ATF seeks to reclassify pistol braces as NFA items

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tom Servo

Staff
The notice is published in the federal register here, along with instructions for sending comments.

The GCA and NFA generally regulate “firearms” and not individual components and, as such, ATF does not classify unregulated components or accessories alone. However, components or accessories can affect the overall classification of a firearm because: (1) How a component or accessory is actually used may be relevant in assessing the manufacturer's or maker's intent with respect to the design of a firearm; or (2) the design of a component or accessory may result in a firearm falling within a particular statutory definition. Stabilizing braces are one such component or accessory that ATF has encountered.
Click to expand...
 
if you have an arm brace on your AR pistol, you will have to pay another $200 and spend some time in purgatory to keep it so.
 
As it is the brace and not the AR pistol that apparently is the issue,I took mine off. Just the receiver extension /buffer tube now.
Should be "No Heartburn" At least for now. Thanks for the "Heads Up"
 
"ATF 2020R-10 serves no purpose, other than to infringe on the right to bear arms.
BATF has previously ruled that pistol braces were legal and not covered by the NFA. Now, they change their minds due to political winds changing direction.
I am opposed to this proposed rule. It will have no effect on crime, other than to make many law abiding citizens criminals."

Feel free to cut/paste my comment if you do not want to compose your own. Be sure to add your name and full address in the body of the comment.
 
Bill DeShivs said:
"ATF 2020R-10 serves no purpose, other than to infringe on the right to bear arms.
BATF has previously ruled that pistol braces were legal and not covered by the NFA. Now, they change their minds due to political winds changing direction.
I am opposed to this proposed rule. It will have no effect on crime, other than to make many law abiding citizens criminals."

Feel free to cut/paste my comment if you do not want to compose your own. Be sure to add your name and full address in the body of the comment.
Click to expand...
done, thanks.
 
The only reason that I have a brace is so the the pistol can stand up with the other firearms in a gun safe... never used the brace to shoot the thing, so I’ll just take it off.

Seems to me, for safety reasons, a firearm should be allowed to be made as stable as possible.
 
Consequently, following issuance of this notice, ATF and DOJ plan to implement a separate process by which current possessors of affected stabilizer-equipped firearms may choose to register such firearms to be compliant with the NFA. As part of that process, ATF plans to expedite processing of these applications, and ATF has been informed that the Attorney General plans retroactively to exempt such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes if they were made or acquired, prior to the publication of this notice, in good faith.
Click to expand...

So, no $200 tax stamp and a process that is “expedited”.

If this comes to be reality, i will go ahead and put mine into the NFA registry. Ive already got a small stamp collection. A few more isnt going to change anything.

With the way they are looking at accessories being used by the second hand as classifiers and optics constrained for one handed use, id rather just SBR the darned things and be free to use em as i want.
 
Last edited:
Can they do the same thing for the ShockWave and TAC-14?
Click to expand...

Those are not classified as “pistols” so its a different animal. BUT, BATFE has a track record of reclassifying guns to suit political climates.

I wouldnt put it past em...
 
Sharkbite said:
So, no $200 tax stamp and a process that is “expedited”.

If this comes to be reality, i will go ahead and put mine into the NFA registry. Ive already got a small stamp collection. A few more isnt going to change anything.

With the way they are looking at accessories being used by the second hand as classifiers and optics constrained for one handed use, id rather just SBR the darned things and be free to use em as i want.
Click to expand...

a few guys at work have already done this, I might also.
 
Have commented although I do not own an AR with this type stock but think everyone else should be able to without the ATF needing another couple of tax dollar's.
 
I think it’s as simple as .... “ have you ever shouldered your pistol with an “arm brace “ ... if so , you are the problem and why this regulation has come to be . Every time I see a video of some tacticool guy shouldering his “pistol” I just shake my head . It is you guys that brought this on your selves and screwed the rest of us like just about every law and or regulation is passed . It just takes a few to effect everyone negatively. Maybe if our team stopped cheating we wouldn’t have as much to complain about .
 
Lmao , ok I think I’ll try shouldering my glock since shouldering a “pistol” is some how doable . If you hold it like a rifle don’t be surprised if it’s treated like one . The most telling is The incredibly low percentage of videos I’ve seen with people actually using the brace as intended and the overwhelming percentage of people shouldering the brace .

If it looks like and can be used as , it doesn’t matter if you call it something else . I’ve said this before this is not about the brace it’s about the NFA . If you’re gonna make an argument make the right one .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top