Proposed Criteria for Braces

[HeavyDuty]

I’m glad I kept my Thordsen cheekrests - I think they will pass muster, because I want to keep one or two lowers in pistol configuration.

[eb07]

More confusing and complicated rules allowing them to make anyone a criminal based upon their discretion.

[Rex G]

Looks to me as if the answer is 'yes' it would be possible to avoid classifying a rifle with a buffer tube with no brace as an SBR.

The first ass-u-me-ption I make in making this statement is the fact that the worksheet is entitled - FACTORING CRITERIA FOR RIFLED BARREL WEAPONS WITH ACCESSORIES* commonly refered to as "STABILIZING BRACES." This would seem to indicate that if the tube doesn't have a brace on it, the sheet would not be applicable.

However, it is the ATF, so:

Section II - ACCESSORY CONFIGURATION:

ACCESSORY DESIGN: not based on a known shoulder stock design = 0

REAR SURFACE AREA: minimized rear surface lacking features to discourage shouldering = 1 (actually since there would be no 'accessory' attached the score should be 0, however, it is the ATF)

ADJUSTABILITY: non-adjustable, fixed design = 0

STABILIZING SUPPORT: counterbalance design, non-folding = 0

SECTION III - CONFIGURATION OF WEAPON

LENGTH OF PULL: less than 10.5 inches = 0 (carbine or pistol buffer tube)

ATTACHMENT METHOD: adjustable rifle buffer tube = 1 (pistol buffer tube = 0)

BRACE MODIFICATIONS: none = 0

PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES: (you get to lose it here) handstop = 1 buis = 1

So worst case 3 or 4; actual case = 0 since a bare tube isn't a brace.

I think the key to this all just might be the places where it says 'eye-relief incompatible with one-handed fire' and 'indicating two-handed fire.'

It was a nice run while it lasted. The real victims of this are the few actual handicapped users of said braces.

My “like” is simply agreement with the apparent reality that you have mapped-out, not because any of this is like-able.

I do, truly and deeply, feel for the handicapped/disabled folks. I am simply a bit gimpy, and not on the side that really matters for actual hand-gunning. My comment, that I post on the guv’mnt site, will largely address the value of braces for handicapped/disabled/injured folks.

I bought my DDM4 V7P mostly to be a “rule book” handgun, that can act like a long gun, for traveling where one cannot transport loaded long guns inside a moving vehicle, but where one can have a loaded handgun on or about one’s person, inside (or outside) a moving vehicle. In actual practice, in my case, nothing has yet displaced a longer-barreled revolver, (four to six inches) in that role.

[Zincwarrior]

Wouldn't a bonafide brace for handicapped persons, not designed to get around the law be more like this?

http://adaptivefishing.weebly.com/up...06042_orig.jpg

[HeavyDuty]

Wouldn't a bonafide brace for handicapped persons, not designed to get around the law be more like this?

http://adaptivefishing.weebly.com/up...06042_orig.jpg

You mean like the original blades with strap, or even the Tailhook with flip out shelf? I do make a point of shooting my Tailhooks as intended every time I go to the range.

[joshs]

Wouldn't a bonafide brace for handicapped persons, not designed to get around the law be more like this?

http://adaptivefishing.weebly.com/up...06042_orig.jpg

Why if a product "get[s] around the law" is it the fault of the manufacturers and consumers? The answer is to change the statute. Things that are "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" have stocks. If you were designing a gun to be fired from the shoulder, why would you ever put something on it that looks like any of the common brace designs. For the last 500 years, English and American courts have construed ambiguity in criminal statutes strictly against the government and in favor of the accused. Why should guns be different?

[joshs]

@joshs thanks for the insights.

I do have one more question. Would their proposed changing of the definition of sbr to include “pistol brace” require a congressional vote?

That's almost always the argument when challenging a regulation. The government argues that it has the authority to make the change, while those challenging the regulation attempt to show that the regulation is beyond the agency's legal authority (ultra vires if you like Latin).

[fatdog]

With the arrival of the Biden regime and the dem takeover of congress it was certain ATF was going to "find a way" and the only thing that could possibly impede them is a successful challenge in the courts.

I am sure they have done their best to plan this approach to the subject with the certainty of the court challenge coming. Anticipate the attack and put the defense in place?

The section 3 peripheral accessories really drives the stake in the most useful things in terms of having a "pistol" AR suitable for two handed firing, not just shouldering.

[Caballoflaco]

With the arrival of the Biden regime and the dem takeover of congress it was certain ATF was going to "find a way" and the only thing that could possibly impede them is a successful challenge in the courts.

I am sure they have done their best to plan this approach to the subject with the certainty of the court challenge coming. Anticipate the attack and put the defense in place?

The section 3 peripheral accessories really drives the stake in the most useful things in terms of having a "pistol" AR suitable for two handed firing, not just shouldering.

I’ll give them this: compared to the ‘94 awb this was an extremely thorough and researched piece of writing that shows a far better understanding of firearms technicalities than when they basically just flipped through an issue of shotgun news pointing at the pictures going “and this one and that one”.

Damn you internets and your widely available informations.

[joshs]

With the arrival of the Biden regime and the dem takeover of congress it was certain ATF was going to "find a way" and the only thing that could possibly impede them is a successful challenge in the courts.

I am sure they have done their best to plan this approach to the subject with the certainty of the court challenge coming. Anticipate the attack and put the defense in place?

The section 3 peripheral accessories really drives the stake in the most useful things in terms of having a "pistol" AR suitable for two handed firing, not just shouldering.

They have a problem if they don't get Chevron deference when interpreting criminal statutes. As long as the Sixth Circuit decision in GOA's bump stock case remains good law, the government is going to have a problem defending expansive regulations that have criminal consequences.