It’s December 2020 and pistol braces are back in the news again. The last time pistol braces were making waves in the firearms community was in 2015 when the ATF decided that shouldering a pistol brace effectively “Redesigned” the firearm and turned it from a Pistol to an Short Barrel Rifle (SBR). The ATF quickly backed off this ridiculousness, and pistol braces largely continued to be sold in an every expanding array of variations.
The ATF entered a proposal into the Federal Registrar on December 17th, 2020 regarding changes to how the ATF will categorize and enforce the use of pistol braces moving forward. I have prepared the following summary. The full entry can be found here.
- The ATF recognizes the value of a pistol stabilizing brace as originally designed, namely to aid in disabled veterans in shooting firearms which are legally a pistol.
- The ATF is proposing criteria in evaluating future firearms equipped with stabilizing braces, the criteria is to include;
- Firearm type and Caliber
- Weight and Length,
- Length of Pull
- Attachment Method
- Brace Design Features
- In addition to the criteria listed above the ATF specifies they will evaluate the following criteria.
- The comparative function of the attachment when utilized as a stabilizing brace compared to its alternate use as a shouldering device;
- The design of the stabilizing brace compared to known shoulder stock designs;
- The amount of rear contact surface area of the stabilizing brace that can be used in shouldering the weapon as compared to the surface area necessary for use as a stabilizing brace;
- The material used to make the attachment that indicates whether the brace is designed and intended to be pressed against the shoulder for support, or actually used on the arm;
- Any shared or interchangeable parts with known shoulder stocks; and
- Any other feature of the brace that improves the weapon’s effectiveness from the shoulder-firing position without providing a corresponding benefit to the effectiveness of the stability and support provided by the brace’s use on the arm.
- Aim Point
- Secondary Grip
- Sights and Scopes
- Peripheral Accessories
- The ATF is proposing a program for the registration of existing firearms equipped with a pistol brace to either be destroyed, removal and disposal of the brace, or the registration of the firearm as an SBR. The ATF is proposing that the $200 tax stamp be waived during the registration period for affected firearms.
There are a few take away points
First, the ATF is recognizing that the original intent of the pistol stabilizing brace is valid, and they are not outlawing them whole sale. However they are also recognizing that the original intent has been largely ignored by consumers, to the point where it has become something of a joke that is flaunted by many as a “Poor Man’s SBR”. Now I will challenge the ATF to show me one example in the nearly 90 years of the NFA’s existence where a crime was either made possible or made worse because of the use of an SBR or SBS rather then a conventional firearm. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Secondly the ATF only lays out the generalized categories of consideration, but does not lay out specific criteria as to what it will or will not consider a valid pistol brace moving forward. I interpret this as meaning the ATF may give exemptions to this rule on a very case by case basis, which will be strictly enforced and any deviation (Such as the addition of attachments or modification) either by the manufacturer or end user risks revocation of the exemption. I know this is a big sticking point for a lot of people, and I am rather concerned about it as well. If there’s rules then we should all know what those rules are. Given nearly every law regarding firearms is backed by felony consequences, people need to know what is ok, and what is not ok, so no one has their life destroyed by over zealous prosecutors or twitchy snipers . We should be allowed to weigh in on this rule making since we are the ones who are affected most by it.
Lastly, the ATF is recognizing that is really has not been clear on the pistol brace. It has issued many different determination letters, some of them have been conflicting, which has lead to confusion regarding what the pistol brace is, and what it is not. This is likely why the ATF is offering something of a tepid compromise where they are not going to strictly enforce firearms equipped with a pistol brace, providing a means to legally maintain ownership by waiving the $200 tax stamp for SBR registration, ,and are not going to outright ban their use even if they are not providing the strict criteria they will use to allow exemptions. Again, these plans are not detailed, and while that is proposed I suspect the incoming Biden Administration will have some different thoughts on it.
My Thoughts On the Issue
Generally, I am slow to anger, and generally I like to look at all the angles of an issue and stew on it for awhile before formulating an opinion. This is no different. Given that this is not the first time Pistol Braces have come under fire, I have had a long time to think about it. I believe that this issue is largely one of our own making, and before you call me a Fudd, let me explain.
Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barrel Shotguns, Suppressors, and other so called National Firearm Act (NFA) items came into existence in 1934. This legislation represented the first major firearms legislation in the United States. I disagree with quite a lot about this legislation, and I believe it has done more harm to innocent people then it has served to protect public safety. A few notable examples of this would be Waco and Ruby Ridge. The measurements that define a rifle, pistol, and shotgun are arbitrary at best.
American’s are excellent about finding what they consider to be gaps in the law, especially if there is some money to be made. Ever since the NFA came into existence and the ATF was charged with enforcing it, we’ve been pushing the limits of what we can get away with. From lightning links, to bump stocks and pistol braces. Sometimes I wonder if we pursue the merit of changing the law with the same zeal as we try to work around the law we’d be a good deal further along. Then again, it is not like we have not tried…with little to no avail.
Pistol Braces were introduced to help wounded and disable vets have full access to the Rights they sacrificed to preserved. That was the original intent of the pistol brace and even the ATF acknowledges this. We, the firearms community, picked up on the fact that a pistol brace makes for a halfway decent stock if shouldered. Coupled with determination letters were issued stating that a pistol brace was not a stock, and therefore it’s incorporation on a Pistol AR configuration did not constitute a SBR. It became the hot new firearm accessory and turned pistol AR builds into something more of a novelty.
I am willing to bet that the number of disabled vets who own a firearm with a pistol brace for the original purpose, is a very tiny percentage of the total ownership of these accessories. Which is the ATF’s contention, that the allowance of an accessory, however well intention, has become the defacto means of circumventing, SBR and SBS requirements as outlined in NFA of 1934.
To this end, I believe the generalized outrage of many in the firearms community, is off putting. Every single one of us. who are plugged into the firearms world, knew that a pistol brace was a half assed attempt at getting around poorly conceived but well defined law. The cries of “Shall Not Be Infringed” or “Come and Take It” are becoming tiresome as people shout them in internet forums but do not back them with meaningful action.
The same sort of people are likely to give me a fair amount of flak because in their eyes I do not toe the line and openly denounce anything that could be perceived as an infringement. (A separate issue that is not unique to our community.) We are a community that is always on the defensive, constantly under attack on both the State and Federal level, and it only takes them to win once for us to lose a substantial portion of our Rights. We have a finite amount of resources we should focus these where they have the greatest impact.
In this instance we created the problem, and some think the best solution is to dig our heals in and hold the house despite it being built on incredibly shaky foundations in the first place. With that said, what do we do? Well, I for one, would like to own a SBR, SBS, and get a few more suppressors without paying $200 and submitting finger prints, and waiting for a year. That means we, as a community, should be pushing for amendments to the current NFA. I do not think that abolishing the NFA outright is going to happen, a far more realistic goal is to amend it.
Legislative solutions do not happen overnight, we cannot get what we want by demanding it once, and then giving up if we cannot get the time of day. Legislation is often submitted year after year even when the political climate is unfavorable. When favorable political window presents itself, however brief, elements of the bill can be submitted as riders onto a larger bill, or they can be passed outright. This requires a degree of persistence and patience that seems to be in rare supply in todays climate, however that is exactly how 2A opponents have worked and continue to work.
Meanwhile, the ATF is likely going to push forward with their new rule in “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces”” Regardless of the number of comments opposing said rule. Which means the owners of these braces are left with some decisions to make on what to do with their existing firearms equipped with such braces.
Remember registering as an SBR or SBS goes beyond just paying a tax stamp and registering the firearm. Some states do not allow SBRs or SBSs, the ATF requires that the lower is engraved with a serial number and the owner information, you must also get the ATF’s permission prior to crossing state lines with it. The pistol brace really is not much of a stock, if you are going to go through the trouble of making the firearm complaint with NFA rules, for heaven sakes put a proper stock on it.
My opinion of the pistol brace issue, is close to what it was in regards to the bump stock. I have not owned either device, and have no value for either device. I see both devices more as gimmicks, falling on shaky legal footing, then as serious tools for defending home and country. If we want meaningful change, then we need to put forth the effort in changing the laws, an effort I support 100%.