Pistol Brace Amnesty

[Screwball]

1/17… 3 out of 5 came back.

Two that didn’t were Anderson AR builds.

PSA AR build was the first (3/3), four days later was an AK-P… then the M&P15-22 pistol came back on St Patricks Day.

Still waiting on those two…

One from 2/15 came back today. Only difference is that the 2/15 one was submitted with EFT. Other five were submitted same night and sent out with the same ink cards. First of the five came back about the same time as the EFT one did.

[BillSWPA]

A federal district court in TX has denied a preliminary injunction.

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/03/fir...ol-brace-rule/

I will try to read the opinion later.

[LOKNLOD]

So when is the deadline to submit, again?

Admittedly i've been holding off to see what shook out before finalizing my choice to modify vs. submit.

[5pins]

So when is the deadline to submit, again?

Admittedly i've been holding off to see what shook out before finalizing my choice to modify vs. submit.

May 31st

[5pins]

Someone on Reddit reported getting approval using a trust. He applied on Jan 13th. This is the first trust approved that I know of.

[BillSWPA]

I have now had a chance to read the TX district court opinion.

The court clearly views pistol braces as something that can be intended to be fired from the shoulder, which means that ATF is simply interpreting the NFA and not making a new rule. They do not view registration as a significatn burden despite everything that goes into NFA registration.

The first amendment arguments seemed weak, and the court was predictably unpersuaded by them. Of course a manufacturer cannot advertis something as intended to be fired from the shoulder and expect the ATF to ignore those statements.

The due process argument was addressed by accepting vagueness in the standards and focusing on the basic concept of whether something was designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder, seeming to imply that common sense would provide enough guidance about whether something meets that criteria.

The court seemed to be most willing to listen to evidence and arguments about pistol braces being in common use. The court indicated that insufficient evidence was presented during the abbreviated briefing which is necessary at the preliminary injunction stage, but that perhaps enough evidence would be presented at the summary judgment stage to prevail on this basis.

Although I am unhappy with the way the court addressed the vaugeness issue, none of this surprises me. Even before this ruling, I viewed the second amendment as perhaps a stronger ground than the administrative procedure act for challenging this rule.

Based on this ruling, I would encourage not waiting to get into compliance either by registering or by removing the brace as discussed in greater detail upthread. Winning is still possible, but I doubt at this point that a win will occur at the preliminary injunction stage.

[HeavyDuty]

My opinion only: this was always a BS loophole, and way too many people blatantly utilized it. A stock that identifies as a brace is still a stock. There are a very few true braces out there, and even most of those were used as stocks.

[kwb377]

The ATF said that braces, and later that shouldering them, were legal...so installing a brace and shouldering it wasn't a "loophole", it was just following the law. Same as driving 55mph in a 55mph-zone...you're not exploiting a "loophole", you're just doing what they is within the boundaries of the law.

[BillSWPA]

My opinion only: this was always a BS loophole, and way too many people blatantly utilized it. A stock that identifies as a brace is still a stock. There are a very few true braces out there, and even most of those were used as stocks.

If ATF has realized that recent Supreme Court rulings mean they don’t get the same deference agencies used to get from courts, they have long ago started collecting the mountain of evidence which shows exactly that.

Edited to add "stock that identifies as a brace". Well played.

[HeavyDuty]

The ATF said that braces, and later that shouldering them, were legal...so installing a brace and shouldering it wasn't a "loophole", it was just following the law. Same as driving 55mph in a 55mph-zone...you're not exploiting a "loophole", you're just doing what they is within the boundaries of the law.

A regulatory agency changing their interpretation of statute isn’t a law. I still think these were always going to go away, and I have several myself.