ATF has posted their proposed brace rules.

[202]

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mar...17/id/1025424/

Yes!! I hope it goes through.

[Diamondback]

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mar...17/id/1025424/

Yes!! I hope it goes through.

In *this* Congress about as likely as me knocking up a Playmate of the Year, but we still need to push it hard to keep the pressure on--and KEEP pushing it every year.

[202]

In *this* Congress about as likely as me knocking up a Playmate of the Year, but we still need to push it hard to keep the pressure on--and KEEP pushing it every year.

I agree, but you never know. For sure we need to keep pushing it every year and harder each time.

[Whiskey_Bravo]

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mar...17/id/1025424/

Yes!! I hope it goes through.

Probably wouldn't even get majority support with the do nothing repubs.

[Diamondback]

Don't forget to comment on the Frame/Receiver grab too!
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/c...er-rule-today/

[ARx3]

Well at least MTG is doing something positive . I as for myself I contacted both my Senators (Moran & Marshall) concerning the pistol brace issue as well as the Chipman nomination. I also contacted my Congressman Mann about the brace issue. I then decided to join GOA and sent messages through them. Everyone of us needs to get on top of these overreaches by unelected bureaucrats.

[ARx3]

Don't forget to comment on the Frame/Receiver grab too!
https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/c...er-rule-today/

Sent today also !

[Diamondback]

[Pressingonward]

I've drafted a comment to submit regarding the proposed pistol brace rules. Posting it here ahead of time in case anyone has any suggestions to improve it before I submit (not that it's that critical to get it perfect - I don't think these comments will do a whole lot). It's somewhat rambling and far from succinct:

I am commenting today regarding ATF 2021R–08, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘‘Stabilizing Braces’’”.
The proposed rules on stabilizing braces have the surface appearance of objectivity, but a closer examination shows them to be completely subjective and subject to the whims of the ATF on a case-by-case basis - this is a poor model for federal regulation that will lead to law-abiding citizens being charged as felons for weapons that have been perfectly legal by the formal written guidance of the ATF for years now.

A large number of the criteria in this proposed rule are subjective and dependent on a person’s unique physical stature. A disabled veteran who is a large person with large forearms may find it easier to shoot a pistol with a longer brace length than a smaller person, yet the criteria in this rule makes it illegal to increase that brace length to match a person’s unique physique. Similarly, they may purchase a “cuff type design” that may fully wrap around an average person’s forearm, but only partially wraps around their unusually large forearm – does that make them a felon? Almost every line item in your worksheet is vague and subjective, making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to be certain that they are in compliance with these regulations. This is far from objective.

The proposed rule claims that there can be no other use for attaching a brace to a lightweight pistol than to fire it from the shoulder, but this is simply not true. Braces are used in target pistol competitions to improve accuracy – this is hardly an unusual, dangerous or “gangster” application. The proposed rule would felonize a whole subset of competition shooters – a class of firearms use that is clearly and explicitly protected by the second amendment as has been made clear throughout the years in multiple court cases. The proposed rules would infringe on our rights to use pistol braces for legitimate sporting purposes.

In section II, Application of ATF Worksheet 4999, you specify that one point is for things that suggest that “the weapon could be fired from the shoulder,” however this description is outside the scope of the “the statutory definitions of ‘‘rifle’’ in the GCA and NFA [which] describe that type of weapon as one ‘‘intended to be fired from the shoulder.’’ There is a wide gulf between “could” and “intended” – I could if I really wanted to, shoot a Glock 19 or other small handgun from my shoulder, but that does not mean that a Glock 19 is intended to be fired from the shoulder. In the same way, just because an AR-type pistol could be fired from the shoulder doesn’t mean that it is intended to be fired from the shoulder, and the criteria in your worksheet fail to show any hint of intent, which is legally the only thing the ATF should be concerned with.

For example, a point is assigned if a weapon has “no sights” – how does not having sights change a weapon from a pistol into a rifle? This is absurd. What happens if a law-abiding citizen has a red-dot sight on their AR pistol, and they take it off to send it in for warranty repair? All the sudden, their legal AR-pistol gains another “point” on your worksheet, which may well lead to it being classified as a short barreled rifle, and turn them into a felon – simply from REMOVING a piece of hardware.

I could list out several more issues I have with the proposed ruling, but I’ll leave it with a broader point – the whole intent of the GCA and NFA is to protect law-abiding citizens. These proposed rules do NOTHING to accomplish that aim. Instead they do exactly the opposite – make millions of law-abiding pistol owners felons overnight due to abstract details of the kinds of plastic and rubber attached to their gun, while doing nothing to prevent crime. It is clear that the millions of AR-type pistols in common use in the USA are not “dangerous and unusual gangster-type weapons”, and if the ATF would like to reclassify these as short-barreled rifles, it therefore follows that short-barreled rifles are in common use – making the GCA and NFA constitutionally invalid. These regulations accomplish nothing of value and infringe on our rights as US citizens. I urge to withdraw the proposed rules on pistol stabilizing braces.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Good read:

https://www.primaryarms.com/atf-prop...22b_ATF-Ruling