ATF finalizes rules for Stabilizing Braces

[Lawnmower2021 347]

Full Rule PDF is available for download here;

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces

Quote

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

...
The rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as listed in the definition, indicate the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
...

I have not had time to read through this in detail yet. Opening this up for awareness and targeted discussion.

 

Here are some examples that now become SBRs:

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/bracefinalruleguidance-commerciallypdf/download

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/bracefinalruleguidance-non-commercial1-10/download

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe I see a Troy A4 Other in their examples.

[Lawnmower2021 347]

 

[oldguysrule649 380]

5 hours ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

Full Rule PDF is available for download here;

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces

I have not had time to read through this in detail yet. Opening this up for awareness and targeted discussion.

 

Here are some examples that now become SBRs:

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/bracefinalruleguidance-commerciallypdf/download

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/bracefinalruleguidance-non-commercial1-10/download

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe I see a Troy A4 Other in their examples.

I don't see the Troy to which you refer.  Can you direct me to which document and page you are referring to?

With that said, I did see several AR type firearms with a VFG.

[Lawnmower2021 347]

12 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:

I don't see the Troy to which you refer.  Can you direct me to which document and page you are referring to?

With that said, I did see several AR type firearms with a VFG.

Page 5 on this link https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/bracefinalruleguidance-non-commercial1-10/download

Maybe it's not, but it looks extremely similar.

I have to seriously laugh at the Glocks, though. Those alone highlight the absurdity.

I guess one silver lining with not being able to get some pistols like MP5 clones is reduced headache from this ruling.

[oldguysrule649 380]

I don't even pretend to be in a position or smart enough to understand the NFA/GCA definitions of rifle, SBR, pistol, Other, etc nor judge how this new rule document will impact Others (such as the Troy A4).Will await the determination of the legal experts in NJ.  But my personal sense is we are on very thin melting ice. Hope I am wrong.

Just throwing these thoughts out for awareness and consideration.  

  - When Worksheet 4999 was in play, I would have agreed with HE above that Others would have been excluded.  However the new ATF document does not use Worksheet 4999 and states its elements have been incorporated into the wording of the new Rule.  After browsing the wording of the new Rule, I am not at all confident that it won't be applied to our Others.  E.g. we have barrels less than 16 inches, revised definition of rifle, etc etc..... 

- Later in the document the ATF basically says that if removing the brace makes you illegal under State law, you may be SOL.

- Trying to thread a needle here, but if in the end we must remove our braces, AND our Other is not an SBR; then this may be something worth considering: 

https://pistolmountedsolutions.com/

and see video below:

 

p.s. Some of you may remember that several years ago the anti-gunners sent Murphy's office a letter specifically calling out the Troy A4 and questioning why is it legal.  (Ie encouraging him to ban it.)  I think the only reason Murphy and Co did not take action against our "Others"  is that they knew this ATF ruling would eventually arrive and do the dirty work for them. Just my speculation.)

[oldguysrule649 380]

18 minutes ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

Page 5 on this link https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/bracefinalruleguidance-non-commercial1-10/download

Maybe it's not, but it looks extremely similar.

I have to seriously laugh at the Glocks, though. Those alone highlight the absurdity.

I guess one silver lining with not being able to get some pistols like MP5 clones is reduced headache from this ruling.

Agreed.  Specifically page 3 of your linked document shows the example with an SBA3 brace.  While it is not an actual Troy, it may as well have been.  I see no difference between the pictured firearm and our various NJ legal Others.  

[oldguysrule649 380]

26 minutes ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

...

I have to seriously laugh at the Glocks, though. Those alone highlight the absurdity.

...

I chuckled at the Glocks as well.  Last year I rented a Glock 43 with a Roni/MCK conversion kit at Weshoot.  I guess I was shooting an SBR without even realizing it.  LOL

 

[oldguysrule649 380]

Here is an initial legal impression related to the new ATF Rule.

 

 

[Krdshrk 3,666]

[oldguysrule649 380]

I should clarify that regarding my earlier mention of Pistol Storage Device(https://pistolmountedsolutions.com/), it requires that your buffer tube be completely round. I confirmed this with the company.   I.e. the buffer tube used on a Troy A4 with an SBA3 brace has a raised ridge along the bottom which precludes its use without swapping out the buffer tube. 

I do acknowledge that mention of this device may be a mute point depending on the legal analysis of the new rule and applicability to Others.  Just wanted to make folks aware of this option should it prove viable.  (And yes, kinda like putting lipstick on a pig.)

[silverado427 9,161]

[JackDaWack 2,835]

The rule is confusing, that's for sure. It's also incredibly vague.

[1LtCAP 3,891]

of course it is. it is designed to make controversy. and criminals.

[Mr.Stu 1,541]

Why is anybody still listening to the ATF? They cannot possibly be considered an authority on anything to do with firearms as their only consistency has been to flip-flop on their decision letters. They are a joke and clearly don't actually know anything.

[Jfoster99 78]

So according to what OldguysRule649 is saying  In   my Florida Condo I currently have a “Pistol Storage Device”. It has an ATF letter saying it is not a Shoulder Stock similar to the Stabilizing Braces.

Is this in any way effected by the new ruling? 
Could everyone just put a Pistol Storage Device on instead of. Brace and be good to go?

 

 

[PK90 3,530]

I doubt it, as it has enough of a surface that could be shouldered.

[JackDaWack 2,835]

2 hours ago, PK90 said:

I doubt it, as it has enough of a surface that could be shouldered.

Enough of a surface? 

The rule states, it has "surface area" to be shouldered. 

Anything and everything has surface area to be shouldered, including a bare extension tube. 

 

1. whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;
2. whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method), that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;
3. whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;
4. whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;
5. the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
6. information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community

[Mr.Stu 1,541]

1 minute ago, JackDaWack said:

Enough of a surface? 

The rule states, it has "surface area" to be shouldered. 

Anything and everything has surface area to be shouldered, including a bare extension tube. 

Not if you install a sharp, pointy cone on it. 

[JackDaWack 2,835]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Not if you install a sharp, pointy cone on it. 

It doesn't say "comfortable", even that has surface area to be shouldered.. if it can touch your shoulder.... that's literally the only qualifying factor. 

They will argue a sharp point actually makes for a more secure shouldering. Because they can at this point basically say whatever they want. 

[45Doll 4,952]

When lamenting your bad fortune regarding the ATF rule change and living in NJ, consider this: you could be in Connecticut.

Law-abiding citizens transformed into criminals overnight! - American Thinker

[JackDaWack 2,835]

1 hour ago, 45Doll said:

When lamenting your bad fortune regarding the ATF rule change and living in NJ, consider this: you could be in Connecticut.

Law-abiding citizens transformed into criminals overnight! - American Thinker

NJ and the ATF are probably getting ready to send out their letters to everyone who bought one. CT just has a head start. 

[Lawnmower2021 347]

14 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

NJ and the ATF are probably getting ready to send out their letters to everyone who bought one. CT just has a head start. 

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if they start knocking on people's doors. Even well before the 120 days are through.

[Jfoster99 78]

6 hours ago, PK90 said:

I doubt it, as it has enough of a surface that could be shouldered.

So, even though the Pistol Storage Device has its own ATF Letter saying it is not a Stock and not a Pistol Brace that has no bearing?
Anything that has “Surface Area” to be shouldered is now restricted?

Am I understand this correctly?

[Displaced Texan 10,589]

26 minutes ago, Jfoster99 said:

So, even though the Pistol Storage Device has its own ATF Letter saying it is not a Stock and not a Pistol Brace that has no bearing?
Anything that has “Surface Area” to be shouldered is now restricted?

Am I understand this correctly?

That’s my read on it. 

[Lawnmower2021 347]

Yes, they've essentially changed their mind and trashed any objective criterion.

They made it as vague as possible to not allow loopholes like the AR others.

Honestly it would simplify everything to just take SBRs out of the NFA.

[Displaced Texan 10,589]

9 minutes ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

Yes, they've essentially changed their mind and trashed any objective criterion.

They made it as vague as possible to not allow loopholes like the AR others.

Honestly it would simplify everything to just take SBRs out of the NFA.

I saw something the other day regarding a legal challenge to this new horseshit. Not sure which organization was challenging it. 
 

I would think the challenge would have a pretty decent chance of overcoming the new rule. For example, Sig, and many other manufacturers, made and sold braced AR type pistols for a few years, as they were all legal at the time, and there are assloads of them in ‘common use’. 
I would think WVa vs EPA decision, as well as Bruen would overturn this, but we shall see. 

[Bellasdaddy 24]

3 hours ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if they start knocking on people's doors. Even well before the 120 days are through.

Bur, there is not supposed to be a registration of a firearm in NJ unless it is a pistol.  How would “they” know you have one?

[Lawnmower2021 347]

4 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

I saw something the other day regarding a legal challenge to this new horseshit. Not sure which organization was challenging it. 
 

I would think the challenge would have a pretty decent chance of overcoming the new rule. For example, Sig, and many other manufacturers, made and sold braced AR type pistols for a few years, as they were all legal at the time, and there are assloads of them in ‘common use’. 
I would think WVa vs EPA decision, as well as Bruen would overturn this, but we shall see. 

It could take more time than we have to comply. Personally, I'll wait to see what happens for as long as we can before plopping down hundreds more just to be compliant.

Plenty of arguments to make. I'm just taking comfort in knowing that either way there is a lawful path forward.

6 minutes ago, Bellasdaddy said:

Bur, there is not supposed to be a registration of a firearm in NJ unless it is a pistol.  How would “they” know you have one?

It's not impossible for them to retrieve the "Certificate of Eligibility" carbon copies for long gun transfers from local dealers.

[JackDaWack 2,835]

ATF "letters" are non binding and are meaningless.. anything the ATF puts out can completely override the last. 

11 minutes ago, Bellasdaddy said:

Bur, there is not supposed to be a registration of a firearm in NJ unless it is a pistol.  How would “they” know you have one?

lol, ATF calls up manufacture for shipments of banned firearms, tracks to FFL, asks FFL for sales records... 

ATF is standing at your door. 

[Displaced Texan 10,589]

7 minutes ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

It could take more time than we have to comply. Personally, I'll wait to see what happens for as long as we can before plopping down hundreds more just to be compliant.

Plenty of arguments to make. I'm just taking comfort in knowing that either way there is a lawful path forward.

It's not impossible for them to retrieve the "Certificate of Eligibility" carbon copies for long gun transfers from local dealers.

It could, I don’t know if anything has officially been filed yet.