AR pistols- new proposed rule -> SBR

[grayfox]

ATF has just published its notice of proposed rulemaking, for re-defining virtually all (if not ALL) stabilizing brace/pistols as SBR's under NFA. AND issuing "model" red flag law for states/localities.
Note: this is a separate rule making from the one in December, so if you commented then, you would need to make a new comment on this one now - the old comment will not apply.

as an fyi, I haven't read all the way through this one yet.
First impressions are that the "objective worksheet" for "classifying" braces is not very objective. And that any kind of "model" red flag that takes away your 4th-5th amendment rights, is unconstitutional at its core. Think modern-day "Minority Report", "pre-crime", guilty before you commit anything.

ps: understand some folks don't agree with the NFA, but unfortunately that doesn't apply right now unless NFA gets revised or repealed, or struck down. So this thread is about the new proposed rule/comments thereon, to let everyone know/comment on that.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/06...gislation/

[StoneHendge]

The actual proposed rule can be found here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulation...ing-braces

"Pistol" owners aren't going to be happy, but it's consistent with what they've been saying for years. I guess a "pistol" barrel could always be kept under the car seat for self defense.

[lazyengineer]

Yep, there's a reason I've got a 14.5" pin and weld project almost done.

That "victory" in December - wasn't.

[mdram]

wonder what percentage the the pistol builds are actually used as pistols?
everyone one i see people with use it shouldered as a rifle

[lazyengineer]

wonder what percentage the the pistol builds are actually used as pistols?
everyone one i see people with use it shouldered as a rifle

Yep, it's a mess. While on one hand there's that "it's an obvious NFA backdoor", on the other hand, there's the "that the ATF has said actively and passively is totally OK and not really an NFA violation".

They're going to have to rectify that. Meanwhile, there's millions of people affected, and there's no way all of them are going to know their heretofore legal firearm purchased via reputable means, is suddenly an NFA item.

They tried rectifying it in December with "free expedited NFA stamp if you have one and worried that maybe you really are pushing it and it's really an SBR in some eyes (like the one's about to be sworn in, that just won the election)". combined with "and you don't have to actually have the tax stamp, if it's really a pistol and you are using it as a pistol, and we're not going to do some draconian impossible to comply with rule and point list behind that". To which everyone lost their minds. Somehow thinking this wasn't going to get revisited by a much less cooperative admin that had already won the election.

If you didn't see this coming; I don't know what to say.

[biodsl]

Government ~ If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions.

Millions of citizens relied on ATF's interpretations of law before purchases or building pistols with stabilizing braces. Redefining things now amounts to 'a taking'.

[grayfox]

Did seem to me that lots of online vendors all of a sudden were pushing the sale of their various pistoleer-ola pieces/parts inventories... so as to, what? not be stuck with inventory on hand when ATF strikes?
Not knocking them in a way, that's a normal business reaction to reduce a financial impact... just saying it seemed funny, like, all of a sudden...

Definitely Roger that on Paul's comment above ^^^

[Hansel&Grendel]

Okay, assume that enough people comply and go the NFA route (tax stamp). It's a time consuming forms approval process with a requirement that the subject lower receiver is laser etched with the applicant's FN, LN and City/State residency (another ~$75 charge in addition to the $200 tax stamp). To those who have already gone the NFA route and are already on the "radar screen", what's another registered firearm? However, I'm not familiar with an "expedited" NFA process in this matter because the idea is scrutiny of each Form 1 application for approval or denial. Will ATF allow what is now deemed to be an NFA firearm (pistol-braced weapons) to stay assembled for use and transport (range, truck gun, etc.) pending a determination? Or, will ATF require separation of the upper from the lower; and removing all parts from the lower receiver? Imagine if several hundred thousand or a few million gun owners complied all at once, so much so that ATF is inundated with paperwork to the extent that another year or so is added to the determination process.

We do know that many gun owners are pissed (putting it mildly). Selective enforcement of laws is hypocrisy. For example, entry by a foreign national into a US airport or seaport requires a visa. However, why is the Southwest border different to allow illegal immigrants into the country (sans visa) with zero prospect of deportation? If the government itself doesn't obey certain laws for the purpose of political and financial gain, then why should gun owners not be allowed the same luxury?

[StoneHendge]

Millions of citizens relied on ATF's interpretations of law before purchases or building pistols with stabilizing braces. Redefining things now amounts to 'a taking'.

Millions of citizens relied on the stabilizing brace and "pistol" and barrel manufacturers interpretations of law before purchases or building pistols with stabilizing braces. The ATF has always said that the intended use of a "stabilizing brace" must be to use it as a stabilizing brace on the arm. This does in fact allow that to remain, such as in their first example with the SBA Mini in the text of the rule.

[lazyengineer]

Okay, assume that enough people comply and go the NFA route (tax stamp). It's a time consuming forms approval process with a requirement that the subject lower receiver is laser etched with the applicant's FN, LN and City/State residency (another ~$75 charge in addition to the $200 tax stamp). To those who have already gone the NFA route and are already on the "radar screen", what's another registered firearm? However, I'm not familiar with an "expedited" NFA process in this matter because the idea is scrutiny of each Form 1 application for approval or denial. Will ATF allow what is now deemed to be an NFA firearm (pistol-braced weapons) to stay assembled for use and transport (range, truck gun, etc.) pending a determination? Or, will ATF require separation of the upper from the lower; and removing all parts from the lower receiver? Imagine if several hundred thousand or a few million gun owners complied all at once, so much so that ATF is inundated with paperwork to the extent that another year or so is added to the determination process.

We do know that many gun owners are pissed (putting it mildly). Selective enforcement of laws is hypocrisy. For example, entry by a foreign national into a US airport or seaport requires a visa. However, why is the Southwest border different to allow illegal immigrants into the country (sans visa) with zero prospect of deportation? If the government itself doesn't obey certain laws for the purpose of political and financial gain, then why should gun owners not be allowed the same luxury?

Not sure. In 2020 they offered expedited. Mostly to get it processed before Biden was sworn in, is how I read it - so maybe a few quick few mouse clicks of the instant check, and issueance the of the license right away, I guess.

Under the new team, I think such expedited action is pretty much off the table. If this stands, and they do offer waived fee's for NFA, then they'll get.. I donno, maybe 10% compliance to take the NFA stamp. (it's already a compliance device, so I'm guessing a higher portion of compliers than typical?) Without the waved fee, maybe 5% compliance to go all the way to NFA? And even that would be a big surge, so I would expect that to be slow-boat; with you not in compliance if the gun is assembled and used, while waiting.

We'll see. My own crystal ball: some version of this is happening. They might be convinced to NFA waived fee to pre-existing like they offered in 2020, but it will take some real pressure to get even that. And those stamps will be quite slow to get.

There will be all the usual chest-puffing of non-compliance. Please don't make personal decisions based on how goaded your manhood is by some guy online.

[BVickery1974]

Personally, dont like the NFA and history behind it. But seeing what these "pistols" are as an attempt to do an end run around the NFA and only surprised took this long.

And yes, I am writing comments against the proposed changes.

[Hansel&Grendel]

I wouldn't call this a "manhood" issue although I see the point about not letting emotion get the better of rational thinking. However, many see the proposed registration of pistol-braced guns as another step toward confiscation (a stated goal of this Administration). For now, it's wait and see but it's fair to say that some type of regulation is forthcoming. Enforcement, should those regulations happen to whatever degree, is an entirely different matter.

[biodsl]

Millions of citizens relied on the stabilizing brace and "pistol" and barrel manufacturers interpretations of law before purchases or building pistols with stabilizing braces.

Wrong. ATF said braces were legal. What was up in the air was the legality of how they were used. Now they want a second bite at the apple on design. That ship sailed. People bought legal braces. Now ATF wants to call them illegal.

[lazyengineer]

Wrong. ATF said braces were legal. What was up in the air was the legality of how they were used. Now they want a second bite at the apple on design. That ship sailed. People bought legal braces. Now ATF wants to call them illegal.

This. I have started to compose a draft on my comments to ATF. And this sums up the issue succinctly. They said it was legal. Now you want to make Felons of millions of American who were good faith acting in compliance to that? Doesnt matter that it was often a back-door NFA circumvention - if the agency in question expressly and by action deemed that it was not.

Going forward, I get saying hey we need to reevaluate- but you cant screw over the millions who already bought and dont check the FEDERAL registry every week for updates.

[A5BLASTER]

Know what else yall, well everyone is missing in all this.

Look at these new rules and then apply them to bullpup designs. From my understanding, must if not all bullpup designs would now be sbr's as well.

[StoneHendge]

Guys, they never said they were all legal. They always said certain specific models were legal if they were used as they were allegedly designed and that they were not legal if the possessor designed a firearm with them to be used braced against the shoulder. I've read all of the ATF letters as they've come out. In the first letter approving one of them, they said the specific model was legal but that it was illegal to shoulder it. Then a second letter came out which said ok, this one's legal too and you can situationally shoulder it, but if the possessor of the brace designs the firearm with the intent to shoulder it, it's not legal. That's when the market exploded and the industry advertised "The ATF said it's ok to shoulder an arm brace!" In 2019, they said "seriously folks, don't design your firearm to be shouldered". It's the gun industry that advertised the assertion that the ATF said they are legal no matter how you use them and made millions selling them. The good news is that they still allow a pistol that is designed to be used as a pistol, as evidenced by their example with an SBA Mini. The Disabled Veterans for which the market allegedly exists should be rejoicing.

[grayfox]

"Then a second letter came out which said ok, this one's legal too and you can situationally shoulder it, but if the possessor of the brace designs the firearm with the intent to shoulder it, it's not legal. "

This may or may not be true, I'm not contesting the point...
But how does one correctly discern the "intent" of a designer, ie, the one building the pistol.
Laws and regulations are supposed to be concrete about an act, not about a thought.
And if something can be done "situationally" or "once in a while", how does one clearly and correctly ascertain whether this particular use is beyond the "situationally" occasion? Besides, when the ATF is "evaluating" the gun, it is in effect just sitting there, they cannot see it in action to even determine if this is a "situationally" time.
All making it very subjective, IMO.

[montana]

"Then a second letter came out which said ok, this one's legal too and you can situationally shoulder it, but if the possessor of the brace designs the firearm with the intent to shoulder it, it's not legal. "

This may or may not be true, I'm not contesting the point...
But how does one correctly discern the "intent" of a designer, ie, the one building the pistol.
Laws and regulations are supposed to be concrete about an act, not about a thought.
And if something can be done "situationally" or "once in a while", how does one clearly and correctly ascertain whether this particular use is beyond the "situationally" occasion? Besides, when the ATF is "evaluating" the gun, it is in effect just sitting there, they cannot see it in action to even determine if this is a "situationally" time.
All making it very subjective, IMO.

Exactly, the rules are meant to be obscure so prosecutors can add charges to individuals they consider politically convenient to prosecute for political points. This is what hate crimes are used for. The crime should be the determined factor for prosecution, not the thought of the perpetrator...More thought crimes....

[StoneHendge]

"

But how does one correctly discern the "intent" of a designer, ie, the one building the pistol.
.

That is what they are doing now with their formula. But they already said in their 2019 letter that if you have a magnified optic with restricted eye relief and that eye relief only works if its held like a rifle, then the intent is clear. That's when I parted out my Grendel "pistol".

When everyone has a chance to calm down, they should look at the actual new rule. There are few things that should be softened. One of the underlying precepts is that a handgun is designed to be shot with one hand. Which is obviously false everywhere outside of a Hollywood studio. But the ergonomics of an AR pistol don't allow it to be gripped like a Glock or a revolver. Two, having backup sites or a red dot makes it more like a rifle? Almost every handgun made in the last 100 years will have a front and rear site, and many people put red dots on them. Does putting a red dot on your G20 make it more like a rifle? How are you supposed to aim? Bring back lasers?

[Fess]

Wrong. ATF said braces were legal. What was up in the air was the legality of how they were used. Now they want a second bite at the apple on design. That ship sailed. People bought legal braces. Now ATF wants to call them illegal.

The ATF never said all pistol braces were legal. Anyone who says that has not read the actual documents carefully. It is important to closely read any response from a government agency.* If you read the March 2017 letter from the BATF to SB Tactical, you will see what I mean. They made a point of stating that the approved brace did not work well as a shoulder stock.

It is possible to have a perfectly functional AR-based pistol with a brace that works well when shot one-handed like a pistol. The braces they previously approved are still OK. The important point is that it must do an acceptable job as a forearm brace but not work well as a shoulder stock. This was pointed out in the March 2017 letter from the BATF to SB Tactical that approved ONE PARTICULAR brace. They explained why they decided that that particular brace did not "make" a pistol into a SBR. The particular brace that SB Tactical submitted for evaluation had floppy foam for the forearm brace and was pretty terrible as a shoulder stock.

Here is the important part of the letter:
"With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not "make" a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by the FATD, it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder."

As near as I can tell, ATF never gave a BLANKET approval to pistol braces despite what the companies who sell them claim. SB Tactical will email you a copy of this letter from BATF, but it requires registering at SB's site. https://www.sb-tactical.com/resources/ba...inion-use/

The ATF even noted (in that same letter) that is was not enough that a brace be : "designed, intended and marketed for use only to shoot from the arm."


* I learned this from years of dealing with the EPA from being in charge of handling many tons of hazardous waste generated by a former employer.