I oppose the proposed guidance document ATF-2020-0001-0001 for the following reasons:
The proposed 'objective guidance" does not meet the definition of 'objective'. Merriam-Webster defines Objective as; "of a test : limited to choices of
FIXED ALTERNATIVES and reducing subjective factors to a minimum." (emphasis mine)
Under the proposed 'objective guidance' document criteria for delimiting if a pistol stabilizing brace ('brace' hereafter) is attached to a weapon rendering it a short-barrel rifle ('SBR' hereafter) and subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934 ('NFA' hereafter) are given. These criteria are
subjective open to substantial interpretation and therefore fail to meet the most basic form of 'objective'.
1) Type and Caliber. - Guidance document does not clearly state precisely what type and caliber weapons would be considered 'impractical to fire or aim with one hand'. This means that the ultimate definition is
subjective.
2) Weight and Length. - No clear guidance (ennumeration) is provided for what would be the minimum weight and minimum length to be considered 'impractical to fire or aim with one hand'. This means that the ultimate definition is
subjective.
3) Length of Pull. No clear guidance (ennumeration) is provided for what the maximum allowed 'length of pull' would be. This means that the ultimate definition is
subjective.
4) Attachment Method. The document suggests that certain types of mounting approaches would make a brace into a stock. Because they would lengthen the brace and make it unusable on the forearm. However, because no maximum allowed 'length of pull' is defined under criteria 3, this definition is
subjective.
5) Stabilizing Brace Design Features. None of the provided examples give clear ennumerration of how comparisons must be conducted to allow objectivity to be achieved. Comparison of braces, 'square area', etc. remain undefined. Ergo, this definition is
subjective.
6) Aim Point. No definition nor testing criteria are provided for what constitutes an 'appropriate aim point'. Because 'appropriate' is context specific and therefore is
subjective.
7) Secondary Grip. No definition nor testing criteria are provided for what constitutes a 'secondary grip', and therefore is
subjective.
8) Sights and Scopes. Definition provided is: "Incorporation of sights or scopes that possess eye relief incompatible with one-handed firing..." - However no definition of one-handed firing and testing criteria are provided, resulting again in a
subjective definition.
9) Peripheral Accessories. "Installation of peripheral accessories commonly found on rifles or shotguns that may indicate that the firearm is not designed and intended to be held and fired with one hand. This includes, but is not limited to..." - By definition a list that is not limited cannot allow the end user to objectively define what are and are not 'offending' accessories. Therefore the guidance provided here is
subjective.
___
I fully oppose this document and the proposed guidance within. I have provided a detailed set of explanations for why the proposed 'objective' guidance fails to meet the definition of 'objective'. Because the ATF has failed to provide
objective guidance for defining braces as stocks, it cannot move forward with these changes and potentially invoke that all 'brace equipped' pistols are now SBRs and subject to NFA regulation.
Further, the proposal here includes 'expedited' NFA processing as a form of 'amnesty', but fails to define how such processes would/could be expedited. The ATF currently has a multi-month backlog in processing SBR forms, and the NFA Registry has less than 500,000 arms registered. At present, there are an estimated 4,000,000 braces held by law-abiding American citizens.
Finally, amnesty is unnecessary, since at present American citizens have not broken any laws. The ATF is attempting to criminalize millions of Americans for no compelling reason, it should cease and desist immediately.