change - I've never made comments on proposed rules so close together before.)

Mind, as I said in another thread earlier, I believe it is still worthwhile making comments, since that ties someone up responding to them instead of drafting the NEXT change...

 

[herrwalther]

Prices will most certainly go up. Just like with the AWB in 94, anything that was "pre-ban" shot up in price hundreds of percent more. The difference I see so far is, there won't be a grandfather clause this time.

 

[bearcreek]

Prices will most certainly go up. Just like with the AWB in 94, anything that was "pre-ban" shot up in price hundreds of percent more. The difference I see so far is, there won't be a grandfather clause this time.

They're not talking about banning PCC's, yet......

 

[herrwalther]

They're not talking about banning PCC's, yet......

Didn't mention PCCs. I see those coming up soon as they are going after those evil "high capacity magazines" too.