• ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info

Stabilizing Brace Discussion

This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities.


I feel my arthritis acting up.
CCzxfPOW4AAQGe2.jpg
 
I doubt they will follow up on that...That was when they still had to deal with Trump.

You can bet the rules are already written and ready to go. The only reason they are delaying is so they can get this gun control nut confirmed as head of the ATF. Once he's in place he'll do whatever he wants with no checks or balances at all.

I'm sure he would be perfectly happy to simply roll back all the decision letters and make braces just as illegal as anything but a bare buffer tube used to be.
One of the parts that pisses me off the most is that there's companies out there that spent untold fortunes doing R&D and making sure they were in compliance. So then they got greenlighted with permission slip letters from the ATF and started producing and selling their products. The Man said it was all legal and fine. And THEN they wanna go back on their word and move the goal posts. Granted I know they have been doing this same **** since 1934 but it's still wrong as hell. How many jobs and businesses stand to be lost ? The entire firearms industry needs to lawyer up real good and then show the brace letter or the damn binary trigger letter or Shockwave letter to the Feds and the courts and say " YOU said this was legal and good to go. WE did our due diligence beforehand. So **** you! "
When you think about it a minute it would've actually been much better for the ATF to not approve the devices mentioned above in the first place. Because now law abiding citizens could very easily be turned into convincted felons for buying and possessing a previously perfectly legal product.
 
If ever there was an agency that needed to be disbanded, the ATF is the poster child.
Shouldn’t be regulating all the fun stuff anyway.
Alcohol
Tobacco
Firearms
Explosives
 
I read the rule...all of it. worksheet 4099 makes almost all "pistols" with a stabilizing braces attached...an SBR. It specifically mentions SBA3's and shockwave braces with 4099 example worksheets.

end result is remove your brace or SBR. and no free form 1's either.
 
This proposed rule would not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities.


I feel my arthritis acting up.
....

I've got tremors & muscle spasms in my dominant hand and arm
from touching myself too much,
and this prevents me from holding a pistol with a conventional stance
and being accurate enough.

I'll show you what it looks like with a short video of dry firing
with my laser sight on. BRB

..


,,



,.,




,'.



Well, uh, it seems pretty steady now.


Wait, I know what to do!

BRB
 
So basically anything except the original brace style (think the original SIG brace with the large, wrap-around sleeve and a strap) will accrue too many points to be called a 'brace', and will make a gun into an SBR.

They specifically call-out the SBA-3 and the KAK braces as being 'stocks', but give a green light to the SB-mini. Since you only get 4 points in each of two sections, and a single 'evil' feature can be 3 points it's going to be hard to have many braces pass muster.

To make matters worse they add these points to whole guns with things like hand stops on them, since that indicates two-handed shooting and a pistol is defined in law to be something shot from one hand.

And worst of all, there's some weasel wording in there that even if a brace scores an acceptably low number of points, if they see marketing that indicates the gun as a whole was built as an SBR and just shipped as a pistol to avoid going through registration, they can still classify it as an SBR.

Even if a weapon accrues less than 4 points in each section, attempts by a manufacturer or maker to circumvent Federal law by attaching purported “stabilizing braces” in lieu of shoulder stocks may result in classification of those weapons as “rifles” and “short-barreled rifles.”

While some manufacturers have recognized that there is a market advantage in designing and selling “short-barreled rifles” as “pistols” to customers seeking to avoid tax and registration requirements, “stabilizing braces” are not a method by which the Federal statutes may be circumvented.

Therefore, efforts to advertise, sell, or otherwise distribute “short-barreled rifles” as such will result in a classification as a “rifle” regardless of the points accrued on the ATF Worksheet 4999 because there is no longer any question that the intent is for the weapon to be fired from the shoulder.


I'm thinking this last was to justify their attack on the Honey Badger, although with their PDW-like stock it would fail under the new rules anyway.

As expected, no 'free' tax stamp in this rule, you have to take any offending braces off the gun. They talk about destroying or turning in the gun, but why anyone would do that when they just need to remove the brace is beyond me.

Here's the relevant verbiage:

1) Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached, thus converting the firearm back to its original pistol configuration (as long as it was originally configured without a stock and as a pistol) and thereby removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA. Exercising this option would mean the pistol would no longer be “equipped with” the stabilizing brace within the meaning of the proposed rule.

2) Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer barrel to the firearm thus removing it from the provisions of the NFA.

3) Destroy the firearm. ATF will publish information regarding proper destruction on its website, www.atf.gov.

4) Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.

5) Complete and submit an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF Form 1 (“Form 1”).


What will be a little tricky is dealing with existing inventory of guns in the distribution channel. I'm guessing they will all have to go back to the manufacturers.

The interesting thing is that this isn't the wholesale ban on braces I was kind of expecting. By defining the matrix of acceptable 'features' companies like KAK and SB can go back to the drawing board and create designs that will fit into the new rules.

It sounds like some of the braces out there already fit the rules, and can simply be used as-is. Like I mentioned above, the old fixed-length braces with a real 'cuff' for your arm and a useable strap will probably get by OK.
 
Back
Top Bottom