Lynx Defense

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Bozz10mm

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 5, 2013
    9,616
    96
    Georgetown
    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.
    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.
     

    MTA

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    40   0   0
    Mar 10, 2017
    9,054
    96
    Fannin
    Comment section is open now
     

    gll

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 22, 2016
    4,812
    96
    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 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 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. The idea being that class of pistols don't need a brace to be one-handed.
     

    Rhino

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 22, 2009
    2,985
    96
    DFW Area
    This guy wrote an excellent comment...


    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.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,932
    96
    Spring
    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.
    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.
     

    gll

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 22, 2016
    4,812
    96
    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.
    "Weapon must meet both Prerequisites in order to proceed to Section II."

    (Must be over 12" and over 64 oz to be braced.)
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,932
    96
    Spring
    "Weapon must meet both Prerequisites in order to proceed to Section II."

    (Must be over 12" and over 64 oz to be braced.)
    Yeah. That's what confuses me since there are non-NFA braced pistols that are too light and short.

    No need to reply. I just need to take a couple of days to read all this stuff more carefully until I feel I have a grasp of it.
     

    billtool

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 16, 2008
    4,094
    96
    The Wooldlands
    Yeah. That's what confuses me since there are non-NFA braced pistols that are too light and short.

    No need to reply. I just need to take a couple of days to read all this stuff more carefully until I feel I have a grasp of it.
    When you get that grasp, a synopsis would be greatly appreciated. I just can't force myself to sit down in front of it a second time,
     

    Bozz10mm

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 5, 2013
    9,616
    96
    Georgetown
    The comment period has opened and I urge everyone to submit a comment. It only takes a few minutes. I submitted a comment this morning. It went something like this:

    Re: ATF 2021R-08 ATF must immediately withdraw its Proposed Rule entitled Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached "Stabilizing Braces". This rule would create a “points system,” where if a firearm gets more than 4 points in two separate sections, the firearm is automatically considered an SBR.

    The criteria include arbitrary and vague factors such as whether the brace “incorporates shoulder stock design features." The factors are written in such a way that simple, everyday changes in a firearm, including simply removing a sight or changing the magazine, can add points to the total. Rather than clarifying the law, the ATF’s attempt at administrative lawmaking seeks to make owning braced firearms a felonious minefield.

    ATF estimates that there are between 3,000,000 to 7,000,000 pistol braces and pistol braced firearms in circulation. However, a Congressional Research Service report recently put out a more accurate estimate that there could be as many as 40,000,000 pistol braces and pistol-braced firearms in common use.

    There are so many braces in circulation because ATF has been issuing interpretive guidance approval letters for such firearm accessories for nearly a decade. ATF cannot reverse its interpretive guidance-banning millions of commonly owned and legally acquired firearms while simultaneously criminalizing millions of Americans overnight-on the whims of a politician following through on campaign promises without the consent or cooperation of the Congress.

    This proposed rule change is unacceptable, a violation of the statutes at hand, and a violation of my Second Amendment rights! It must be withdrawn immediately.


    Copy and paste if you wish and or create/add your own comments. Be civil though.

    Use this form to submit your comments. Be sure to include the Document ID: Re: ATF 2021R-08

     

    billtool

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 16, 2008
    4,094
    96
    The Wooldlands
    The comment period has opened and I urge everyone to submit a comment. It only takes a few minutes. I submitted a comment this morning. It went something like this:

    Re: ATF 2021R-08 ATF must immediately withdraw its Proposed Rule entitled Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached "Stabilizing Braces". This rule would create a “points system,” where if a firearm gets more than 4 points in two separate sections, the firearm is automatically considered an SBR.

    The criteria include arbitrary and vague factors such as whether the brace “incorporates shoulder stock design features." The factors are written in such a way that simple, everyday changes in a firearm, including simply removing a sight or changing the magazine, can add points to the total. Rather than clarifying the law, the ATF’s attempt at administrative lawmaking seeks to make owning braced firearms a felonious minefield.

    ATF estimates that there are between 3,000,000 to 7,000,000 pistol braces and pistol braced firearms in circulation. However, a Congressional Research Service report recently put out a more accurate estimate that there could be as many as 40,000,000 pistol braces and pistol-braced firearms in common use.

    There are so many braces in circulation because ATF has been issuing interpretive guidance approval letters for such firearm accessories for nearly a decade. ATF cannot reverse its interpretive guidance-banning millions of commonly owned and legally acquired firearms while simultaneously criminalizing millions of Americans overnight-on the whims of a politician following through on campaign promises without the consent or cooperation of the Congress.

    This proposed rule change is unacceptable, a violation of the statutes at hand, and a violation of my Second Amendment rights! It must be withdrawn immediately.


    Copy and paste if you wish and or create/add your own comments. Be civil though.

    Use this form to submit your comments. Be sure to include the Document ID: Re: ATF 2021R-08

    Done and thanks.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,425
    96
    I strongly believe we need to hit on the point that the rule is an attempt to address a problem that does not exist.

    No public danger at all is posed by a law-abiding person possessing an AR pistol with brace. These are not used in any remotely significant number for crimes. And criminals don't care what the ATF rules say anyhow.

    We do not want to move toward the scenario of "We'll just add clarification to the criteria and we are good to go."
     

    Rhino

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 22, 2009
    2,985
    96
    DFW Area
    2cf1fe8fc8cd92c0eddcbbaaccf60b73.jpg
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,425
    96
    The comments system will allow you to post anonymously as one option. Perhaps someone knows that checking this option automatically trashes your comment?
     

    Maverick44

    Youngest old man on TGT.
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Even if you don't think it's worth commenting, do it anyway. The ATF is required by law to take these comments into account, and a massive number of comments opposing this rule change is going to be good ammo for organizations such as the FPC should this issue make it to a courtroom.

    I just posted mine.

    I am completely opposed to the BATFE's proposed rule change. District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed that US citizens have an individual right to own firearms, and that firearms in common use are automatically considered to be Constitutionally protected. Caetano v. Massachusetts further expanded on what constitutes "common use" and came up with the number 200,000. By the BATFE'S own admission, there are many times that many firearms equipped with pistol braces. Those firearms are protected by the US Constitution as confirmed by these Supreme Court rulings.

    The BATFE's proposed rule change amounts to nothing more than an outright ban on all popular pistol braces, and is not in the best interest of Americans. It is very clearly the result of political pressure. This issue has been brought up by the BATFE many times, and every time it was met with an immense response by those who oppose these rule changes. The people of America have spoken. They do not want these devices banned. I believe the BATFE should respect these wishes and cease it's attempts to regulate these harmless firearm accessories.

    Furthermore, I do not believe the BATFE has the authority to regulate these devices. The definitions for what constitutes an SBR were determined by Congress, thus any definition changes require an act of Congress. The BATFE is not a legislative body, and it should quit attempting to be one. It is a part of the executive branch and is tasked with enforcing laws as written and passed into law by Congress.

    Beyond these legal issues, these proposed rules are too vaguely defined in some areas, and too restrictive in others. It should not be a guessing game as to whether you are committing a felony, and that decision should not be left up to the interpretation of the rules by a field agent. I also find that the idea that you can become a felon instantly just by removing a nylon strap from a brace to be absolutely unacceptable.

    I have many other issues with these proposed rule changes such as the restrictions on weight, the length requirements which make no sense, and the requirement that the firearm be designed for one handed use only (despite the fact that almost all handguns are now shot with a two handed grip). I will just end this comment by saying that we the people have spoken before, just as we do today. We do not want these devices to be regulated. If the BATFE has any respect whatsoever for the wishes and the freedom of Americans, then it will abandon this proposal and will not revisit this issue in the future.

    Thank you for your time.

    Aaron M.
     
    Top Bottom