1 hour ago, DAHL said:

If arm braces are banned and you remove them it turns your weapon into a pistol that would be illegal in NJ.

This is false. 

1 hour ago, DAHL said:

Numerous  pistols have a front forearm. Trouble is that this pistol feature is illegal in NJ.  Just take a look at the AR and AK pistols.

This is an improper interpretation of both the federal definition of “Other” vs AOW vs Pistol, as well as NJs laws on Assault Pistols.

1 hour ago, Mr.Stu said:

As has been stated many times through all this kerfuffle, Non-NFA Other Firearms are not effected by this at all.

Look at the factoring worksheet here: https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download

Non-NFA Other Firearms must be at least 26 inches overall length. That means they fail at step 2 and are not under consideration with this rule change.

This is the correct answer.

They are not making Braces illegal. 

2 hours ago, dajonga said:

 

IANAL, but in my reading of the worksheet, I see that.........

Section 1 - Prerequisites

2. The weapon must have an overall length between 12 and 26 inches.

"Weapon must meet both Prerequisites in order to proceed to Section II"

My NJ legal Troy A4 "other" with a 10.5" bbl and a pinned flash suppressor is over 26" as measured from the end of the buffer tube.

End of story.... correct? 

Correct. 

As has been previously reviewed in the proposed rules, the published rule does not apply to anything under 26". 

My only concern would be with an AOW, but considering that's already NFA I probably wouldn't worry. 

Well shit.  Most of the early posts in here did not age well.    

 

 

This sucks, but was a good thing we've been taken the braces off when we store our Others though.  And everyone else should remove their braces before the ATF posts this to the National Register in a few days, thereby making sure their Others never had a stock on them.  

I guess we'll just have to start using our Others for some precision long range work on a bench and will need a tail support similar to this.  https://blackcollararms.com/product/aps/

5 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

As has been stated many times through all this kerfuffle, Non-NFA Other Firearms are not effected by this at all.

Look at the factoring worksheet here: https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download

Non-NFA Other Firearms must be at least 26 inches overall length. That means they fail at step 2 and are not under consideration with this rule change.

 

Apparently anything over 26" with a brace is automatically a SBR.  The worksheet just allows for some pistols to remain pistols, while everything else with a brace is now an SBR.   

 

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

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

 

4 hours ago, Shortfuse said:

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

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

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

Take a look at what they are considering SBRs

Before anyone else weighs in on what they think is and is not legal now.  PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THESE LINKS FIRST! 

That's the way I read this

16 minutes ago, ESB said:

Before anyone else weighs in on what they think is and is not legal now.  PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THESE LINKS FIRST! 

doesn't look good

11 hours ago, ESB said:

Before anyone else weighs in on what they think is and is not legal now.  PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THESE LINKS FIRST! 

Pictures mean nothing, not a single measurement is given unless the model is explicitly labeled. 

 

The first few paragraphs of the rule outline an SBR can be over 26"... but there is noprocedurual rule to determine if they are rifles. 

30 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Pictures mean nothing, not a single measurement is given unless the model is explicitly labeled. 

 

The first few paragraphs of the rule outline an SBR is under 26"... 

Quotes from the rule showing that firearms with barrels under 16" but OAL over 26" will not be considered a SBR?   

30 minutes ago, ESB said:

Quotes from the rule showing that firearms with barrels under 16" but OAL over 26" will not be considered a SBR?   

That's not how this works I updated my response to be more clear. 

 

The rule must be clear on what IS a SBR, not what isn't. 

 

No where in the rule is a determining factor for a weapon such as an other, designed to be fired with two hands and over 26" and how a brace would be classified under those conditions. 

I dont see in the rule, where if over 26" and under 16" barrel, with a brace it's considered a SBR. The point system for determining if a brace is a stock excludes anything over 26".

They go on to state if it's "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, but offer no way to determine that other than comparing it to a "rifle counterpart"..  they say, if it looks like a rifle it must be one... clear as mud huh? But this was all an explanation as to how they came up with their point system, which again excludes others. 

I would also add, their pictures show a few firearms that don't even meet the definition of SBR under their points system which they did not adopt. 

There apparently is no point system anymore, and they just get to say if it looks like a rifle, it must be one? 

The form that was posted shows if it's over 26" they are not assessing the brace. So somewhere else in the rule has to say if it's over 26" with a less than 16" barrel with any brace it's an SBR and I don't see that. 

FYI,  press release from SAF.  Bold emphasis is mine. My concern is that the ATF's attempt to redefine "rifle" could encompass "Others" within that redefinition.  I hope not but the bold wording below coupled with the ATF doc showing what appears to be an Other, implies our Others could be in play.  With that said, IANAL, and this topic really needs NJ centric legal analysis.  Nothing I have seen since the new rule was released makes mention of Others, which I presume is mainly a NJ thing.

SAF RIPS ATF ‘FINAL RULE’ ON ARM BRACES, LAWSUIT WILL MOVE FORWARD

The Second Amendment Foundation today accused the Biden administration of “once again trying to trample the rights of gun owners” by allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to adopt a “final rule” on arm braces for modern semiautomatic pistols. While the definition of a rifle in federal law should be clear, noted attorney Chad Flores, who is representing SAF in a federal lawsuit filed two years ago that was stayed by the court in anticipation of this new rule, it is clear the Biden administration’s new definition of a rifle ignores tradition. SAF sued ATF and the U.S. Attorney General in 2021 in a case known as SAF et. al. v. BATFE, et. al. SAF is joined in that case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  According to Flores’ analysis of the 291-page Final Rule, the definition of a “rifle” now turns on a bewildering six-factor test. This new definition can be controlled not by the firearm’s objective characteristics, but instead by what ATF agents in D.C. think of a manufacturer’s marketing materials or the firearm’s “likely use.”  The new rule itself is forced to admit its dramatic result: Under this new definitional regime, “a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ are likely to be classified as ‘rifles.’”  “The Biden administration’s new rifle definition overrides the true wish of Congress, to upend the reasonable expectations of stabilizing brace users and makers nationwide,” Flores said. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted the foundation’s 2021 lawsuit raised critical points about what has now been adopted by ATF.  “When we started this process,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipated where the agency’s efforts would lead. With our co-plaintiffs, we will continue to challenge this new arm brace rule.”

26 minutes ago, oldguysrule649 said:

FYI,  press release from SAF.  Bold emphasis is mine. My concern is that the ATF's attempt to redefine "rifle" could encompass "Others" within that redefinition.  I hope not but the bold wording below coupled with the ATF doc showing what appears to be an Other, implies our Others could be in play.  With that said, IANAL, and this topic really needs NJ centric legal analysis.  Nothing I have seen since the new rule was released makes mention of Others, which I presume is mainly a NJ thing.

SAF RIPS ATF ‘FINAL RULE’ ON ARM BRACES, LAWSUIT WILL MOVE FORWARD

The Second Amendment Foundation today accused the Biden administration of “once again trying to trample the rights of gun owners” by allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to adopt a “final rule” on arm braces for modern semiautomatic pistols. While the definition of a rifle in federal law should be clear, noted attorney Chad Flores, who is representing SAF in a federal lawsuit filed two years ago that was stayed by the court in anticipation of this new rule, it is clear the Biden administration’s new definition of a rifle ignores tradition. SAF sued ATF and the U.S. Attorney General in 2021 in a case known as SAF et. al. v. BATFE, et. al. SAF is joined in that case by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.  According to Flores’ analysis of the 291-page Final Rule, the definition of a “rifle” now turns on a bewildering six-factor test. This new definition can be controlled not by the firearm’s objective characteristics, but instead by what ATF agents in D.C. think of a manufacturer’s marketing materials or the firearm’s “likely use.”  The new rule itself is forced to admit its dramatic result: Under this new definitional regime, “a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ are likely to be classified as ‘rifles.’”  “The Biden administration’s new rifle definition overrides the true wish of Congress, to upend the reasonable expectations of stabilizing brace users and makers nationwide,” Flores said. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb noted the foundation’s 2021 lawsuit raised critical points about what has now been adopted by ATF.  “When we started this process,” Gottlieb said, “we anticipated where the agency’s efforts would lead. With our co-plaintiffs, we will continue to challenge this new arm brace rule.”

You could argue the language does affect others, but they created a strict system of determination that excludes them.. 

The good news really is in the rule itself, it redefines so much outside of the legislative context that the ATF won't be able to defend the rule changes. 

Remember, rules clarify law they don't redefine it. All of the criteria they created is in addition to the law, not clarifying it. 

I’m just kinda thinking out loud here…and I am not a lawyer…

CAN the ATF ‘make’ laws like this? I seem to remember several .gov agencies who received the SCOTUS smack down in recent past for making their own rules (WVa vs EPA comes to mind). 
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:

“The Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives,” 

Could this be applied in a lawsuit against the ATF’s brace rule, meaning, that only Congress has the power to pass these type of laws? 

 

I’m also sure it’s deeper than that. I also remember when braces became popular, and when the ATF said they COULD be (lawfully) shouldered..now they have not only reversed that, but have added a bunch of ‘qualifiers’. Many seem to go against 2A ‘tradition’ discussed in ‘Bruen’. 
 

Might be interesting to watch this. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

I’m just kinda thinking out loud here…and I am not a lawyer…

CAN the ATF ‘make’ laws like this? I seem to remember several .gov agencies who received the SCOTUS smack down in recent past for making their own rules (WVa vs EPA comes to mind). 
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:

“The Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives,” 

Could this be applied in a lawsuit against the ATF’s brace rule, meaning, that only Congress has the power to pass these type of laws? 

 

 

 

No, rules clarify law not "add to it"

 

This is an attempt to create a "substantially identical" text to the law, and that shit won't fly. 

The ATF says a stock is a stock and a brace is a brace... but if a pistol is substantially identical to a rifle, it is a rifle. There is no substantially identical clause in the law. So right off the bat they have overreach. 

3 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

No, rules clarify law not "add to it"

 

This is an attempt to create a "substantially identical" text to the law, and that shit won't fly. 

Right, that’s kind of my point. 

Perhaps a dumb question so please go easy on me, but for a 26" 'Other' does the muzzle device need to be permanently attached with the new ATF rules (~12" BBL)?

.

8 minutes ago, Xtors said:

Perhaps a dumb question so please go easy on me, but for a 26" 'Other' does the muzzle device need to be permanently attached with the new ATF rules (~12" BBL)?

Barrel length has not changed. As always the length Is to the end of the barrel threads with out one pinned, or it includes the length of the muzzle device if one is pinned. 

1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

That's not how this works I updated my response to be more clear. 

 

The rule must be clear on what IS a SBR, not what isn't. 

 

No where in the rule is a determining factor for a weapon such as an other, designed to be fired with two hands and over 26" and how a brace would be classified under those conditions. 

I dont see in the rule, where if over 26" and under 16" barrel, with a brace it's considered a SBR. The point system for determining if a brace is a stock excludes anything over 26".

They go on to state if it's "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, but offer no way to determine that other than comparing it to a "rifle counterpart"..  they say, if it looks like a rifle it must be one... clear as mud huh? But this was all an explanation as to how they came up with their point system, which again excludes others. 

It says anything with a barrel under 16" and a pistol brace is most likely a SBR.  There is an example of a 25" and 27" equally configured.  

Still looking for parts of the document that make you think just because a firearm is over 26" a pistol brace will not be considered a stock?  

Look, I'd love to believe what you say.  I would love to be wrong.  But I'm just not seeing that and I would want to be sure.  

12 minutes ago, ESB said:

It says anything with a barrel under 16" and a pistol brace is a SBR.  There is an example of a 25" and 27" equally configured.  

Still looking for parts of the document that make you think just because a firearm is over 26" a pistol brace will not be considered a stock?  

Look, I'd love to believe what you say.  I would love to be wrong.  But I'm just not seeing that and I would want to be sure.  

You need to quote that because I don't see it in the rule section. Further more, such a statement would negate the entire premise or their worksheet since every pistol with a stock is now banned. 

But you seem to still have it backwards on the law must say what isn't allowed. If I can't find what I'm looking for that makes it legal.

I think it's pretty obvious what they are trying to do. 

 

The rule states "provided other factors listed in the rule" to which the form they have is used to determine those other factors. 

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

Search for "26 inches"

The GCA uses the 26" determination, the NFA does not.   I believe they are trying to just use the NFA definition.  

See Page 4.  

The NFA defines the term “firearm” differently and more narrowly than does the GCA. Under the NFA, the term “firearm” includes “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length” and “a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length” (also known as “short-barreled rifle” as that term is defined under the GCA). 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3)–(4); 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(8). The NFA defines the term “rifle” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(c). The section of the NFA’s definition of “firearm” that includes a “rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length” and a “weapon made from a rifle” is nearly identical to the GCA’s definition of “short-barreled rifle.”

 

Then see p113-114

Another commenter disagreed with the overall length requirement and incorrectly asserted that “if two AR-type pistols equipped with a stabilizing brace have the same weight, but one has an overall length of 24 [inches] and the other has an overall length of 27 [inches], the latter would automatically be a short-barreled rifle”

 

Then see p122-123

The Department agrees with one commenter’s concerns regarding the outcome under the proposed Worksheet 4999 in a scenario in which two firearms with an attached “brace” device weigh the same and one is 25 inches in length and the other is 27 inches in length. The latter firearm under the worksheet would have been classified as a rifle when equipped with a “stabilizing brace,” not a short-barreled rifle as asserted by the commenter, on the basis that a firearm with an overall length exceeding 26 inches would be impractical and inaccurate to fire one handed due to the imbalance of the weapon, and thus would need to be shouldered.  

 

.

Those are JUST the measurements criteria they need to meet to justify when a brace is a stock. They still have to say when the part of the definition "stock" is met. 

Can you remove the quote from your post.  I need to fix it.  Thanks.  

Another commenter disagreed with the overall length requirement and incorrectly asserted that “if two AR-type pistols equipped with a stabilizing brace have the same weight, but one has an overall length of 24 [inches] and the other has an overall length of 27 [inches], the latter would automatically be a short-barreled rifle”

They said the latter would NOT automatically be a sbr. 

And it's a pistol to pistol comparison. 

 

The Department agrees with one commenter’s concerns regarding the outcome under the proposed Worksheet 4999 in a scenario in which two firearms with an attached “brace” device weigh the same and one is 25 inches in length and the other is 27 inches in length. The latter firearm under the worksheet would have been classified as a rifle when equipped with a “stabilizing brace,” not a short-barreled rifle as asserted by the commenter, on the basis that a firearm with an overall length exceeding 26 inches would be impractical and inaccurate to fire one handed due to the imbalance of the weapon, and thus would need to be shouldered

The ATF ........

Did anyone notice if you go to this page and hover over the pictured the note says:

"Three stabilizing races on machine guns laying on a table"

Spelling error is their error.

 

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

so what happens now?  grace period to register or turn in?

what does one do if you have one on a pistol or other?

 

From my understanding, You have 120 days from the time the file the rule with the Federal Registry to comply.  

I think the best thing to do would be to remove the brace from your Other before this rule gets filed.  This way you can say that it never had a stock on it, and therefore can continue to be an Other.  (The brace was not classified as a stock when it was on it). 

 However, it looks like they may say that anything over 26" is a rifle and not a SBR, which means NJ rifle rules would now apply to Others.  Not sure how that is possible since they have a barrel less than 16".