2A: Take Action Notice - Comment Period on ATF Brace "Guidance" Document

[LHS]

We'll be putting up a draft comment and advice for commenters who would like to draft their own this weekend.

Do you have a link to this, btw?

[Savage Hands]

So how long does it take before your comment is posted typically?

[joshs]

Do you have a link to this, btw?

We think the most important thing that interested gun owners can do right now is contact their members of Congress and the president. That's why we setup this take action campaign: https://www.nraila.org/articles/2020...ing-gun-owners

We don't have our official guidance on how to comment up yet, but if you are interested in commenting now, I would focus on these points:

The guidance provides no assistance to gun owners or industry to conform their behavior to the law

The "objective" factors fail to articulate a single objective standard (going factor by factor is a good idea)

Some of the factors (length and weight) are contradicted by the ATF's own conclusion in the guidance:
"In recent years, some manufacturers have produced and sold devices designed to be attached to large and/or heavy pistols which are marketed to help a shooter ‘stabilize’ his or her arm to support single-handed fire (‘braces’). ATF was advised by the first manufacturer to submit an arm brace for classification that the intent of the arm brace was to facilitate one-handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap, and to reduce bruising to the forearm when firing with one hand. According to this manufacturer, the brace concept was inspired by the needs of disabled combat veterans who still enjoy recreational shooting but could not reliably control heavy pistols without assistance. Consequently, ATF agrees that there are legitimate uses for certain ‘stabilizing braces.'’’ It doesn't make sense to recognize the utility of braces for "large and/or heavy pistols" and then determine that some firearms are too "heavy" or too "large" to be categorized as pistols.

If ATF decides to move forward with the guidance, then when the agency applies the guidance in determinations it must keep its determinations consistent with past approvals of various brace models. This is where they are really stuck because their approvals are a bit all over the place.

Feel free to rip text directly from here or the linked alert to put in your comment.

[ccmdfd]

Reading some of the posted comments.

Wow, just wow.

Cat memes, talk of starting a war, doing Waco all over again, just to name a few.

[joshs]

Maybe we won't be putting up commenting guidance after all

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ge...20pdf/download

[JM Campbell]

Maybe we won't be putting up commenting guidance after all

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ge...20pdf/download

So they got their hand slapped for a short non-90 day comment period?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caballoflaco]

Maybe we won't be putting up commenting guidance after all

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ge...20pdf/download

My spidey sense says this could be more bad than good. Or we should at least prepare for it to be.

[camel]

I’ll wait to see but it’s either good or bad.

[camel]

Reading some of the posted comments.

Wow, just wow.

Cat memes, talk of starting a war, doing Waco all over again, just to name a few.

Never ever read the comments. People are weird.

[joshs]

So they got their hand slapped for a short non-90 day comment period?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really. The 90 day provision, 18 U.S.C.A. § 926(b), applies to "rules and regulations" and this was just a nonbinding guidance document, so it's unlikely a court would have held ATF to the 90 day requirement.