National Gun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

· Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
33,014 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·



The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) released its final rule on stabilizer braces Friday, noting that individuals in possession of said braces have 120 days to register them once the final rule appears in the Federal Register.

On January 13, 2023, the ATF announced that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland signed the final stabilizer brace rule.

The ATF notes:
This rule is effective the date it is published in the Federal Register. Any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register; or the short barrel removed and a 16-inch or longer rifle barrel attached to the firearm; or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; or the firearm is turned in to your local ATF office. Or the firearm is destroyed.
In a more expansive explanation of the rule, the ATF pointed out options that individuals and FFLs possess if they are currently in possession of an AR pistol with a stabilizer brace.

Once the rule appears in the Federal Register, owners of AR pistols with stabilizer braces have 120 days to fulfill one of these five options:
Should individuals and FFLs [Federal Firearm License holders] be in possession of a firearm with an attached “stabilizing brace” such that the firearm constitutes a firearm under the NFA [National Firearm Act] in addition to the GCA [Gun Control Act], the affected persons or FFLs will need to choose one of the following options.
The options presented in the final [rule] are:
• Scenario 1: Turn in the entire firearm with the attached “stabilizing brace” to ATF;
• Scenario 2: Destroy the whole firearm;
• Scenario 3: Convert the short-barreled rifle into a long-barreled rifle;
• Scenario 4: Apply to register the weapon under the NFA; or
• Scenario 5: Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” from the firearm such that it cannot be reattached.
The ATF suggests that braces intended to be fired without shouldering the gun may remain legal: “This rule does not affect ‘stabilizing braces’ that are objectively designed and intended as a ‘stabilizing brace’ for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. However, if the firearm with the ‘stabilizing brace’ is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.”

Gun Owners of America, which brought a successful lawsuit last month to block many of Oregon’s new gun controls, has already made clear a lawsuit against the ATF’s stabilizer brace rule will be forthcoming.

Gun Owners of America’s Erich Pratt said, ““This admin continues to find ways to attack gun owners. We will continue to work with our industry partners to amplify the disapproving voices in the firearms industry and Gun Foundation, our sister legal arm, will be filing suit in the near future.”

=================================================

FBATFE and FJB!
 
  • Angry
Reactions: GRBOU812

· Registered
Joined
·
17,525 Posts
"The ATF suggests that braces intended to be fired without shouldering the gun may remain legal"
I thought all braces were made so they can hook on your forearms in some manner? Who is to say how they were "intended" to be used? I could shoulder just a buffer tube if I wanted to but that doesn't mean it was intended to be used that way.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,038 Posts
they can ‘COME AND REGISTER THEM’
 
  • Like
Reactions: GRBOU812

· Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
33,014 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I highly suspect this ruling will end up in court and be ruled unconstitutional. The question is how far in the court system will this be appealed to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gvaldeg1 and Speed

· Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
well they got slapped down on the bump stock soooo, make a similar ruling under the same "authority" about stabilizing braces. your tax dollars at work
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,403 Posts
To add to the confusion but to hold out that there is hope is on the horizon there is another case worth looking into. Aposhian v. Garland -- It stemmed from the bump stock ban. Basically, very basic from a layman's point of view, challenging an agency, like the ATF, from redefining once legal items, like bump stocks, and making them prohibited items and in doing so putting law abiding citizens on the wrong side of established law.

Machine guns were already a controlled NFA item under established law. Redefining a bump stock as a machine gun made the ownership of a bump stock the same as owning a machine gun making felons out of once law abiding citizens. That would apply to a policy change concerning redefining braces putting them in the same category as a SBR.

You may hear terms like the Chevron deference, also worth looking into, where the courts allow the agency that enforces statutes to also define them.

A lot going on in legal activities making it difficult to keep up but overall things are looking up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GRBOU812

· Registered
Joined
·
4,403 Posts
I had a brace for my pistol but I couldn't find my paddle so I stupidly used my pistol with brace as a boat paddle and lost it in the lake. Funny thing is I think I saw many others out there doing the same thing.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,944 Posts
My right arm is atrophied due to a compressed nerve, I currently don't have any AR pistols but always figured they'd be an option in the future as my arm continues to weaken. Now it seems I'll have to pay an additional tax due to a valid handicap and wait for ATF to approve a handicap device.

I haven't read the ATF's 300 page ruling and it isn't right that I should have to do so on a malum prohibitum regulation that has the potential to put innocent civilians in prison. Nor is it right that anyone should have to prove a handicap when people are attempting to exercise Rights that literally cost the government nothing and shouldn't be taxed in the first place.

The issue with my arm ISN'T a hypothetical situation.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
1) The ATF cannot pass laws, and any "regulation" they write up on their own has no validity.
2) The U.S. Constitution specifically states that any law that is in opposition to laws already addressed by the Federal Constitution have no validity
3) edit: No law can be passed retroactively. Laws are only valid from the day they are passed by Congress, and signed into law by the POTUS. So if you already own one they can NOT do anything about it legally.
4) Molan Labe
 

· Keep calm & return fire!
Joined
·
14,179 Posts
According to the "rule" it is not a violation to have a brace attached to a lower.
Simply separating the upper and lower when the firearm is in your possession (i.e. storage, transport)
makes it completely legal to own. It doesn't become illegal (according to the ATF) until the upper and lower are mated.

I am sure in the months to come this change will go the way of bump stocks and the ATF will once again get smacked on its hand.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top