This is a good point. The whole 4999 worksheet seems to be geared to AR pistols. I have to assume it will also apply to my 9mm PC Charger with a FS1913 folding bracing. Time to get out the measuring tape. Hmm, do I include the compensator I installed in the length and weight measurements? Not that it really matters. The FS1913 brace is styled after the SBA3, which is dead in the water.My general approach at this moment is that I see everybody concentrating on AR-pattern firearms but I'm trying to figure out if anything in all this has consequences elsewhere. I'm beginning to think the ATF may have to deal with a pile of unintended consequences.
I could be wrong, but I don't think the brace counts toward overall length, only the functional components. In your scenario, the under 64 oz pistol would also have to be longer than 12"... it couldn't be a Glock.I'm looking at the top of the worksheet, specifically the prerequisites.
Suppose I assemble a firearm that has a brace on the back but weighs less than 64 ounces. Does that mean I'm completely unaffected by all this?
For example, there are shoulder stocks that turn a Glock into an SBR. At the same time, the form seems to say that how the item is marketed determines whether it's a brace or a stock.
It seems to me it would be trivial to modify the design of many pistol shoulder stocks to include a forearm-conforming curve on the back. If the device were then marketed as a "brace" instead of a stock, would that set-up be good to go in a non-NFA sense?
It seems like this worksheet opens the door to creating a whole new class of braced pistols that can be shouldered and they would no longer be considered SBRs because they're too light.
I gotta be missing something. What am I missing?
My general approach at this moment is that I see everybody concentrating on AR-pattern firearms but I'm trying to figure out if anything in all this has consequences elsewhere. I'm beginning to think the ATF may have to deal with a pile of unintended consequences.
I am writing today to oppose the ATF proposed rule 2021R-08, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” with document ID ATF_FRDOC_0001-0045. This proposal should be discarded for several reasons:
1) It is tantamount to an ex post facto prohibition, as these items have been legal for years and there is no legacy/grandfathering provision. It is upon this criterion alone, unconstitutional.
2) It introduces a novel point system which is creating the effect of law from whole cloth, which is inappropriate in an enforcement, administrative, or tax agency. This is the purview of Congress, not the BATFE.
3) The criteria as noted on ATF Worksheet 4999 are arbitrary and capricious.
Examples (not inclusive):
- Section 2 Accessory design: "Not based on a known shoulder stock design" (known to whom, at what time, and where is the list? Not present. This is a meaningless criterion).
- Section 2 Rear Surface Area: "Material added to increase Rear Surface for shouldering" (How do you know the intent of the manufacturer or designer for "adding material" and what is the standard of minimal material from which you can determine some was added? This is too subjective to be a legal criterion).
- Section 2 Adjustability and Length of Pull: "Adjustable or telescoping attachment designed for shouldering" (Humans have forearms of differing lengths; adjustability is not per force to make something shoulderable. A large man of 6'4 and a small woman of 5'0 need different lengths based on forearm size. The man’s adjustment might be shoulderable by the woman, an attachment designed to be shouldered and suited to the woman might not be shoulderable by the man in this example. Thisis too subjective to be a criterion, and utterly ignores how different tools are used by different people). Even if that were the case, previous ATF letters have indicated that the occasion of shouldering does not indicate a redesign of the item.
- Section 2 Adjustability: "Counterbalance Design that Folds creating Rear Contact Surface" (All solid items are a "contact surface." One could shoulder a Glock pistol, with slide plate seated on the shoulder. Is this suddenly an SBR? This is a nonsensical criterion).
- Section 2 Peripheral accessories: Everything in this section is not germane to the topic. This looks like a retread of the 90s-era "Assault Weapons Ban's and its use of features of a whole firearm as determinative. These items are not the topic of the proposed rule, and their inclusion is inappropriate. Example: the inclusion of backup sights on this list: anyone who uses firearms with any regularity will tell you that things break. Having a backup system does not change the system. Many people shooting pistol mounted optics (on Glock handguns for instance) also include iron sights. By analogy, having a spare tire in your trunk does not make the car a semi-truck.
- Weight Tests: these tests contain strange assemblages of some ancillary items, and without others. The presence of an unloaded magazine (of what type or material? Polymer, Steel, PLA? All these weigh different amounts.) is a confounding and mitigating factor. It renders the test even more useless.
- Suitability for one handed fire: While pistols may be fired with one hand generally, many users shoot them from rests and some even shoot them with standard eye-relief telescopic sights and bipods. My home state of WV issues a deer hunting endorsement for just this kind of firearm. If you watch any modern handgun competition, USPSA or IDPA, and most stages will have shooters using both hands on a pistol. This criterion ignores the development of the last 150 years in handgun design, tactics, and skills. It is an inappropriate criterion as presented.
4) The original design of these items was intended to be used by people with physical disabilities. This attempt to further restrict what has been a lawful product for years is an unfair attack on those same people.
5) At the beginning of the worksheet, it states that even should a particular firearm PASS this test with a score of less than 4, ATF might say its an SBR anyway. Meaning, the criteria are not objective nor valid, and in fact whim can be the determining factor. This is not proper, legal, nor constitutional.
For all the above reasons, I oppose this proposed rule and recommend that it not be implemented.
Well, then they're going to have to deal with the Merrill. That's an under-12" pistol for which the ATF approved a forearm brace back in the 1960s.I think what they are saying is that no pistol less than 12" long, or weighing less than 64 oz can be braced, those can only be made into SBRs.
"Weapon must meet both Prerequisites in order to proceed to Section II."Well, then they're going to have to deal with the Merrill. That's an under-12" pistol for which the ATF approved a forearm brace back in the 1960s.
And just to be ornery, I have the components necessary to add a brace to an under-64 oz., over-12" pistol. I may not like Contenders but if I have to build one more just to prove a point, I will.
Yeah. That's what confuses me since there are non-NFA braced pistols that are too light and short."Weapon must meet both Prerequisites in order to proceed to Section II."
(Must be over 12" and over 64 oz to be braced.)