ATF Singles out 23 SB tactical Firearms Braces...

[Borderland]

I thought of the “straight wall” as a definition (much like some states limit cartridges for hunting).
Except that .357 Sig isn’t straight walled, and it is absolutely a pistol cartridge.

Yeah, that one popped into my head when I was writing. 30 Carbine comes up as a rifle cartridge in the manuals and it's a bastard just like 357 Sig. Not sure what you could do with that except exempt it.

[CleverNickname]

The document states that the issuance of no-tax stamps will be a separate process. I believe there is no current legal framework for issuing NFA stamps without payment of the tax, so they would likely have to go through the NPRM and final rule process to create the special case. As such, they could absolutely put special conditions on that stamp.

There may not be a legal way to issue NFA tax stamps without paying the tax, but whether it's legal or not, it's happened before when the USAS-12 and Streetsweeper were retroactively changed from title I shotguns to destructive devices in the 90's. The ATF allowed people who owned them as title I to register them tax-free.

[HCM]

There's rumors floating around that the "free and expedited" tax stamp would only allow it to be in braced pistol configuration and not a true SBR. If that's the case I hope nobody falls for that.

Attachment 64817

Then they’d need to change the statutory definition of rifle because once a firearm is a rifle you can put whatever stock you want on it.

Yet.



That's why I mentioned that they were only rumors. While it doesn't seem plausible, there was a time I didn't think a bump stock was a machine gun either but here we are.

Yeah. The comment period is open. After it closes, they have time to review all the comments and decide what to do before issuing a final guidance document, if they even do issue a final version. The document states that the issuance of no-tax stamps will be a separate process. I believe there is no current legal framework for issuing NFA stamps without payment of the tax, so they would likely have to go through the NPRM and final rule process to create the special case. As such, they could absolutely put special conditions on that stamp.

Re: Bump stocks - they were originally classified as machine guns before they weren't.

Re: NFA:

Creating a new NFA category would require legislation. So they need to shoehorn Brace pistols into either SBRs or AOW's.

ATF has set precedent that braces are accessories, not stocks. Stocks are are an integral part of a rifle/shotgun/SBR/SBS.

So ATF could flip flop and say braces are stocks, but that doesn't comport with the ambiguous analysis in the proposed rulemaking. i.e. if braces are just stocks why would you need to do an analysis of features ?

If they hold with the precedent that braces are accessories, then they could argue that a brace pistol is an AOW just like adding a second pistol grip (also an accessory) can convert a pistol "designed" to be fired with one hand into an AOW designed to be fired with two. An AOW designation / stamp would only allow the brace.

[GyroF-16]

I readily acknowledge that I’m not nearly as knowledgeable on NFA topics as you are.
But I will point out that the ATF repeatedly used the terms “short barreled rifle”, “stock”, “length of pull”, and “rifle” in the proposed rule change. I didn’t see the term “all other weapon” used at all.
This would tend to lead me to believe that they’re eyeing an SBR designation.

Or they’re just being cagey by avoiding using “AOW” in the document.

But I don’t know why we would be suspicious of a government agency that publishes a proposed rule change on a Friday, with a short, two week comment period that covers the weeks of Christmas and New Year’s Day...

Re: Bump stocks - they were originally classified as machine guns before they weren't.

Re: NFA:

Creating a new NFA category would require legislation. So they need to shoehorn Brace pistols into either SBRs or AOW's.

ATF has set precedent that braces are accessories, not stocks. Stocks are are an integral part of a rifle/shotgun/SBR/SBS.

So ATF could flip flop and say braces are stocks, but that doesn't comport with the ambiguous analysis in the proposed rulemaking. i.e. if braces are just stocks why would you need to do an analysis of features ?

If they hold with the precedent that braces are accessories, then they could argue that a brace pistol is an AOW just like adding a second pistol grip (also an accessory) can convert a pistol "designed" to be fired with one hand into an AOW designed to be fired with two. An AOW designation / stamp would only allow the brace.

[HCM]

I readily acknowledge that I’m not nearly as knowledgeable on NFA topics as you are.
But I will point out that the ATF repeatedly used the terms “short barreled rifle”, “stock”, “length of pull”, and “rifle” in the proposed rule change. I didn’t see the term “all other weapon” used at all.
This would tend to lead me to believe that they’re eyeing an SBR designation.

Or they’re just being cagey by avoiding using “AOW” in the document.

But I don’t know why we would be suspicious of a government agency that publishes a proposed rule change on a Friday, with a short, two week comment period that covers the weeks of Christmas and New Year’s Day...

The proposed rule change is (IMHO) intentionally ambiguous so it could go either ways.

The comment period is supposed to be 90 days. A fair amount of Trumps attempted immigration regulation changes (like DACA) were torpedoed by administrative procedures act violations.

[OlongJohnson]

I think straight wall cartridge will be the definition. Mostly anything with a shoulder these days is a rifle cartridge by definition if a reloading manual is used. I know there are some exceptions but generally that's the easiest way to separate cartridges into pistol/rifle categories. A max case length might also be used. SBR and AR pistol is a relatively new phenomenon in the firearms industry. I've only seen those in any numbers in the last 20 years on a civilian range. I know they've been around in LE a lot longer.

Now if 30 carbine gets under the wire all is not lost.

Not to mention all the shouldered cartridges cooked up for the Contender over these many long decades.

[GyroF-16]

The proposed rule change is (IMHO) intentionally ambiguous so it could go either ways.

The comment period is supposed to be 90 days. A fair amount of Trumps attempted immigration regulation changes (like DACA) were torpedoed by administrative procedures act violations.

So I take it you’re not buying the ATF’s assertion that this is a “guidance document”?

Quoted from the document in question:

“ On August 19, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published regulations

defining “guidance documents” and the required procedures that the Department and its

components must follow to issue guidance documents consistent with Executive Order

13891. See 28 CFR 50.26. The regulation defines the term “guidance document” as “an

agency statement of general applicability, intended to have future effect on the behavior

of regulated parties that sets forth (i) a policy on a statutory, regulatory, or technical

issue, or (ii) an interpretation of a statute or regulation.” 28 CFR 50.26(a)(1).”

And a bit later:

“ Although there is no requirement that a guidance document

be published for notice and comment,9 ATF has decided to publish the proposed

objective factors in the Federal Register for a brief comment period, given the public

interest surrounding these issues. ATF will consider the comments it receives before

finalizing this guidance.”

I’m hoping you’re right, and not intending to come across as argumentative... I’m just completely unfamiliar with Executive Order 13891, which apparently only was executed in August of this year. I’m hoping that doesn’t remove the requirement for a significant comment period before what it effectively a significant rule change.

[CZ Man]

Let your Reps know what you think about this BS:

https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl....promo_id=10271

[jetfire]

Well this represents the finest moment of my trolling career

[Casual Friday]

Clear as mud.