ATF Proposed Rule Change: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Braces

It's not gobbledygook because they know exactly what they are doing and the intention here is clearly a back-door approach to rendering problematic most brace designs on the market.

Their disdain and snark is evident right in sentence two:

"The proposed rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported "stabilizing brace..."

The deliberate use of that word alone is a shot across the bow.

I just love how they assign points against for no sights at all on the firearm...:rolleyes:

Especially when they say they dont issue opinions on firearm accessories...

Oh wait, that makes this entire argument on stabilizing braces hypocritical

Show me where Joe McCarthy was was wrong about communists in the government.

I believe they say it’s too heavy for one handed operation. But yet no one shoots one handed anything anymore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshIronshaft

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

Hold on to your pistol braces, the ride is about to get bumpy!

Sharpen your pencils for the public comment period.

It’s a long read. My favorite part is page 55 where they said they considered a tax free SBR registration for current brace owners but they rejected the idea since people would just register all their pistols as SBRs and take advantage of it.

I feel personally attacked.

---

The explanation of the points system makes my brain hurt.

https://youtu.be/0yEW7Y0JPxo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EFK

"The proposed rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported "stabilizing brace..."

---

I'm going to take heat for this..... Can you blame them for using that term ("purported")? If we could take an honest poll of all the stabilizing brace owners in the country, what do you think is the ACTUAL percentage of owners that use the braces as intended (with their arm strapped in/onto the brace). 1%? Maybe even less?

https://media.tenor.com/images/84056...f575/tenor.gif

if that geriatric fucker is coming for our guns, just put them all on the 2nd floor, since we all know that old fucker cant climb stairs without falling. besides the high ground is always an advantage
Attachment 146890
picture shamelessly stolen off the net

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Royinmontco

I'm going to take heat for this..... Can you blame them for using that term ("purported")? If we could take an honest poll of all the stabilizing brace owners in the country, what do you think is the ACTUAL percentage of owners that use the braces as intended (with their arm strapped in/onto the brace). 1%? Maybe even less?

---

Oh I agree. And I directly blame the dipshits who constantly post videos on wherever as well as companies like whatever company it was that began selling a 'shockwave blade protector' and not only was selling it but attempting to get approval for it. Yes, I agree, there may be some people who are using some form of brace to do something with them that perhaps is different than their advertised intent. Big fucking deal, I don't remember seeing a sudden surge in so-called hyped-up mass-shootings using braced arms. Either you're a criminal or your not. ATF opened the door to this clusterfuck and now they want to pretend like somehow the MILLIONS of braced arms and their owners out there are suddenly a problem, which they absolutely are not. It's nothing but a political ploy based upon optics so they can pretend that they're not all giant steaming piles of useless shit.

Kudos to all who made it through the entire typical .gov piece of shit proposed ruling. Safe to say when an assessment will be done with almost any brace on the market today the ATF will always get to 4 points in section 2 or 3.

I wonder if even a longer buffer tube would constitute a brace/stock in this proposal.