ATF planning to ban certain braces? Rep. Matt Gaetz responds

[Former11B]

https://gaetz.house.gov/media/hottakespress/gaetz-calls-atf-cease-plans-restricting-arm-brace-usage

“Congressman Matt Gaetz announced today on his podcast the ATF is crafting secret rules restricting the possession of certain pistol braces by American citizens, and that he has sent them a letter demanding they stop.”

"We understand that ATF is currently considering restricting one arm brace model owned by over 700,000 Americans," Congressman Gaetz writes along with six other members of Congress. "We strongly urge ATF to cease taking any actions and reconsider or rescind any secret determinations which call into question the legality of firearms owned by millions of law-abiding Americans."

“There is always a need to vindicate our Second Amendment rights,” Gaetz says on his podcast, "Hot Takes with Matt Gaetz."

He explains that even during very conservative administrations, like President Trump’s, some do “try to make it more difficult to acquire things that shooters need and gun owners need, for safety and for the unique circumstances that an individual may have.”

The congressman emphasizes that Americans must remain proactive in defense of their Second Amendment Rights.



Test case to see if one brace will pass the ban then the rest will fall also. And people said the bumpstock ban wasn’t a slippery slope.

If we are getting turned into felons...might as well use a stock instead of a brace... “allegedly”

[alamo5000]

I am not a brace guy but it certainly has it's place. Until they get rid of those stupid laws about crossing state lines--even from legal state to legal state--they have their place.

[UWone77]

After some chit chat with some people online, the guess is they're referring to the KAK Shockwave.

Other braces have straps, and are actually designed to help one handed shooting. The Shockwave does no such thing, and maybe that's why Magpul hasn't released their's yet, or it was never approved.

[UWone77]

This is gonna be a big problem here....



7683

[alamo5000]

This is gonna be a big problem here....


I think this is one of the big things that will backfire in a big way. I'm fairly confident that the gun community won't comply and won't just sit by and do nothing.

[BoilerUp]

I think I might go boating this weekend.

[Aragorn]

Registering braced pistol if built prior, sans stamp? What’s that mean? Free SBR?

[Jerry R]

Registering braced pistol if built prior, sans stamp? What’s that mean? Free SBR?

I think it means a "free stamp" to REGISTER the firearm as a pistol. Another scheme to gather names.

[n4p226r]

lot of first time buyers in NJ are going to get screwed too. that whole class of firearms that don't have an actual classification (in NJ they call them "non-nfa" or "others") have caught on. for a long time, that's one of the few firearms that stores around here could get in stock. I know of plenty of first time buyers that bought one as their first AR. Now I assume their only option is to remove the brace entirely or put a 16" barrel on it and follow the AWB rules.

[Deadwing]

I think it means a "free stamp" to REGISTER the firearm as a pistol. Another scheme to gather names.

I wouldn't put it past them. That said, the ATF letter stated that they would implement a separate process by which possessors of brace equipped firearms can register them to be compliant with the NFA. And if compliance with the NFA is what they're after, i would think they'd have to register it as a weapon regulated by the NFA. Since pistols (even if equipped with a brace) with rifled bores don't meet the definition of an AOW, their only other choice would be to register them as SBRs. Since the braces i own were purchased as placeholders for eventual stocks and registration as SBRs, and the ATF already has my name from previous NFA purchases, i'll gladly accept their generous offer of free stamps for what would have cost me a couple grand to register. [BD]

[tact]

...and there lies the problem.

[UWone77]

I doubt this is a free stamp for an SBR. My guess is they will eventually allow free stamps for AR pistols and claim AR/AK or any other firearm that uses a brace as a separate NFA Pistol classification.

[mustangfreek]

I’m thinking there “classification of pistol” as they said in the letter. Weight,calibers, length . Lpvo and all that will be a really limited configuration of just a few

That will get “classified” as pistols
I’m guessing..



It’s fucked all around

Sitting here on most parts for a shorty 308..now this 🙃

[mustangfreek]

...and there lies the problem.

And what is that?

[griff411]

Be sure to offer a respectful, succinct and clearly worded comment regarding the ATF letter:

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2020-0001-0001

[FortTom]

I've been anticipating this for quite a while and here it is, I suppose. Shouldn't the ATF be out looking for bad guy importers and sellers of firearms to the criminal element. Seems like they should be keeping law abiding citizens safe from thugs, criminals, organized crime, etc...

FT

[n4p226r]

I wouldn't put it past them. That said, the ATF letter stated that they would implement a separate process by which possessors of brace equipped firearms can register them to be compliant with the NFA. And if compliance with the NFA is what they're after, i would think they'd have to register it as a weapon regulated by the NFA. Since pistols (even if equipped with a brace) with rifled bores don't meet the definition of an AOW, their only other choice would be to register them as SBRs. Since the braces i own were purchased as placeholders for eventual stocks and registration as SBRs, and the ATF already has my name from previous NFA purchases, i'll gladly accept their generous offer of free stamps for what would have cost me a couple grand to register. [BD]

i think this is part of the plan. and when thousands literally do the same thing to save $200, they'll claim it was a massive success with a ton of compliance and will work it out for the next scheme. Im not sure i disagree with the people taking advantage of a free tax stamp by doing this, but its a lose/lose situation for the firearms and 2a community as a whole.

[alamo5000]

I don't own any braced firearms but I still think it's a very bad idea to go along with this. It's not about $200. If I had a braced firearm the main reason would be to travel across state lines.

If they were to eliminate the state line rule about notification then that would change the game regarding braces. Now I legally can't go between two states that both allow SBRs without notifying the master at the ATF and getting permission first.

If they eliminated that rule there would I believe there would be hundreds of thousands of more registered SBRs out there.

Even that sucks because it plays into the whole registry of all guns thing. Ideally it would be best to show some common sense and remove barrel length restrictions from the NFA all together.

Hell, I was just watching some videos about the FKBrno and it defeats body armor out past 100 yards from a standard size pistol. Basically my point is technology has rendered the NFA to be even more stupid now than it's ever been.

They are having this huge fight literally over a piece of rubber that has zero impact on the functions of the firearm.

As it stands now I am all about fighting this at every turn.

[alamo5000]

You know, if this ends up going through people should design buffer tubes with different lengths for a different length of pull and then sell a t shirt separately that has a heavy duty rubber "U" right in the pocket of your shoulder where you could shoulder a bare extension tube without it hurting your shoulder.

Then we can watch them try to ban t shirts and rubber "U" shaped items.

[BoilerUp]

You know, if this ends up going through people should design buffer tubes with different lengths for a different length of pull and then sell a t shirt separately that has a heavy duty rubber "U" right in the pocket of your shoulder where you could shoulder a bare extension tube without it hurting your shoulder.

Then we can watch them try to ban t shirts and rubber "U" shaped items.

I've had similar ides.


The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder

Trying to figure out how to make a stock designed to rest against your sternum. Then it wouldn't be a rifle.

[alamo5000]

I've had similar ideas.

Make a heavy duty softish rubber "plate" that contours to your shoulder that you can glue or iron on to a shirt.

The raised portion can be the letter J, X, U, upside down A, V, etc and it only needs to be about half an inch or less high to prevent it from slipping around.

The main point is that no matter how much they try people will find a new way around it.

Hell, we could sell rubber alphabet letters on ebay and make a good profit if it comes down to it.

[MoxyDave]

I think I found a "handy" solution guys:

7685

[Deadwing]

...and there lies the problem.

I'm not saying what the ATF is doing isn't 100% bullshit. Because it is, and the NFA in its entirety should be made null and void. I'm only saying why not use their stupid regulation to my advantage. I was already planning on SBR'ing a bunch of guns, and only haven't because getting finger printed around here has been a pain in the ass, especially without h covid restrictions. Some of those just happen to have braces. The details of what the ATF's registration process looks like (i.e. will they register braced weapons as SBRs, or something else) will determine whether or not it makes sense for me to actually use the process, or just submit the Form 1s.

[Deadwing]

I doubt this is a free stamp for an SBR. My guess is they will eventually allow free stamps for AR pistols and claim AR/AK or any other firearm that uses a brace as a separate NFA Pistol classification.

Wouldn't creating a new class of NFA weapon require them to amend the National Firearms Act? That would actually require legislation, wouldn't it? I mean, i'm sure the ATF would love to create all sorts of new categories of weapons that require registration, but as it is currently, the only category of NFA weapons i can see anything with a brace falling into is SBR (or SBS). I'm no an expert by any means, but that's my read.

[Deadwing]

i think this is part of the plan. and when thousands literally do the same thing to save $200, they'll claim it was a massive success with a ton of compliance and will work it out for the next scheme. Im not sure i disagree with the people taking advantage of a free tax stamp by doing this, but its a lose/lose situation for the firearms and 2a community as a whole.

Like i said, i have weapons that will be SBR'd at some point anyway. Some have braces, some don't. My action, or inaction, will be determined by what whatever process BATFE comes up with for registering braced weapons. If it legit turns out to be expedited SBR registration without paying a $200 tax, i have no reason not to, since i was already planning on filing Form 1s anyway. But if i have to register it as a braced weapon only and can't use an actual stock, they can pound sand and i'll file the Form 1 when i get around to it.

[griff411]

At the risk of being redundant, I encourage everyone to offer a respectful and concise comment on the government website regarding the recent ATF letter. It might not do any good, but it certainly won't hurt...

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2020-0001-0001

[alamo5000]

At the risk of being redundant, I encourage everyone to offer a respectful and concise comment on the government website regarding the recent ATF letter. It might not do any good, but it certainly won't hurt...

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2020-0001-0001

I already did mine.

[alamo5000]

Apparently the ATF withdrew their proposal. That apparently means it's dead (for now).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKePUBJtQJU&feature=emb_logo

[alamo5000]

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download

[MoxyDave]

Won't hurt to go comment on the proposal anyway ... let your voice be heard. They won't back down so easily again if captain Octogenarian actually gets in office in January.

[alamo5000]

Video dropped stating that the proposed new rule on pistol braces will drop in December of 2022.

This is assuming that further Supreme Court rulings (namely West Virginia vs the EPA) doesn't stop it in it's tracks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDiAE4oTkSA

[Joelski]

Be sure to offer a respectful, succinct and clearly worded comment regarding the ATF letter:

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2020-0001-0001

Link is dead, but the ATF thanks you for clicking. [;)]

I have one firearm with a brace. I would hope they would grant a grace period to get it SBR'd, as my boat's in the shop at the marina...

I'm positive that the AFT isn't going to give anything away for free, but if they did, it would be the closest to "Build back better" that old poopypants has gotten thus far in his farcical presiduncy.

[alamo5000]

Link is dead, but the ATF thanks you for clicking. [;)]

I have one firearm with a brace. I would hope they would grant a grace period to get it SBR'd, as my boat's in the shop at the marina...

I'm positive that the AFT isn't going to give anything away for free, but if they did, it would be the closest to "Build back better" that old poopypants has gotten thus far in his farcical presiduncy.

The results of the West Virginia vs the EPA case has the potential to royally screw the government including the ATF and all other agencies.

At heart of the case is whether or not agencies can create new laws on their own. Basically the EPA was acting like the ATF so 17 states sued over them making their own laws. The case was combined with other cases so now it's like 26 states against the EPA.

Essentially if the SCOTUS rules against the EPA pretty much every agency of the government will be prohibited from unilaterally creating their own rules and regulations.

My personal hope is that any rule changes have to go through the legislative process. We are about a day and a half away from seeing if they rule that way or not.

[Joelski]

Well, the case was decided. The judiciary period is ended and a new, radical lib has been sworn-in, all as of Yesterday, I do believe.