+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? (/showthread.php?tid=22128)
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - StoneHendge - 12-18-2020
grayfox Wrote:SH, unsure what you mean... thats a simple statement,
The entire AR pistol industry was built upon letters and "guidance" from the ATF. Before the first ATF letter to Sig or whomever it was that said "ok, that's alright as long as it's really arm brace" was where it started. Before that an AR pistol had a bare buffer tube and maybe some foam around it. Argue that ATF letters don't mean anything and we're back to bare buffer tubes. Which I think they are still saying are fine.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - biodsl - 12-18-2020
So if I shoulder a buffer tube that's not redesigning the firearm, right?
Does wearing a strap-on shoulder recoil pad signal my 'intent' to shoulder my stockless buffer tube?
This whole thing is just lunacy.
I will never forgive the Republican party for not repealing the NFA during the first two years of the Trump administration. Of course then I still thought they were really deregulators and pro-gun.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - grayfox - 12-18-2020
Word from breitbart is that it's to publish in fed register tomorrow, 18th.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - StoneHendge - 12-18-2020
biodsl Wrote:So if I shoulder a buffer tube that's not redesigning the firearm, right?
Does wearing a strap-on shoulder recoil pad signal my 'intent' to shoulder my stockless buffer tube?
This whole thing is just lunacy.
If you shoulder a buffer tube, it may not be illegal, but they'll come after you as being mentally unfit to own a firearm
But if you put an optic on the firearm with the bare buffer tube that can only be utilized if the end of buffer tube is in close proximity to your shoulder, then you have redesigned the firearm. That would be consistent with what the ATF said back in October 2017:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]17345[/ATTACH]
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - Fess - 12-18-2020
I am not trying to defend ATF. They DO, however have the authority to throw my sorry ass in jail, whether I recognize them or not. I see that as a good reason to avoid crossing them. I felt the same way about the EPA when I was in charge of tanker-trucks of acids and hazardous waste.
Nevertheless, as near as I can tell, ATF only approved ONE brace. The one submitted by SB Tactical for approval had the floppy elastomer arm-wrap that made it uncomfortable to shoot from the shoulder and that was clearly stated. From what I have been able to determine, are no other ATF-approved designs. Determinations, like the 2017 one for that particular SB Tactical brace are done on a case by case basis, so any claims that other braces are ATF-approved are not valid. Other manufacturers could have asked for determinations, but they did not. As you stated, ATF has not given detailed specs on what they would consider compliant, so any company who produced and sold arm braces was foolish to think that it was not a risky venture. They conned their customers if they told them there was no risk. On the other hand, a lot of money was made selling these pistols.
There certainly are people who use the arm braces to shoot their weapon like a pistol. Among those are the handicapped, for whom they were originally designed. I will feel sorry for those people if they lose the opportunity to shoot. On the other hand, many others were betting that they could have a functional SBR without dealing with the NFA. They may well lose that bet.
I personally thought that the arm-braces had a 50/50 chance of staying legal. There was a chance that they would become so ubiquitous that it would be too difficult to try to regulate them. There was also a good chance that they would be used in enough mass killings, shootouts, or robberies that there would be a public outcry for them to be banned. Of course, public outcry from criminal use of machine guns, SBR's and sawed-off shotguns is what prompted the NFA to begin with.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - Fess - 12-18-2020
I am not trying to defend ATF. They DO, however have the authority to throw my sorry ass in jail, whether I recognize them or not. I see that as a good reason to avoid crossing them. I felt the same way about the EPA when I was in charge of tanker-trucks of acids and hazardous waste.
Nevertheless, as near as I can tell, ATF only approved ONE brace. The one submitted by SB Tactical for approval had the floppy elastomer arm-wrap that made it uncomfortable to shoot from the shoulder and that was clearly stated to be important if the ATF letter. From what I have been able to determine, there are no other designs officially approved by ATF. Determinations, like the 2017 one for that particular SB Tactical brace are done on a case by case basis, so any claims that other braces are ATF-approved are not valid. Other manufacturers could have asked for determinations, but they did not. As you stated, ATF has not given detailed specs on what they would consider compliant, so any company who produced and sold arm braces was foolish to think that it was not a risky venture. They conned their customers if they told them there was no risk. On the other hand, a lot of money was made selling these pistols.
There certainly are people who use the arm braces to shoot their weapon like a pistol. Among those are the handicapped, for whom they were originally designed. I will feel sorry for those people if they lose the opportunity to shoot. On the other hand, many others were betting that they could have a functional SBR without dealing with the NFA. They may well lose that bet.
I personally thought that the arm-braces had a 50/50 chance of staying legal. There was a chance that they would become so ubiquitous that it would be too difficult to try to regulate them. There was also a good chance that they would be used in enough mass killings, shootouts, or robberies that there would be a public outcry for them to be banned. Of course, public outcry from criminal use of machine guns, SBR's and sawed-off shotguns is what prompted the NFA to begin with.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - dammitman - 12-18-2020
next up, reclassify the AR-15 style of rifle,,,,,
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - depletedyourcranium - 12-18-2020
Oso Polaris Wrote:would require you to register any AR Pistols or similar firearms with pistol braces.
There's so much wiggle language in that letter we can't predict everything they're going to consider, but they do outline that a pistol brace, alone, would not classify a pistol as an SBR. So it is possible for some format of an AK or AR pistol, likely a very basic one without any forward accessories could still meet the definition of a pistol. All that depends on how they proceed on defining something 'too heavy' or 'too difficult' to fire one handed. Thats the real sneaky part in this letter is that they say they will be consider that a factor, brace or no brace... could spell the end for entire classes of pistols above a certain weight for their design.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - Fess - 12-18-2020
I just read the document placed in the Federal Register entitled "Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with Stabilizing Braces".
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces
It asks for comments. Hoo-boy are they going to get some. Although there is a fair amount of useful information about "making or remaking" a pistol into an SBR (like installing a scope that has an eyebox that is useful only when the weapon is shouldered), there are still a lot of judgement calls.
it is being discussed in this thread: https://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?23430-Heads-Up-Pistol-Braces-are-under-ATF-Review-to-reclassify-amp-register-as-SBR
It appears that I was wrong about other manufacturers not asking for approval. This document states that they have had numerous requests for evaluation.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - TNhuntsman - 12-18-2020
Well, I built my pistol before braces were a thing, back then it was just a bare buffer tube, I'll just remove the brace and go back the old school pistol style.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - Fess - 12-18-2020
There is now an official version in the Federal Register.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces
TNhuntsman. Depending on the brace, you may be OK. If you read the article, it describes some of the things you need to avoid. It sounds like you made an honest, good faith effort. If your brace makes a crappy shoulder stock, that helps. Pretty much any feature that makes it function better as a shoulder stock, or makes it less useful as a forearm brace is a problem. You need to watch out for little things like a rifle scope that has an eyebox that is only useful if it is shouldered.
The article mentions that there may be an amnesty of sorts. If you really want to use it as an SBR and don't mind dealing with the NFA, you may be able to register it for free. I say "might" because this is proposed, not certain.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - csmith - 12-20-2020
I would ask for any and all to take 10 minutes to push back on the ATF. Please feel free to use my version attached or customize as you see fit. I'm attaching the letter that I am physically mailing in response to the ATF. I am also providing a letter to my elected representatives to also confirm the ATF responds to my letter as well as requesting the ATF director brief them individually and in person. My intent is to make the bureacracy work against the effort. First, the more physical letters that have to processed the more time before they can take action. Second, I want them to have to do detailed multi-phased analysis to support any such proposal. This is intended to take them time until either it is determined not to be worth it or administration change.
Text of Letters below.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\start of ATF \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
99 New York Ave. NE, Mail Stop 6N518,
Washington DC 20226; ATTN: ATF 2020R-10.
Cover Letter.
Please review and respond to my comments starting on page 2 for
ATF 2020R-10: Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with "Stabilizing Braces"
Signed,
Insert First and Last Name
Insert Street Address
Insert City, State, Zip
?
Response to ATF 2020R-10: Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with "Stabilizing Braces".
ATF's proposal to regulate stabilizing braces under the National Firearms Act appears to be politically driven instead of being based on facts, data, and analysis and does not seem to regard the impact on American citizens.
Stabilizing braces are not a niche product any longer. The devices enable the handicapped, disabled veterans, smaller statured shooters, and the elderly to handle a pistol more effectively.
The product's success can be seen because multiple firearm OEMs have incorporated these devices into their standard offerings and have for numerous years. Many of these firearms were submitted to ATF for approval before being integrated into their product offerings. A trip to any firearms retailer or review of OEM catalog will find multiple brace enabled platforms on their shelves for purchase.
The bottom line is the product is a mainstream firearm product owned by a significant number of law abiding citizens who could be inadvertently impacted by the proposals identified.
These impacts include:
being exposed to felony charges under the NFA if unaware of the rule change,
being required to destroy lawfully acquired property,
being added to a government firearm registry to enable future firearm confiscation,
being required to get government approval to transport their firearm when they travel with it.
Before implementing such a sweeping rule change that will negatively impact such a significant volume of law abiding American citizens, the ATF should have to follow a properly structured plan. To fully understand the impacts and justify the rule change, I propose ATF must follow the following 4 step plan:
1. PROVIDE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TIME: Repost the letter for commentary during a non-holiday period. The current approach appears to be an attempt to "sneak-in" a politically driven rule. This reposting should occur outside a special holiday period such as Christmas break.
2. EVALUATE DISPARATE IMPACT TO DISADVANTAGED GROUPS: The ATF must conduct a detailed statistical level analysis to demonstrate the rule does not have a disparate impact and discriminate against the disabled and the elderly. This analysis should compare and contrast any specifically intended crime reduction or impact versus what appears to be something that would discriminate against these populations. Congress members should review this analysis to ensure transparency on rulemaking with such an enormous negative impact on law-abiding American citizens.
3. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALL PRODUCTS ON MARKET: The ATF must conduct detailed statistical level analytical work and studies to inform each of the proposed parameters, i.e., type, caliber, weight, length, length of pull, attachment method, and all stabilizing brace design features. Members of Congress should also review this analysis to ensure transparency on the rule.
4. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF MANAGING SPECIAL REGISTRATION PROCESS: Assume 1.5 million braced pistols now exist in the marketplace approved by the ATF. What is the ATF's budget impact required to support the registration process? What is the ATF's budget impact on supporting the out of state travel approval process for NFA firearms? What is the ATF's plans to bear the cost of notification to consumers since ATF previously approved these products? ATF approved the product for sale, so ATF should pay the cost of notification and not the OEMs.
This rule change could negatively impact the 2nd Amendment rights of more than 1 million law-abiding American gun owners.
Under this proposed rule, any effort should be done in a disciplined and transparent method that would provide detailed requirements, assess impact to disadvantaged populations, and cost versus benefit on such proposed action. I will ask my representatives to require exactly these actions in a step-by-step process before rule changes are made.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Start of Elected Representative Below\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Re: Require ATF to follow attached plan on pistol braces
Senator Cornyn:
The ATF appears to be implementing a hasty gun control plan without proper debate and analysis in the public's eyes. The timing of the effort is suspect, considering the holiday window in which it is occurring.
I voted for you and have supported you. I request that you require the ATF Director to prove that they have comprehensively responded to my comments and that the ATF director briefs you personally in your office. I would also request that your team coordinates among your fellow elected representatives so that briefings are not streamlined into one comprehensive briefing on the same day. If the ATF director wants to pursue this path, it should require time-consuming interaction, multiple individual trips to Capitol Hill, and significant socialization effort.
I want full accountability on the ATF if they proceed in this manner. To date, ATF has approved multiple versions of "pistol braces", and many manufacturers have legally incorporated them into their products. The initial evidence points to more than one million pistol braces in circulation. ATF's actions could expose more than a million gun owners to the National Firearm Act (NFA) rules and the exposure to felony charges within it.
Additionally, many handicapped, disabled, and elderly Americans use these braces to handle a pistol more effectively. This new rule would unfairly target these groups of people.
I appreciate your willingness to serve the republic. Thank you for your continued support of the 2nd Amendment.
Sincerely,
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - biodsl - 12-20-2020
Thanks for this csmith. You made it easy for us.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - Cereal Thriller - 12-23-2020
A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individuals rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879)
An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand or if a term cannot be strictly defined and is not defined anywhere in such law, thus violating the vagueness doctrine. There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be called void for vagueness reasons when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed. For example, criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions. Related to the "void for vagueness" concept is the "unconstitutional vagueness" concept - Vagueness Doctrine
Until those with treasonous actions are properly dealt with, more will follow in their footsteps in search of control and power. The Tree of Liberty is thirsty and tolerance of tyranny too high. It is time we correct both these problems to once again stand united and free or, you can continue to sit down and be the good little bitch. Your choice
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - PVBoom - 12-23-2020
The changes are open for public comment. Now is the time to respond with as many voices disapproving as possible.
Submit an online response on the obvious issues (A pistol with a bipod is a rifle. BS List Thompson Contender and other models).
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - Sinclair - 12-23-2020
go here on YouTube: Serbian Warning: What Happened When Their Elections Were Stolen in 2000. Never in a million years did I think that our Country would get to this state of affairs. It is good that most of the WWII veterans have passed on. I cannot imagine what they would be thinking having offered up their lives to insure freedom and now to have our politicians sell the Country out to Communism. What a shameful act of treason.
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - Wheelhorse - 12-24-2020
The alphabet boys have changed their mind:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boom-gun-owners-win-big-in-atf-reversal/ar-BB1cbK74?ocid=msedgntp
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - Oso Polaris - 12-24-2020
Breaking News - Just saw a notice that the ATF has cancelled/recalled their policy review of Pistol Braces. No longer an issue to worry about!
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - mel - 12-24-2020
Oso Polaris Wrote:Breaking News - Just saw a notice that the ATF has cancelled/recalled their policy review of Pistol Braces. No longer an issue to worry about!
till they change there mind again in a few weeks/months / year
MSR Pistol Designation In Doubt? - Double Naught Spy - 12-24-2020
Here is a link. As if they could not get any more flaky...
https://concealednation.org/2020/12/breaking-atf-backs-down-withdraws-comment-request-on-pistol-brace-objective-factors-classification/