[ARA]

I have been expecting this for several years.

"The Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives (ATF) finalized a new regulation Friday that will treat guns with stabilizing accessories like short-barreled rifles, which require a federal license to own under the National Firearms Act."

GOP lawmakers, NRA slam ATF rule to regulate pistol braces: 'Unconstitutional overreach'

Republican lawmakers and gun rights groups slammed the Biden administration after ATF finalized a new rule regulating pistols equipped with a stabilizing brace accessory as a short-barreled rifle.

www.foxnews.com

 

[ARA]

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

www.atf.gov

 

[kje54]

We knew it was coming down the pike as different people/groups kept claiming it would come out in Aug then Nov then Dec..........
The interesting thing is the document is almost 300 pages long and the reason is the BATF in a very uncharacteristic move were very specific and gave multiple examples of what would be legal (sort of) or illegal. They did (characteristically) leave themselves some wiggle room as to what would be considered legal, they provide verbal examples which means it can be somewhat open to interpretation on their part.
Unless the courts put a stay on the rule anyone with what is now considered a SBR has 120 days to use the BATF eform to apply for a SBR, the $200 tax stamp is waived. The other option is to remove the brace/blade and dispose of it or make it so it is impossible to reuse on the AR pistol.

 

[tzcomp]

Or convert to a 16" barrel.

 

[kje54]

Or convert to a 16" barrel.

Yup, thanks. That one slipped my mind.

 

[IamScotticus]

Theres many a "Pistol" that it would be prohibitive to convert

 

[IamScotticus]

BATF is ruling more like the Canadian Mounted Police.
I thought only Congress was supposed to be able to make law.
Nobody voted for any representatives to serve on the BATF.
Yes, the whole AR pistol brace thing was always a FUBAR situation just waiting for the BATF to put the kibosh on it.
I have no brace to loose, only my free country.

 

[ARA]

BATF is ruling more like the Canadian Mounted Police.
I thought only Congress was supposed to be able to make law.
Nobody voted for any representatives to serve on the BATF.
Yes, the whole AR pistol brace thing was always a FUBAR situation just waiting for the BATF to put the kibosh on it.
I have no brace to loose, only my free country.

Most Americans do not understand that after Congress passes a bill and the president signs it into law, it is assigned to the appropriate Executive Branch agency to implement. That agency develops implementing policy and procedure, and neither is subject to review by Congress. If the agency misinterprets the will of the Legislative Branch, the only thing that Congress can do is pass another bill and send it to the president. So that's what the BATFE is doing. If Congress thinks they got it wrong, the remedy is to pass corrective legislation. Want to bet on that happening?

 

[terry_tr6]

hate to say it, but by making an ar pistol, I got a poor substitute for what I really wanted, an SBR, without the paperwork and restrictions that go with an NFA firearm. if I knew the ATF could be trusted I think I'd take the amnesty and put it in a trust and put a real stock on it. in fact, I might register a couple of my "other" lowers too. making them legal SBR's IF they would be transferable like other NFA items

 

[Skeester]

SO, after scanning the 293 page document, and seeing Kel-Tec SUB2000, 9mm, in tables in a few places:
IS MY (stock) KEL-TEC SUB2000 now illegal??? It DOES have a barrel longer (barely) than 16 inches.
Nothing else added, other than a flashlight, and sling that are both easily removable,

 

[Screwball]

SO, after scanning the 293 page document, and seeing Kel-Tec SUB2000, 9mm, in tables in a few places:
IS MY (stock) KEL-TEC SUB2000 now illegal??? It DOES have a barrel longer (barely) than 16 inches.
Nothing else added, other than a flashlight, and sling that are both easily removable,

It was used as a comparison of weight, length and LOP of other long arms.

It’s a rifle, with a 16+” barrel. NFA does not apply.

 

[RAT76]

SO, after scanning the 293 page document, and seeing Kel-Tec SUB2000, 9mm, in tables in a few places:
IS MY (stock) KEL-TEC SUB2000 now illegal??? It DOES have a barrel longer (barely) than 16 inches.
Nothing else added, other than a flashlight, and sling that are both easily removable,

As Screwball pointed out this is the final rule on braces. S2K not affected.

However in the newest AWB proposal the SUB 2000 is specifically listed & also covered by features. Pistol grip, removable mag & can be folded up to reduce the size. Note it's not just a folding stock, aka shoulder thingie that goes up, this time. They closed the S2K, the stock doesn't fold, loop hole this time. The feature clause grabs the SUB9 which is not a SUB 2000. It may not be a problem right now but down the road things may change.

 

[Belisarius]

Most Americans do not understand that after Congress passes a bill and the president signs it into law, it is assigned to the appropriate Executive Branch agency to implement. That agency develops implementing policy and procedure, and neither is subject to review by Congress. If the agency misinterprets the will of the Legislative Branch, the only thing that Congress can do is pass another bill and send it to the president. So that's what the BATFE is doing. If Congress thinks they got it wrong, the remedy is to pass corrective legislation. Want to bet on that happening?

Except that isn't what the ATF is doing according to a number of lawyers. They are redefining terms of the NFA to suit their liking which they are not allowed to do. 300 pages isn't an interpretation of policy, it's overreach and creation of legislation which are powers they don't have.

The courts are going to issues stays then it will get slowly decimated, the same way they did with the abortion which was the receiver redefinition to go after ghost guns.

 

[ARA]

"Except that isn't what the ATF is doing according to a number of lawyers." Ah, lawyers. Who do you think wrote the 300 pages? All of a sudden lawyers are to be trusted? 315 out of 535 members of Congress are lawyers. Do you trust them?

"They are redefining terms of the NFA to suit their liking which they are not allowed to do." As I explained, the implementing agency's responsibility is to interpret the law and develop implementing policies and procedures. Policy isn't a once-and-done. As conditions change, policy changes are made to keep current with the realities on the ground. Every Executive Branch agency does this. It's their job. You may not like it, but there is absolutely nothing new, unusual, or inappropriate about what has happened. We may not approve of WHAT the ATF has done, but the METHOD employed is a part of every Executive Branch agency's mission.

Congress can address this. Years ago an agency of the Department of the Interior (BLM, if I remember correctly) misinterpreted a new law that was meant to open up lands controlled by the federal government to OHV use. The agency used it to CONTROL OHV use on federal lands. The OHV industry along with the OHV community raised such a stink that Congress was obliged to pass another law to tell the agency how to properly interpret the first law. Congress can do so in this case, too. All we need to do is raise a stink. But, of course, any pro-gun bill passed by the GOP controlled House would be dead on arrival at the Dem controlled Senate and it would never get to the president's desk. And even if it did, Biden would veto it. This is a done deal for at least the remaining two years of the Biden/Harris administration.

 

[carwash]

 

[ARA]

^^^Hardly definitive. I lost count of the number of layers of second-hand, supposition, and unsupported claims. It might all be true, but it's mighty flimsy. YouTube is hardly a source of sound legal advice - and that's exactly what this is. Guess wrong and you're in trouble with the federal government. Caveat emptor.

BTW, here is the SHOT Show interview he refers to:

 

[kje54]

You Tube videos in general (not all but in general) need to be taken with an entire salt mine and not just a grain of salt.
They are generally not the most unbiased source of information.

 

[ARA]

You Tube videos in general (not all but in general) need to be taken with an entire salt mine and not just a grain of salt.
They are generally not the most unbiased source of information.

BINGO! And very, very true.
As an example (and not to misdirect this thread), there are now literally millions of amateur virologists, epidemiologists, and vaccinologists in America and they all have the same things in common: no relevant education, no relevant experience, computer/laptop ownership, and YouTube accounts.

 

[terry_tr6]

does this mean you are up to date on your booster shots?

 

[ARA]

does this mean you are up to date on your booster shots?

No, it means that YouTube is a questionable source of information, as @kje54 so wisely pointed out.