ATF Releases Proposed Pistol Brace Rules
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 5 months ago
The maximum length of a pistol would be 26 inches. That would make any AR15 style pistol with a barrel over seven inches an SBR regardless of any other determination features. The measurements of a seven-inch AR pistol from the rear of the buffer tube to the front of the gun are 25 inches.
“Given the public interest surrounding these issues, ATF is proposing to amend the definition of ‘rifle’ in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each definition. The new sentence would clarify that the term ‘rifle’ includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with15 an attached ‘stabilizing brace’ that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder, as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999.”
- 1 point: Minor Indicator (the weapon could be fired from the shoulder)
- 2 points: Moderate Indicator (the weapon may be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder)
- 3 points: Strong Indicator (the weapon is likely designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder)
- 4 points: Decisive Indicator (the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder
The ATF would consider any gun with a score of four or more points an SBR. Firearms over 13 ½ inches would automatically be an SBR. If a pistol has a standard buffer tube, then the firearm would be assigned two points. The ATF would consider any gun that is over 120 ounces unloaded an SBR.
More confusingly, if a firearm has flip-up sights, then the ATF would give that gun one point towards becoming an SBR. The ATF would assign a gun with a red dot two points. The ATF doesn’t see why a shooter would use a red dot pistol on a pistol.
The ATF would assign any gun with a hand stop two points. That would put any firearm with a hand stop halfway to becoming an SBR. The ATF would consider any gun with a secondary grip as an SBR.
[ … ]
The first choice is turning the guns into the ATF. The ATF says this choice would be at “no-cost” to gun owners. This move is gun confiscation. The second choice would be to install a barrel that more than 16 inches long. The third choice is to pay a $200 tax stamp and register it as an SBR. The final option would be to modify the brace and not sell it to anyone in the future.
The document gives some alternatives. These alternatives include making the rules just guidance. That chance would mean that they would not have the force of law. Other alternatives include grandfathering all firearms with braces or forgiveness of the tax stamp fee.
Sounds like a beauty contest where contestants answer panelist questions about solving world hunger.
They must be trying to outdo the complexity, stupidity and arbitrariness of 18 USC 922r.
UPDATE: Via David Codrea, GOA.
“Nearly every aspect of the Proposed Rule is either arbitrary and capricious, in excess of the agency’s jurisdiction, or in conflict with either statute or constitutional right. Often, it is all of the above. Numerous times, the Proposed Rule purports to blatantly rewrite federal law to suit ATF’s agenda.”
On June 8, 2021 at 3:21 am, Show Me said:
Nothing arbitrary, vague and totally subjective about this at all, nope.
On June 8, 2021 at 8:06 am, Mastro said:
Here’s an idea- just get rid of the SBR definition and legal restriction. PERIOD. Its on shaky legal grounds- an SBR is actually very useful for a militia (militaries use them worldwide) and is actually VERY useful for home defense. The SCOTUS just made stuff up in US versus Miller- Same with the “sawn off shotgun”
On June 8, 2021 at 8:13 am, Glypto Dropem said:
Better yet, just disband and abolish the ATF. EVERYTHING they do or say is contrary to the 2nd Amendment, and IMHO any “regulatory alphabet agency” is unconstitutional and their “regulations” should be ignored and therefore NULLIFIED!
On June 8, 2021 at 8:43 am, James C Dean said:
It becomes a question of legitimacy. Our politicized alphabet agencies are pushing draconian communist dictates that defy reason. At what point do we say ‘enough’ and we are ‘done’?
On June 8, 2021 at 8:57 am, aft failues said:
The Definition rifle’ in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 is a verbatim quote from 18 USC 921; since Congress defined rifle in 18 USC 921 the ATF does not have the statutory authority to change the definition only congress may do that.
On June 8, 2021 at 9:17 am, Longbow said:
@Mastro hit the Nail on the head.
The time has long passed to begin deconstructing the entire NFA.
SBRs should be removed from the NFA completely. The entire premise behind placing SBRs under the NFA is that they are “concealable”. Well, MILLIONS of Americans carry concealed every day don’t they? Concealability then isn’t a “problem” is it?
Suppressors should be removed from the NFA completely. Hearing protection is a GOOD THING, isn’t it?
ATF should NOT be allowed to arbitrarily make “rules” which have the force of Law and cause men to be imprisoned.
This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is further confusing what is “Legal” and what is “illegal”.
I don’t have much confidence in the political system any more, but… for the record if nothing else, contact your Senators and Congressional representatives and tell them to STOMP on ATF right now!
On June 8, 2021 at 10:57 am, ar-nonymous said:
Since the penalty for having a brace on an AR-15 pistol is now the same as having a stock on an AR-15 pistol, how many people are just going to say “F*** it” and put a stock on their AR-15 pistol?
On June 9, 2021 at 11:43 am, Frank said:
If you read the regulation, red-dots are NOT two points. They aren’t mentioned. A red-dot with a MAGNIFIER is 2 points, just like a scope. Red dots and fixed sights are irrelevant, as they make sense on a pistol.
Beware whose analysis you read. Sometimes they get it wrong.
But it is very difficult to see how any AR-15 pattern pistol can exist under those rules.
On June 9, 2021 at 10:57 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: UPDATE: Via David Codrea, GOA.
“Nearly every aspect of the Proposed Rule is either arbitrary and capricious, in excess of the agency’s jurisdiction, or in conflict with either statute or constitutional right. Often, it is all of the above. Numerous times, the Proposed Rule purports to blatantly rewrite federal law to suit ATF’s agenda.”
Reading this, I could not help but be reminded of a couple of famous quotes by political philosopher and writer Ayn Rand…
“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives isn’t using their regulatory authority and the law as a weapons against ordinary Americans simply trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights, then I wish someone would explain what they would be doing differently if they were trying to do so.
The dirty little secret at the heart of such a tangled web of red tape, bureaucrat-speak, and law-fare is that the agency itself can’t even explain what its new rules and regulations mean. The new regs are so badly-designed and ambiguous that they can’t be cleanly interpreted or followed by those desiring to do so. In the words of the IT folks – “That’s not a bug, that’s a feature.”
It is clearly the intent of the agency and its administration functionaries to back heretofore lawful firearms owners into a corner, by subjecting them to rules and regulations which are impossible to understand and therefore to follow.
And if the people who do this stuff all day have trouble interpreting it, then what hope do Joe and Jane Sixpack have? Not much, and one suspects that’s precisely the idea. To create a whole class of criminals – felons – where no existed before. Perhaps to create a casus belli for declaring war on the American people out of whole cloth.
We are either a nation of laws or we are a nation of men. Clearly, we are now the latter and not the former We’re now a nation of men – one in which power is the only currency that matters, and the law is just a convenient fig-leaf to disguise what those powerful men want.
This is somewhat of a separate issue, but the proposed rule changes also violate the spirit and intent of ethical law-making in that they amount to entrapment and also the making of ex-post facto laws, both of which are supposed to be illegal and therefore proscribed.
On September 12, 2022 at 4:33 pm, Ken B said:
Since when have non-elected white-gloved dust-sniffing yahoos been given the legislative power to render millions of law-abiding citizens instant felons with their little administrative rules? This agency should be seriously considered for abolishment when the GOP boots the current administration to the curb in our mid-term and 2024 elections.