• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Pistol brace rule now active

John A.

Unconstitutional laws are not laws.
Staff member
Administrator
Global Moderator
Still reading. They did the best they could to confuse people. I'm a gun guy and even I am having to re-read things multiple times to try to understand half of what they're talking about.

I will also make mention that the atf said they would allow tax exempt registration on their eform website. That at this moment is still not an option.

Also, there are absolutely will be NO option to register a shockwave with a brace as an SBS. So, they clearly are discriminating against anyone that has one.
-------------------

On June 10, 2021, the Department published an NPRM in the Federal Register titled, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’,” 86 FR 30826. The NPRM proposed amending ATF’s definitions of “rifle” in 27 CFR parts 478 and 479 to expressly state that the term may include firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace,” even though such firearms were already implicitly included in the definition by virtue of the fact that they were designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The proposed amendment clarified that a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” device falls under the definition of “rifle” if the weapon “has objective design features and characteristics that facilitate shoulder fire,” as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999, Factoring Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with Accessories commonly referred to as “Stabilizing Braces” (“Worksheet 4999”). Id. at 30851. The Department published for public comment the criteria ATF considers when evaluating the objective design features of firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” to determine whether the weapon is a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the GCA and a “rifle” or “firearm,” (i.e., a short-barreled rifle) under the NFA. The NPRM also included the proposed Worksheet 4999, which assigned points to various criteria and provided examples of how the Worksheet 4999 would be used to evaluate firearms equipped with certain models of “stabilizing braces.” After careful consideration of the comments received regarding the complexity in understanding the proposed Worksheet 4999 and the methodology used in the Worksheet to evaluate firearms equipped with a “brace” device, this final rule does not adopt some aspects of the approach proposed in the NPRM, specifically the Worksheet 4999 and its point system. Instead, based on the comments received, the Department took the relevant criteria discussed in the NPRM and Worksheet 4999 that indicate when a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and incorporated them into the rule’s revised definitions of rifle. Because both the GCA and NFA define a “rifle” as a weapon “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” the Department believes that 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 is a rifle, provided the 9 other factors described in this preamble and listed in the final regulatory text indicate the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Accordingly, the Department amends the definition of “rifle” under 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 to expressly state that the term “designed or 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 amended regulations and described in this preamble, indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The other factors are: (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; 10 (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. All of the objective design features and factors listed in the rule that indicate the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder are derived from the NPRM and proposed Worksheet 4999. The revised definition in this final rule clarifies, consistent with the best interpretation of the statutory provision, that firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace” can possess objective design features that make them “rifles,” as that term is defined under the NFA and GCA. If a firearm with an attached “stabilizing brace” meets the definition of a “rifle” based on the factors indicated in this final rule, then that firearm could also be a short-barreled rifle depending on the length of the attached barrel, thus subjecting it to additional requirements under the NFA and GCA. However, a firearm with an attached “brace” device is not a “rifle” as defined in the relevant statutes if the weapon is not designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The rule, as proposed and finalized, does not ban “stabilizing braces” or prohibit firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace,” regardless of the firearm’s classification. This revised definition reflects the Department’s understanding of the best interpretation of the statute, and it is immediately effective. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2). In addition, because prior ATF classifications of firearms equipped with a “brace” device did not all employ this correct understanding of the statutory terms, all such prior classifications are no longer valid as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 11 FEDERAL REGISTER]. While firearms equipped with “stabilizing braces” or other rearward attachments may be submitted to ATF for a new classification determination, a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” are likely to be classified as “rifles” because they are configured for shoulder fire based on the factors described in this rule. Because many of these firearms generally have a barrel of less than 16 inches, they are likely to be classified as short-barreled rifles subject to regulation and registration under the NFA and GCA.
 
Last edited:
There are several things about this that I believe is unlawful. I still have not been able to read through the entire document(S) --plural, however I have seen several things that I believe is not only unlawful on its' face, but unconstitutional.

Earlier I mentioned that they were not providing an amnesty for braced shotguns or other weapons. Only pistols.

OK, that is problematic on its' face because if a brace makes a pistol a short barrel rifle, it would make other weapons short barrel shotguns or whatever.

The mere fact that they said on the final line (#28 Miscellaneous) of the Q&A section of faq-final rule 2021r-08f - corrected pdf that the forbearance only applies to sbr's.

OK, so from my understanding, anyone having one installed on a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches is just shit out of luck. You would have no other option than to either remove and destroy the brace, gun or barrel and replace them with parts that the atf likes (for now) or turn them in.

Next, while they may be offering amnesty for the first tax stamp, all subsequent tax stamp transfers afterwards will require the tax being paid. If there are 20-40 million braces in existence, even by using the low number of 20 million guns if they are registered, which will remain functional for likely 5 generations or more (I'm sure we could point out guns that are still function that were made 150 years ago), the government stands to make trillions of dollars in taxes, simply by waving a carrot in front of short sighted people now thinking they are getting one over the government who would register them.

Next, the atf is using the 1968 GCA (gun control act) as precedence for their authority to withdraw all of their prior determinations and reclassify the weapons and force you to register the guns as sbrs, one important fact about the GCA is that it prohibited the government from creating a registry to begin with. So, they're saying the GCA gave them the authority to make you register these, despite the gca also saying the government is prohibited of making a registry.

Also, with 20-40 million pistol braces in existence, which they are saying they are now classified as sbr', would that not by the same logic say that sbr's are in common use? I would think yes.

There was a court case (Miller vs. US) that pertained to the nfa tax and short barrel shotgun, however he died just before the scotus hearing and they determined that shotguns with less than 18 inch barrels were not in common use with the military (which is BS considering they were in use heavily during WW1 in the trenches to the point that the germans had tried to have them banned as inhumane.

20-40 million by government estimates, would seem like an easy way to conclude they are in common use.

There are other issues as well that some states do not allow SBR's/NFA but they do allow pistols. This would automatically disqualify their owners from keeping their previously legal property.

Again, there are other things that I haven't been able to sift through yet, but these are some of my earlier findings so far.
 
The whole ruling is egregious and a form of "entrapment". Just my .02


"Also, with 20-40 million pistol braces in existence, which they are saying they are now classified as sbr', would that not by the same logic say that sbr's are in common use? I would think yes."

Agreed.

Sounds like "fore grips, folding stocks", etc could be heavily reg to. Because, you know that will show those "criminals/gangs"
 
1673717655863.png

In my opinion, atf, or any other agency, are not enumerated with powers to rewrite criminal and tax law. Just sayin'.

I was doing a little math after some guy mentioned the atf is taking a hit in revenue by offering a one time $200 registration tax amnesty. While I often believe that people have a right to their own opinions, I often question the ability of some people to process simple thought.

ATF says 20-40 million braces exist. Let's just say, even if only a small portion of people do register them, say 5 million. Even if those 5 million weapons are transferred only 2 time afterwards in their limited life expectancy of 150 years, that will equal to $2,000,000,000. I hardly call that taking a hit in revenue for taxing a right.

Further, it's unlawful to require a poll tax to exercise the right to vote. It's unlawful to charge a sales tax for newspapers because that restricts the 1A amendment right of free speech. Yet, gun owners are not treated equally under law. They have no problems taxing an item that goes along with an enumerated right.

There was an amnesty done once before in 1986 when the fopa was passed. The difference between it and now, congress passed the firearm protection act and it was signed into law.

This "rule" has not passed anything, other than the executive office said do it anyway.
 
I was doing a little math after some guy mentioned the atf is taking a hit in revenue by offering a one time $200 registration tax amnesty.
I am surprised there hasn't been talk of raising the tax, considering it would be like $4200 if adjusted for inflation. THAT would be the real worry. :eek:
 
I am surprised there hasn't been talk of raising the tax, considering it would be like $4200 if adjusted for inflation. THAT would be the real worry. :eek:

There has been talk about it. It was submitted 2 years ago, but hasn't moved. It just lays in wait for the next "must pass bill", just like most other garbage bills get tacked onto something that politicians do want so they can turn a blind eye to it.

Any taxation on a right is unconstitutional. Even a cent is more tax than it should be on a protected right.

Even delaying a right by waiting periods is unconstitutional. A right delayed, is a right denied.

Which is another elephant in the room. Current wait times for nfa items are anywhere from 2 months to 12+ months. That is just with current demand.

Add millions more to the list, see how long those wait times extend to. People thinks 1 year is bad now. Pfft. Biden said hold my ice cream cone.
 
Thanks for the great break down John. Hopefully some lawsuits can get this wiped considering the EPA ruling the the Supreme Court last year. Showing the ATF can’t be making up laws on their own.
 
Nice to see you monk.

There have been two previous amnesties in regards to nfa items. I'm going to discuss some of the finer details about them both here, though I would like to go on record saying I believe in my heart the nfa is unconstitutional on its' face. With that aside, here are the two other times this has occured.

1986 fopa. (firearm owners protection act). This however, was a "legal bill" that passed congress and president Reagan signed into law, which allowed anyone that had a machinegun to register them with the nfa under an amnesty. While again, I feel the nfa is unconstitutional, this was at least by congress and the executive branch making actual LAW and respecting post defacto ownership/property law.

The other time, was with street sweeper shotguns. This was not done via law, per-say, but the attorney general reclassified them as destructive devices and allowed the people that already had purchased them to register them tax free. The only reason the AG was able to do that in this instance, was the 1968 gun control act (GCA) allowed the AG an exeption to determine what a sporting arm is, in regards to an IMPORTED weapons. Which the street sweeper was. It was being imported from South Africa.

This time, we all know that most of the guns this will include, are domestic/American made weapons, so the AG can't determine sporting with those so the street sweeper determination would not apply to only imported guns. Another quick thing to mention, since most imported weapons (handguns) don't have to comply with 922 r parts counts. But rifles do. This would just dump everything into one big basket and ignore 922 law which contradicts law from any pistol that is imported with a brace or one is legally added to later.

I don't pretend to understand how the atf/doj/USAG thinks they have enough hair on their ass to rewrite both criminal law, and tax law, and ignore written law which this blatantly is on its' face. You have 120 days to register your guns, or you're a felon. That is criminal law.

Another thing about the '68 GCA that they're trying to refer to numerous times, also says that it prevents the government from making/keeping a registery. What is atf telling people to do? Register their guns with braces. Blatantly unlawful in my opinion. This is just a big registration scheme.

Again, I'm diving into it more. I have already shown where they are ignoring braces that are on firearms with large smooth bores (shotguns). Which again, is problematic in that if they are not creating short barrel shotguns in that instance, attaching them to handguns are not creating short barrel rifles, which they are wanting to do. That is not only a conflict in legality, but does not offer equal protection of property under the law.

Anyone with a brace on a mossberg shockwave or a remington tac14, will simply be forced to destroy their property with no ability to comply with whatever rule making atf says in the same manner as they are allowing with handguns.

I also got a notification from GOA, who is fighting this and they gave a really interesting fact. I'll add it here:

The ATF reportedly processed 512,315 NFA forms in 2020.​
At that rate – assuming no further backlog and assuming all affected gun owners comply with gun registration – it would take the ATF over 78 years to process all the pistol registration forms required by this executive action.​
 
Latest from Washington this morning.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced H.R.374, the "Abolish the ATF Act," a bill to eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) following a controversial ruling that tightens regulations on pistol stabilizing braces
 
The good thing is, he is on the Judiciary committee which is over the DOJ.

The bad news is, even if this does move out of the house, the senate would never bring it up for a vote, thus ensuring that biden himself wouldn't have to veto it personally.

Really seems to me that bills like these always get submitted when they don't have a hope in hell of passing. But, that aside, I think that Matt Gaetz is one of the better elected officials up there.
 
John, couldn't agree more about the likelyhood of the legislation getting passed but this action plus all the letters from folks across the country has raised the issue to the Congressional level which is good.

Regards
 
Yes, it is good. Even if the bill doesn't go anywhere, the fact that Gaetz is on the judicial committee, should still send them a message because the atf is directly under their authority and he's on it.

About a year ago, there were around 150 members who wrote the atf a strongly worded letter telling them to knock it off then, but they didn't listen then either.
 
Dated 2020
90 House members object

Dated 2021
140 House members object

Dated 2021
48 Senators object

atf apparently doesn't care.
 
Gaetz got a bad rap for his "rules" demands and the SofH vote, but in the end he came out smelling very well. Too many in the slimedia were calling him obstructionist and all that, but I follow him on Twatter and his case and demands made very good sense to the sensible me. He is a (R) with balls and sorely needed in Congress. He reps the Pensacola area of FL (Eglin AFB).
 
Anyone disagreeing with the atf ruling, here's a link that takes all of 20 seconds to fill out and submit, via the Gun Owners of America if you haven't already contacted your elected reps as you should have.

For that matter, even if you have already written your reps. I still like the letter.

 
Back
Top