BREAKING: ATF says most popular pistol braces "shouldering devices"

[Glocktogo]

From the letter:
Attorney General plans retroactively to exempt such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes if they were made or acquired, prior to the publication of this notice, in good faith.

You have to have already owned the stock before publication of the letter, and purchased it in good faith to qualify for the free stamp.

What's to keep people from buying every brace in existence between now and the opening of the registry? What's to say I don't swap my brace between multiple firearms? What's to say the AG even has the power to declare a tax amnesty?

Lots of ways for this to go sideways unfortunately.

 

[thor447]

It says "made or acquired" prior to publication. If the gun was manufactured prior---wouldn't that qualify ? Even if you don't own it----yet. ?

I suggest you ask them. That's a pretty thin line! Are you an attorney by chance?

 

[harley128]

I suggest you ask them. That's a pretty thin line! Are you an attorney by chance?

No, and no !

 

[OKNewshawk]

It says "made or acquired" prior to publication. If the gun was manufactured prior---wouldn't that qualify ? Even if you don't own it----yet. ?

That's why the say "or acquired."

 

[OKNewshawk]

Detailed video on the letter:

 

[BobbyV]

Link for adding your comments . . .

https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=ATF-2020-0001-0001

Someone much more articulate than me needs to come up with something for all us who wish to comment.

 

[BobbyV]

Here's my attempt at a comment . . . use or edit as you see fit.

Upon review of this document several critical flaws are immediately obvious.

The DOJ offer of Amnesty and Retroactive Tax Avoidance for NFA SBR registration of “Affected Stabilizing Brace Firearms” would not be LEGAL or an OPTION for anyone in the following states which currently have State Laws prohibiting ownership of NFA Firearms specifically SBRs:

CALIFORNIA (requires a C&R), District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and possibly Illinois.

This means that over 80 million Americans could become felons, forced to destroy or surrender a product they bought legally and in “good faith” prior to this rule. Amnesty should be for All Americans regardless of State.

Also, this document outlines 10 key points of determination regarding firearms classifications with a stabilizing brace, the 10 points of determination are left vague and subjective. For example. What may be too heavy to shoot accurately one handed for one person, may work perfectly well and feel light for a stronger person. If weight and length is an issue, there should be thresholds set in the rule, i.e.; “no longer than” or “weighing over x lbs”. This determination needs to be more specific. Next is the discussion of calibers. This determination is also too vague and needs to provide specific guidance as to what is acceptable and what is not. Another discussion point is that of optics with eye relief requirements, does this include optics that are variable power from 1×3 up to 1×10 since at the 1x setting there is NO EYE RELIEF? or would this only be regarding optics with fixed magnification?

This document states: "When an accessory and a weapon's objective design features, taken together, are not consistent with use of the accessory as an arm brace, that is, not to stabilize a handgun when being operated with one hand, such weapon, configured with the accessory may fall within the scope of the NFA, particularly where the accessory functions as a shoulder stock for the weapon."

No two gun owners are alike. Gun owners may utilize a stabilizing brace in similar but different methods. There is no possible way for the ATF to evaluate each of those methods and apply it to every owner and/or stabilizing brace.

The document also states: "ATF must evaluate whether a particular firearm configured with a stabilizing brace bears the objective features of a firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and thus subject to the NFA, on a case-by-case basis."

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Please explain the logic behind allowing a gun owner to possess a pistol with a 4" barrel but cannot possess a rifle with a 14.5" barrel equipped with a stock (and based on this opinion a particular type of stabilizing brace) without being taxed for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. All the while state and local LEOs carry these "SBRs" on a daily basis.

The idea that an accessory can significantly impact the classification of a firearm to the extent that additional regulations would be possible is ludicrous. Considering how a component or accessory "may" be used being relevant in assessing the manufacturer's or maker's intent with respect to the design of a firearm; or how firearm classification may be influenced by the design of a component or accessory resulting in a firearm falling within a particular statutory definition under the egregious NFA is equally ludicrous if not more so. Especially given that the purpose of the NFA is “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes.” Assuming the length of a barrel or presence of a specific type of stabilizing brace would imply a weapon would likely be used for criminal is well beyond the capability of anyone within the ATF.

In closing, the ATF should be ashamed of itself for ignoring the purchase of stabilizing braces for years only to suddenly become interested in their use and calling for the registration of firearms equipped with said braces upon a change in the Executive Branch where the newly elected officials have been adamant about firearm registration.

 

[BobbyV]

If cheek welding a Paracord wrapped buffer tube was ok and strapping your forearm to a brace was ok, how does combing those features with an adjustment for different size users suddenly change the intend use?

It means they're more likely to be used in crimes . . . . duh.

 

[harley128]

Here's my attempt at a comment . . . use or edit as you see fit.

You did good BobbyV

 

[Fyrtwuck]

I gave them my two cents worth.

If they do go through with this, I expect they’ll do the same thing they did with the SPAS 12 and the Street Sweeper. The ATF will send notices to register for free within a specified time or turn them in. I also expect the NFA registration times to exceed two years overnight.