New ATF Proposed Rule Making Will Not Be Good For the Gun World

[Grease Gunner]

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces" is the title of one of them

The Department of Justice (“Department”) proposes amending Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) regulations to clarify when a rifle is “intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2021-0002-0001

Its very clear if you read it

The second one is very confusing to me. I honestly dont undrstand it yet

Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/05/21/2021-10058/definition-of-frame-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms

Interested in hearing what our members think

NPRM is the vehicle to how they change regulations

It stands for Notice of Proposed Rule Making

Our rights will be infringed again !!

[RoscoeTurner]

I read both when they were first published both seem easy to understand to me. As far as the brace goes I have yet to see anyone at our local range using one as anything other than a SBR.

[Got Uzi]

The whole brace thing has been a point of contention since the beginning. They are used as a work around to the SBR regs and due to one companies greed/stupidity, now a pile of people are going to suffer for being mislead.

[StrangeRanger]

We just had this discussion the last time ATF proposed to regulate them

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=25219

 

Nothing much has changed except that ATF has now fleshed out their proposal with a specific rating system. Arm braces remain a too-clever attempt to end run the statute mostly bought by people who were naive enough to think that ATF wouldn't notice. We all know an SBR when we see one and a "pistol" with a 10" barrel and a "brace" is an SBR.

[johnsonlmg41]

Course the other alternative is to get rid the classification of SBR since it no longer applies with "normal" handguns far surpassing the muzzle energy of many SBR's and far more concealable than anything with a brace or stock regardless of barrel length. That is really what should be petitioned.

Banning or further regulating something this is used in crime at a near statistical zero rate means those who initiate such ideas are complete morons and should be fired immediately after the second meeting on such a subject after having had time to think about it and still failing.

Another odd idea might be incarceration of violent felons regardless of the tools they choose? That would dramatically lower crimes of all types, but is not a popular idea with crime lovers in government who need a crisis to pretend to solve.

 

Seems like government is trying to tell us only certain size nails can be used for a crucifixion?

Edited June 13, 2021 by johnsonlmg41

[DZelenka]

Course the other alternative is to get rid the classification of SBR since it no longer applies with "normal" handguns far surpassing the muzzle energy of many SBR's and far more concealable than anything with a brace or stock regardless of barrel length. That is really what should be petitioned.

Banning or further regulating something this is used in crime at a near statistical zero rate means those who initiate such ideas are complete morons and should be fired immediately after the second meeting on such a subject after having had time to think about it and still failing.

Another odd idea might be incarceration of violent felons regardless of the tools they choose? That would dramatically lower crimes of all types, but is not a popular idea with crime lovers in government who need a crisis to pretend to solve.

 

Seems like government is trying to tell us only certain size nails can be used for a crucifixion?

Try not to make sense. You only sound silly in dotgov world.

[Rekraps]

I am 40+ years in the gun collection/shooting world, and from the start I have questioned the entire "brace" introduction, adoption and subsequent approval by the ATF. In my opinion, the ATF was duped by sophisticated marketing groups, under the guise of "disability access" and before they were able to figure out it was a scam, millions of units had been sold.

 

EVERYONE I have seen with a pistol/brace combination laughs at the absurdity of the idea. There can be no doubt that this is/was an end run around the SBR rules. Just look at the guns! I have 11 of them and I can tell you that not a single one was purchased because I was disabled. And it gets worse. I "bought up" to units like the ACE Galil, 7.62 x 51 "pistol" with brace. There is nothing pistol about it, (same for the 7.62 x 39 version).

 

Even though I may disagree with the whole SBR rules, they are what they are. I can only hope that the ATF waives the tax stamp for the guns for existing owners.

[Got Uzi]

When I first got into using ARs many moons ago, Id asked if I could use a regular carbine buffer tube, just not put a stock on it. What I was told was no-it can take a stock and there for can be considered an SBR as it can take a stock with NO modification of any kind basically constructive intent. So AR pistols had a fully round buffer tube and a pad on the end.

 

Fast forward to the beginning of the whole brace craze and they braces with bulky and were fixed position. Still used fully round tubes and no way for a stock to be attached.

 

Jump ahead a few years and now they are using mil-spec buffer tubes to have adjustable length of brace and people wonder why the ATF is pumping the brakes? Take off the SBA3 brace and you can put on a standard Carbine stock with NO modification needed (see above paragraphs)

 

Hmmmmmm I wonder why things are being done as they are with the proposed changes.......