ATF has posted their proposed brace rules.

**okie** · 06-10-21, 11:26

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Gun-grabbers use the same argument to suggest that NFA regulation effectively prevents criminal use of the most evil of guns.

Biden's gun-grab playbook:

* Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

-------

Unfortunately, it's probably an effective argument among the uninformed... Heavily regulated firearms = rarely used in crime = head nod.

They obviously haven't talked to the Jasper county sheriff's department. The methbillies down there love their MGs, and they have no problem getting them either.

**gaijin** · 06-10-21, 11:27

^^Agreed and well said.

**Diamondback** · 06-10-21, 13:06

A guy over at NWFA's comment, shared as a springboard for your own ideas:

“The proposed criteria is a form of government-sanctioned disablism in nature. Pistol braces are meant to aid those in shooting a pistol one-handed who would otherwise have immense difficulty in doing so. When pistol braces were made it was a blessing to the physically disabled and frail community, as it reduced barriers to their practicing of the second amendment. Braces give increased access to means of self-defense, thereby making vulnerable populations less likely to be victimized. This proposal reverses that liberation in a needlessly confusing manner. The criteria grading sheet is not clear, logical, concise or easily accessible for the average American. With over 3 million braces in circulation this proposed criteria could result in an already vulnerable population being subjected to oppressive government overreach. This overreach can land an otherwise well-meaning vulnerable individual in prison with a felony. The grading criteria is highly subjective and not easily enforceable given the sheer number of braces in circulation. I imagine it will only be a matter of time before the ADA gets involved in opposition of this discriminatory proposal which only targets otherwise law-abiding disabled or frail Americans, by impeding on their second amendment rights. It is not the government's place to dictate specific uses of equipment intended to aid a physically disabled/vulnerable individual in practicing his second amendment right. I.e. an individual adjusting for length of pull, does not mean they are circumventing the NFA, but rather making the firearm more comfortable and safe to fire dependent on that individual's physique. Additionally, placing an income-barrier in the form of a $200 tax stamp on top of the already costly means of self-defense, would be oppressive in nature towards vulnerable populations this product was intended for. “

**TMS951** · 06-10-21, 13:17

I donated 500$ to FPC. I’m all done with the NRA, bunch of self serving fudds.

I’m also going submit a comment. More defending voices the better. I’ll make sure mine is more articulate than I’d imagine some will be.

My big concern here is less braces and more the precedent set here. The end goal is semi auto rifles. This is where we need to draw the line. If the ATF simply wanted to outlaw new braces being made and sold, but grandfather the old ones I’d just say ‘it’s been nice’ and that I’d expected it. This approach they are taking is different.

**1168** · 06-10-21, 13:37

Originally Posted by TMS951

I donated 500$ to FPC. I’m all done with the NRA, bunch of self serving fudds.

I’m also going submit a comment. More defending voices the better. I’ll make sure mine is more articulate than I’d imagine some will be.

My big concern here is less braces and more the precedent set here. The end goal is semi auto rifles. This is where we need to draw the line. If the ATF simply wanted to outlaw new braces being made and sold, but grandfather the old ones I’d just say ‘it’s been nice’ and that I’d expected it. This approach they are taking is different.

Spot on, for all points.

**ChattanoogaPhil** · 06-10-21, 14:02

Originally Posted by OH58D

Yeah, nothing like having legally purchased and owned firearms and paying $200 + the application to make them legal again. That's going to go over real well.

Lost in all this are the folks who are truly handicapped and benefit from an arm brace. They would be subject to all the worksheet points bs if this proposal is implemented, though I have doubts it will. It's like trying to regulate the type of car that can be parked in a handicapped parking space instead of issuing parking permits to handicapped drivers.

**prepare** · 06-10-21, 14:14

3 or 4 million gun owners should just let it be known they are no longer concerned with the legality of their assault weapons.

**ViniVidivici** · 06-10-21, 15:22

Originally Posted by prepare

3 or 4 million gun owners should just let it be known they are no longer concerned with the legality of their assault weapons.

Amen.

Your avatar is more and more relevant every day, BTW.

**tehpwnag3** · 06-10-21, 19:56

It would seem that if someone actually benefits from the intended purpose of the arm brace, the ATF is "implying" that they can stamp it and continue using the brace, right? As if the brace was simply a workaround for a no-stamp SBR. I didn't think the brace was being banned outright but to re-classify the AR pistol in order to downgrade brace usage for non-disabled folks. I mean given a choice, I think everyone would rather use a real stock. At least I would.

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Lost in all this are the folks who are truly handicapped and benefit from an arm brace. They would be subject to all the worksheet points bs if this proposal is implemented, though I have doubts it will. It's like trying to regulate the type of car that can be parked in a handicapped parking space instead of issuing parking permits to handicapped drivers.

.....
As for the revenue angle, I'm not buying it. Not completely. Government needs billions to service a debt of trillions. A one time $200 tax (per unit) is peanuts. This is nothing more than setting a precedent for how they will ban everything effective for defense. To me, this is the tipping point that will certainly draw a line in the sand for all responsible gun owners who enjoy this wonderful FOW.