BATF&E going after Q for S-B braces.

[Sharpshooter]

Good post. I commented.

[jtallen83]

Just saw this posted on instagram,  hopefully it holds🤞🏻

[jtallen83]

The full letter is here;

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/general-notice/sb-criteria-withdrawal-notice-12-23-20pdf/download

Edited December 24, 2020 by jtallen83

[98Z5V]

I wonder if that's because they just don't give a shiit what the Industry and citizens have to say...  

[sagebrush]

would be my guess^^^

[shooterrex]

More like they are waiting for the new boss to take office so they can really get started trying to disarm is.

[392heminut]

4 hours ago, shooterrex said:

More like they are waiting for the new boss to take office so they can really get started trying to disarm is.

I think you're right!

[98Z5V]

Here's some information from GAT Daily, from 3 days ago - with an update today.

https://gatdaily.com/the-atf-brace-comment-period-is-open/

The ATF Brace Comment Period is Open

By

Keith Finch

December 21, 2020

 

 

UPDATE: They pulled the notice early. Apparently calling a confusing mess of rules ‘Objective’ make them popular in the public comments. Good job all who commented.

Now is the time. Click http://www.regulations.gov/ and leave note for the ATF on how you feel their ‘objective standards’ are and how they could improve them.

Be sure to reference ATF 2020R-10 to properly attribute the comment to the Braced Firearm proposed rule change.

It is sad, really. The ATF appear to be trying. They are trying to be fair about this, but fair is not the same as objective. The public needs objective, and objective means that I can hand these standards to anyone of moderate literacy and they could figure out whether their device is Title I or Title II and be shown clearly why their device is I or II and how to correct it to make it the other if that was their goal.

The ATF, in their attempt, continue to carefully not state the open secret that they cannot possibly test millions of potential configurations in a timely manner. They equally eagerly point to the trees in a very “oh, would you look at how trees those trees are today.” to deflect from the obvious conclusion that the NFA is effectively null and void by today’s tech. The response of, “We just enforce the rules,” becomes a hollow comfort when the ATF is also in the business of making the rules. They have been saddled with this nebulous duty by AG after AG, but that doesn’t make it any better from our perspective as gun owners.

ATF “Opinions” have effectively carried the weight of law and have been subjective. They may be reasoned subjectivity and concluded by more than one person, but subjective they remain.

Here is the kicker line for me personally in this whole debacle.

“No single factor or combination of factors is dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis.”

Which is the polar opposite of objective. If it was objective, than a single factor would absolutely be dispositive. A part would be too long, have too much surface area and be used as a stock, use an optical device with eye relief distance indicating shoulder firing, something that could be measured and stated ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on the feature.

This case-by-case “holistic” approach exists because if the ATF were to admit they cannot do this objectively (they can’t, they just won’t admit it) then the NFA crumbles. They openly admit there is no practical functional difference between Title I rifles and shotguns, and II SBRs and SBSs. Combining that admission of fact with the intent of the NFA “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes,” (which itself is subjective) and the mountain of data showing these are unlikely to be chosen for criminal purposes on the large scale, the NFA crumbles further.

The NFA holds many parallels with Prohibition, and chief among those parallels is legal means based on objective criteria to get a similar result. Braces were in many ways just a convenient and cosmetic work around, they made AR-type pistols look better and more like an SBR without the aggravation of the NFA.

We know that availability, cost, and concealability are the highest influencing factors in criminal misuse of firearms selection. Can the criminal or criminal-to-be afford to acquire it, not just financially but risk wise as well. Does it make sense, especially from an organized crime standpoint (another reason for the NFA), to acquire these or more sense to acquire more less expensive easily concealed firearms? Presence at a crime, an objective fact, does not equate to ‘likely to be used for criminal purposes,’ a subjective observation based on perception.

So please, respectfully and firmly add your voice to the ATF’s comments.

http://www.regulations.gov/

ATF 2020R-10

Limit profanity or it will not be published.

Edited December 25, 2020 by 98Z5V

[98Z5V]

If they just shut down comments because they don't care - then we see where they're going with this. 

I'll process every one of my pistols through the NFA, with no tax stamp $200 fee, and they can do it "expedited", too.  Once they're all processed, and registered SBRs, then I'm good to stock every single one of them, after engraving, of course.  I'm in. 

[392heminut]

3 hours ago, 98Z5V said:

 

I'll process every one of my pistols through the NFA, with no tax stamp $200 fee, and they can do it "expedited", too.  Once they're all processed, and registered SBRs, then I'm good to stock every single one of them, after engraving, of course.  I'm in. 

I'm thinking the same thing brother!

[shrade]

13 hours ago, 98Z5V said:

If they just shut down comments because they don't care - then we see where they're going with this. 

I'll process every one of my pistols through the NFA, with no tax stamp $200 fee, and they can do it "expedited", too.  Once they're all processed, and registered SBRs, then I'm good to stock every single one of them, after engraving, of course.  I'm in. 

Sounds good to me, most of this SBR stuff is new to me. Explain the "good to stock every single one of them, after engraving," 

[98Z5V]

12 hours ago, shrade said:

Sounds good to me, most of this SBR stuff is new to me. Explain the "good to stock every single one of them, after engraving," 

NFA Items have to be engraved with the information of the "manufacturer."  If you didn't buy your gun whole, like that at a dealer, and you assembled it yourself - that's legal.  But if you're the one that asssembled your Tax-Stamped NFA gun from parts - YOU are the manufacturer.  Your info has to be engraved on the serialized part of the gun. 

If all my pistol-braced guns are going to be NFA SBRs, just because they have a pistol brace - then when my stamp comes back, and my lower is engraved - I'm putting stocks on them.  Fuk it, at that point, they're registered SBRs anyway.

[shrade]

Gotcha, Thanks for the info.