# New ATF Rulemaking proposal to address "stabilizing braces"



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

We heard it was being planned, but then all chatter went silent.
Well, today Merrick Garland signed the new proposed rule that would create Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces".

It's disturbing to see the lengths to which the government will go to in order to force compliance or transform millions of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight.
With this proposed rule change, a new "worksheet" would be set up that would score potential firearms equipped with braces to determine if they fall within the definition of a "stabilized pistol" or a "short-barreled rifle".
They provide vague outlines for the categories that will be included in the scoring, and true to form, their lazy and subjective definitions are intended to cast as broad a net as possible.

To download and review the proposed rule in PDF form, in its entirety, click here.

Of particular interest is the section beginning at the bottom of page 11 and following all the way until page 42, you can see the proposed new worksheet and how it and their abhorrent definitions will be applied in their determination. There are example sheets and configurations for reference.
Basically, they set an arbitrary standard for what is legal, and then work to cause nearly all configurations to fall outside of this standard.

Their proposed "Options for Affected Persons" begins at the bottom of page 42.
Your options will be:

"permanently" remove the stabilizing brace so that it cannot be reattached
Remove the existing barrel that is shorter than 16" and affix one that is 16" or longer
Destroy your entire firearm
Turn your entire firearm over to an ATF office
Apply for registration and pay your masters their $200 tax
Comments for this proposed rule will be opened once it has been added to the Federal Register. The first link at the top is to the page that will point to the comments section once it goes live.
Lots of talking heads online are requesting their followers to go and comment. I fail to see the point.
The last time they tried this, we had a mostly pro-2A government. We no longer do. This will pass regardless of comments submitted.
Instead of encouraging you to comment, which you're of course free to do, I am going to encourage you to keep your weapons clean, properly lubricated, and ensure you have an ample supply of food for them.
When, not if, the fed bois come to take them away, I expect their food supply to be exhausted and their barrels to be entirely shot out and beginning to melt down.

This is infringement, through and through. It is an endeavor to make law-abiding men and women into law breakers through ZERO action of their own.
I don't care if you think braces are dumb, of you agree with the ATF that it's a way to circumvent the NFA.
The underlying point is, the NFA and ATF are unconstitutional on their face. Supporting anything they stand for should be considered traitorous. You cannot appease a bloodthirsty croc. Feed him all you like, but eventually you'll be the one on the menu.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Our Texas governor better get our damned 2A sanctuary bill signed, posthaste, and be prepared to enforce it just as quickly.
This could be our first test to see just how serious he is about protecting Texans from illegal infringement.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Our Texas governor better get our damned 2A sanctuary bill signed, posthaste, and be prepared to enforce it just as quickly.
> This could be our first test to see just how serious he is about protecting Texans from illegal infringement.


It won’t keep the feds from arresting you.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> It won’t keep the feds from arresting you.


You may think that, but It is explicitly worded to do so.
It makes it illegal to assist with any federal entity in enforcing these laws, and it makes it illegal to enforce them in this state. Any local, state, or federal agent caught doing so will be arrested and prosecuted.
Hence my statement about seeing how serious he is about it.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

This is UnConstitutional just by the fact that this is in effect making law and only the Legislature can make law.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

RedLion said:


> This is UnConstitutional just by the fact that this is in effect making law and only the Legislature can make law.


Once a law is made, it can be interpreted by an agency in any manner that fits any given agenda. 

There is the court system but good luck with that.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Kauboy said:


> Any local, state, or federal agent caught doing so will be arrested and prosecuted.


Exactly who will arrest a federal agent that is executing federal law?

If arrested and prosecuted, do you think the agent will pull time?


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

KUSA said:


> Once a law is made, it can be interpreted by an agency in any manner that fits any given agenda.
> 
> There is the court system but good luck with that.


No a law can not be interpreted however the agency wishes. Do govt agencies do just that anyways, yes. With that said, there will be lawsuits. Will it ultimately get rid of this UnConstitutional BS? Who knows.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

RedLion said:


> No a law can not be interpreted however the agency wishes. Do govt agencies do just that anyways, yes. With that said, there will be lawsuits. Will it ultimately get rid of this UnConstitutional BS? Who knows.


You failed to see my sarcasm.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

KUSA said:


> You failed to see my sarcasm.


I have been known to do that from time to time.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

If this criteria is used, there are some cases where your pistol without any brace on it would still be classified as an SBR. Big time BS.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

KUSA said:


> Exactly who will arrest a federal agent that is executing federal law?
> 
> If arrested and prosecuted, do you think the agent will pull time?


Your questions caused me to go back and refresh myself on the law as passed. I'm quite nonplussed as a result.
There were two versions being pushed through, one in each legislative house. The House of Reps bill is the one that was actually passed and is headed to the governor's desk. Long story short, I'm not happy about the one that got through.
While the Senate version contained a condition that would charge a violating entity with a Class A misdemeanor, the House bill includes no such charge. It still prevents any state entity from assisting with any "federal agency or official with respect to the enforcement of a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation" that seeks to enforce anything that is not currently in Texas law, but the only recourse is to have the state AG apply for "equitable relief" and a writ to force compliance by the offending entity.
If a state entity is found to have assisted in violation of this order, they lose all access to state funding.

But to your question, there is no longer any application of criminal charges.
I guess they won't be preventing me from being arrested if I'm specifically targeted with a federal assault team.
Can I count on you for help? (_cough_ not that I have any such offending items which would draw attention to myself _cough_)


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

RedLion said:


> If this criteria is used, there are some cases where your pistol without any brace on it would still be classified as an SBR. Big time BS.


Technically, the application of these checks only happens if the firearm in question has a brace.
But yes, the arbitrary definitions that constitute a "short-barreled rifle" with a brace are asinine to the point that they could just as easily be applied to an AR with nothing but a buffer tube at the back.

Weighs more than 120oz.
Secondary forward grip
Having backup/flip up sights... or NO SIGHTS AT ALL (WTF???)
Bipod or monopod
Folding adapter
So if I understand them correctly.... as long as I have just a buffer tube, I can have all the bells and whistles I want on the thing, and they can't say boo about it.
Yep... really stopping all those gangbangers and thugs with that. Solid work... you absolute morons.

You can build a pistol fully intended to be used with two hands, supported at the pistol grip AND a forward (non-vertical) grip, with an eye-relief limited scope, weighing whatever you wanted, with all the backup sights imaginable, and a bipod on the front... and it would be perfectly legal. Their stated reasoning for this rule change is to combat these smaller "rifles" which are dangerous simply because they are easier to conceal, but without a brace, they automagically become safe and perfectly fine... but even more easily concealed.



> "If persons can circumvent the NFA by effectively making unregistered “short-barreled rifles” by using an accessory such as a “stabilizing brace,” these weapons can continue to proliferate and could pose an increased public safety problem given that they are easily concealable. "


Geniuses...

EDIT:
Unless I'm missing something... you could also just as legally lengthen the buffer tube to a comfortable shoulder-mounting length, but as long as no brace/stock existed, you're in the clear.
If this doesn't wreak of absurdity for the sake of pure unabashed gun control, then you're not paying attention.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Common Use: 10-40 million pistol braces in circulation…

4 points for anything that facilitates “two-handed fire” (heat shield/Forward rail) All AR pistols will be SBRs


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

FYI, the comment period is now open.


----------

