I am writing to voice several concerns and raise several questions regarding the newly posted notice of proposed rulemaking by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, specifically, the proposed rule of Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”, referred to as docket number ATF 2021R-08. Following are my questions and concerns.

1. – This paragraph - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-32 indicates that the purpose of the NFA is “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes”. However, the Heller decision, also quoted in the paragraph here - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-14 indicates that weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are those ‘in common use at the time’. Again quoting this paragraph - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-33 , it would seem that there are at minimum over 3 million braces that have been sold since 2013, and presumably most of those have been installed on pistols, or have been purchased with the intent of being installed on pistols. As The NFA’s purpose is “to regulate certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes”, how can it be reasonably said that braced pistols fall under that definition, as in more than 3 million braces sold, this rule can only cite two instances (from this paragraph - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-24 ) of firearms with braces being used in an illegal manner to carry out a mass shooting? This would hardly seem to be a “weapon likely to be used for criminal purposes” when only 2 instances in the last 8 years can be cited out of the millions of braces sold.

2. The terminology ‘held and fired with a single hand’ seems to be a very strange sticking point in the duration of this letter, see these paragraphs - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-26, https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-73, https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-74, https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-76, however, almost every law enforcement agency (including the ATF) and civilian firearm training class teach that it is ideal to control pistols with a two handed grip, which will allow for better handling of the firearm. Why is a two handed grip on a pistol encouraged by the ATF’s own training doctrine, but seemingly demonized by any pistol slightly larger than a ‘typical’ handgun? Many pistols on the market today include serrations or checkering on the front of the trigger guard or the side of the frame that act as gripping points for the support hand, allowing for more friction on the gun in an effort to increase control on the firearm. If it is okay to allow for this, why is a secondary grip (angled or not) or a heavier braced pistol not allowed?

3. This paragraph - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-35 , regarding smooth bore firearms such as the Mossberg Shockwave and Remington Tac-14, indicates that the addition of a stabilizing brace does not assist with single handed firing, however there is no justification given for this statement. Given that this is a new statement from the ATF that has not been previously voiced (although brace kits for the Shockwave and the Tac-14 have been on the market for years now), this deserves more than just a passing notation and requires justification. Why does a stabilizing brace not assist with one handed firing of the Mossberg Shockwave or Remington Tac-14, and again, Why is one handed firing the deciding factor when we’ve established that pistols (or in this case, firearms in general) are commonly fired with two hands?

4. In this paragraph - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-37 , it is indicated that “Therefore, attaching a “stabilizing brace” to a typical pistol, where no assistance is necessary, or attaching one to a firearm so heavy or difficult to control that one-handed shooting is impractical or inaccurate, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent, will change the design of the firearm into a rifle intended to be fired from the shoulder.”. A brace for a smaller “typical” pistol can still be useful, especially for people with disabilities who do not have a spare hand or the strength to properly support the pistol with two hands, which as has been previously discussed in my comment, is common practice. A brace can very effectively be used on a ‘typical’ pistol when fired one handed and using the brace against the forearm to stabilize the pistol, as intended. It is simply ridiculous to state that ‘no assistance is necessary’ for firing a ‘typical’ pistol, when every modern training doctrine instructs that pistols should be supported strongly with both hands to manage recoil and provide proper trigger control. Likewise, a pistol “so heavy or difficult to control that one-handed shooting is impractical…” can still be fired with a brace, and can absolutely be more controllable with a brace than without. Again, it is ridiculous to state that adding a brace to these firearms automatically turns them into rifles when both can be easily fired as intended with braces, more easily than without. So my questions, What justification do you have to support that attaching a stabilizing brace to a typical pistol is not a valid use?, and What justification do you have to support that it would be easier to fire a “heavy or difficult to control” pistol without a brace than it would be to fire one with a brace?

5. In paragraph - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-45 , it is indicated that many manufacturers of braces or firearms sold with braces have received classifications indicating that the brace is not a stock, or that the braced firearm is not an NFA item, however under ATF Worksheet 4999, the firearm or brace would now be considered to fall under the NFA and that their product should be resubmitted accordingly. This is absolutely absurd, inconsistent, and is in extremely bad faith. These manufacturers have devoted time, tooling, money, marketing materials, etc. to these products based in good faith that they have done the correct thing in going through the ATF’s FATD and received approval for these products, and customers have purchased these and similar products based on this prior approval. Now, consumers and manufacturers are being told that at the slightest whim, without any due consideration, the ATF is changing its mind. Why are these manufacturers and consumers not being grandfathered under these previous allowed classifications when these products were made and purchased in good faith?

6. This paragraph - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-46 indicates the intent to amend the definition of ‘rifle’, which is defined in 27 CFR 478.11 as “ A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.” To add “includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with [15] an attached “stabilizing brace” that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder, as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999.”. As the original definition indicates that the rifle must be “intended” to be fired from the shoulder (given the use of the word ‘and’, not ‘or’), Shouldn’t the intent of the design be considered when deciding that something is a rifle or not? And if the firearm in question includes a stabilizing brace, is it not obvious that it is not ‘intended’ to be fired from the shoulder, as the definition of ‘rifle’ implies? If the firearm was intended to be fired from the shoulder, it would have been manufactured or assembled with a stock, not a stabilizing brace.

7. Regarding ATF Worksheet 4999, seen here - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , the very first line of the ‘NOTE’ at the top of the page reads “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a “stabilizing braces” (sic) for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a “short-barreled rifle” and circumvent the GCA or NFA.” How does this statement not negate any usefulness of this worksheet, and thereby negate any practical or objective use of this proposed rule? If the ATF can decide a firearm is an SBR with a brace simply ‘just because’, how can anyone trust that this worksheet will be used in any kind of good faith with the ATF? And, if the ATF is not held to the restrictions in this worksheet, why should manufacturers or consumers and citizens be held to these restrictions?

8. Again, regarding ATF Worksheet 4999, seen here - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , Section I, Prerequisite 1. – What justification is there that a weapon must weigh 64 ounces to qualify? As previously stated in my comment, it is conceivable that someone may have great benefit of using a brace on a ‘typical’ pistol, such as a 1911 or a Glock 17 as mentioned in this paragraph - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-50 . Again, shooting a ‘typical’ pistol with two hands is the norm. Someone with reduced usage or without the use of a second hand would greatly benefit from being able to brace a typical pistol against their forearm, allowing for better stabilization of the pistol, as these braces are designed to do. The minimum weight classification seems to be discrimination against those who may not have full use in one or more hands who would still be able to shoot a pistol with use of a brace more proficiently than they could without the use of the brace. How does forcing someone to go through the tedious NFA process who would have a legitimate use case for a brace for a ‘typical’ pistol simply because they’re disabled not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act?

9. Continuing with Worksheet 4999, - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , Section I, Prerequisite 2 – Considering previous attestations in my comment that ‘typical’ pistols may benefit from the use of a brace, especially considering disabilities, What justification is there to place a lower limit on the overall length of a braced pistol? Additionally, What justification is there to determine that a brace would not be useful on a pistol over 26 inches? Surely it would be considerably easier to fire a large pistol with a brace one-handed than it would to fire a large pistol without a brace one handed.

10. Continuing with Worksheet 4999 - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , Section II, Accessory Design – each of these specifications are arbitrary and exceptionally subjective in nature, and are not objective features that are even possibly quantifiable. Many braces by their very nature appear similar to some stocks. How similar does a brace have to be to be considered “based on a known shoulder stock design”, and “known” by who? By anyone? Or by the manufacturer? What features are the sole territory of shoulder stocks that can not be features of a brace? This section is entirely subjective, including the points therein, and should be removed from the worksheet.

11. Continuing with Worksheet 4999 - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , Section II, Rear Surface Area – each of these specifications are arbitrary and subjective as well, and are not objective standards. I may consider any stock that does not have a rubber recoil pad to be a feature that prevents it’s use as a shouldering device. Simply the fact that the item in question is marketed as a brace could be argued to be a feature that prevents use as a shouldering device. That does not mean that will be the definition of the ATF agent reviewing the same device, rendering each of these items subjective. What is a feature that would prevent use as a shouldering device? What defines a minimized rear surface? What defines a rear surface useful for shouldering? And how much material would determine ‘material added to increase rear surface’? Additionally, why is a minimized rear surface still a point against a brace? What justifies the point values given for each of these options?

12. Continuing with Worksheet 4999 - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , Section II, Adjustability – this section is vague and not all-inclusive. There are plenty of attachments that are adjustable (such as folding) which could be argued to not be ‘designed for shouldering’, but simply be for storage or convenience for when the brace does not need to be in use. Why is an adjustable design inherently designed for shouldering according to this worksheet? Can an adjustable attachment not be used to fit a variety of body types?

13. Continuing with Worksheet 4999 - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , Section II, Stabilizing Support – regarding the “Cuff-type” braces, the amount that the brace may or may not wrap around a person’s arm is completely subjective and will vary significantly from person to person, so how can this be an objective, measurable standard? A brace that may fully wrap around a small person’s arm may not wrap around the arm of a bodybuilder, for example. This is discriminatory based on body type and should have no bearing on whether a brace is acceptable or accrues additional arbitrary points. Additionally, the term “Split Stock” is begging the question, as the form is simply asserting that a “Split Stock” design is not a brace and has no utility as a brace, and must be a stock because “stock” is in the name that has been arbitrarily assigned it by this worksheet. Simply asserting that “Split stock” designs have no utility as a stabilizing brace without providing evidence for this or considering the many people who have used them as a brace is without merit and in poor faith by naming it a ‘stock’ with no valid argument or reason.

14. Continuing with Worksheet 4999 - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , Section III, Length of Pull – Once again, this is begging the question as “length of pull” is a term that applies only to long guns such as rifles and shotguns with stocks. Since braces are not stocks, this entire section is invalid from the premise. These measurements are also arbitrary and subjective based on having the accessory in the ‘Rear most “Locked Position”’. This position may or may not be the position in which the accessory is used by the end user. If the accessory is used in a shorter position, it is unwarranted to measure the length of pull to the furthest position. Some braces on the market don’t even have a ‘locked position’. If there is no position in which to lock the brace, how is the length of pull measured? Additionally, while it is understandable that for an AR-style pistol the length of pull being over 13 ½ inches may imply that the accessory is potentially being used as a stock, as that is the length of pull for an A2-style fixed stock in the AR platform, this measurement may not be the same for other types of firearms, such as the AK platform or the numerous large format 9mm pistols. As different types of firearms have different ‘comfortable’ lengths of pull in their rifle configurations, these measurements are subjective and varying the point value based on the length of pull is subjective as well.

15. Continuing with Worksheet 4999 - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , Section III, Attachment Method – many of these are arbitrary and subjective based on the firearm. A standard AR-Type Pistol buffer tube may not fit or be useful as a brace platform on some firearm platforms, such as some large 9mm pistols. Additionally, the ATF has previously approved KAK-style and rifle-style buffer tubes for use on pistols, as well as PDW-type guide rails, why do these previously approved attachment methods acquire any points at all? Why does a folding adapter acquire 2 points in this section, and what determines a folding adapter? What determines a ‘modified shoulder stock’? Many of these terms are once again, arbitrary and subjective, with arbitrary point values assigned to each.

16. Continuing with Worksheet 4999 - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , Section III, “Stabilizing Brace” Modifications/Configuration – All of the ‘2 point’ specifications in this section were previously mentioned in Section II under the “Stabilizing Support” subsection. It is useless and meaningless for them to be in this section as well, unless the primary goal is to simply add more points for no reason. Additionally, why is a cuff- or fin-type design with a strap made of elastic material more like a stock than one without elastic material? The elastic would allow the brace to be used by more people of different body types without modifying the brace. Once again, this specification of this worksheet falls into discrimination by not accounting for people of varying body types.

17. Continuing with Worksheet 4999 - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , Section III, Peripheral Accessories – The presence of a hand stop is commonly a safety feature to ensure that a support hand (if available or used) does not accidentally go past the muzzle of the device. Why is the presence of a safety device such as this a determining factor? Additionally, Why would the presence of no sights indicate a firearm made to be shouldered? It could very well be in the process of being built, as many people who put together a firearm themselves save the sights for the last part. Finally, the firearm weighing more than 120oz is once again arbitrary and subjectively exclusive. While 7.5lbs may be heavy for some, it is not for others. Many people would be able to use a brace with a pistol weighing over 120oz without issue, so this is once again a discriminatory specification and immediately disqualifies a firearm without just reasoning.

18. Continuing with Worksheet 4999 - https://images.federalregister.gov/EP10 ... 1623182711 , regarding the worksheet itself, 3 points per section is arbitrary and as mentioned before, many fields are extremely subjective which can and will result in different people looking at the same firearm and coming to different conclusions and total point tally’s. Since this worksheet is not entirely objective in its methodology, it is useless in its current form and should be discarded. As previously mentioned, the worksheet itself states that the ATF may decide to ignore the point tally and rule that a firearm assembled as a pistol using that worksheet is actually an SBR, rendering the worksheet null and void. This is entirely unacceptable. If the ATF wishes to hold citizens to the standards set forth in this worksheet, the ATF should be held to these standards as well. Additionally, since so many of these sections are subjective by their very nature, the allowable point total should ideally be raised to provide the benefit of the doubt to those who are attempting to comply with this convoluted new ruling.

19. Moving on from the Worksheet 4999, to this paragraph - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-109 , it is unacceptable for the ATF to expect people to register previously approved firearms that were purchased in good faith, which now may possibly fall under the NFA due to an internal rule change at the ATF. This would cost at least $200 per firearm (not including the costs of engraving, trust creation if applicable, etc.) when the economy is in one of the worst downturns in decades and we are still in the midst of a global pandemic. Many people can not afford an extra $200+ to keep a firearm they already have paid for and own, that again, was purchased in good faith at the time of sale to be completely legal. Additionally, the ludicrously extended wait times with the NFA process would put undue hardship and unnecessary burden on those affected even if they chose to register the firearm under the NFA.

20. This paragraph https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-120 , as discussed previously, it is asinine to punish millions of citizens for the despicable actions of one or two crazed individuals who used these items in a manner they were not intended to be used. Additionally, there is no justification for the statement that “Short Barreled Rifles” pose a significant crime problem.

21. No Change Alternative - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-123 While the ATF does currently have the responsibility to regulate certain types of firearms, pistols are not part of the NFA and are not under any obligation to be regulated as part of the NFA. The ATF has previously determined (either through direct approval letters, or through inaction at allowing these braces to continue to be sold and marketed as being expressly for pistols for multiple years without clear, concise communication from the ATF to the contrary) that most or all of these braces are in fact braces and not stocks, and as such do not change the legal classification of the firearm. This new rule negates many or most of the previous rulings and comments, and as such is not an acceptable action. While the market would prefer the ATF have actual, objective, clear rules regarding braces (which as stated incessantly in this comment, this ruling does not provide objective, clear rules, and continuously attempts to apply subjective standards to this issue), No change would be preferable to this current change.

22. Simple Criteria - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-124 Again, a simple criteria would be welcome. This Worksheet 4999 is not simple, and does not provide short, simple, consistent, logical, or easy to understand parameters.

23. Grandfathering - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-125 If the ATF must change or implement a new regulation that would change the status of many people’s legally acquired and assembled firearms that were done in good faith with previous understanding of ATF guidance, Grandfathering all existing firearms with attached braces is the only reasonable and fair action to take. This allows everyone to keep their existing firearms as assembled and no one is harmed or unjustly deprived of their legally acquired property. As previously mentioned, braced pistols are overwhelmingly not being used in crimes, so there is no reasonable cause to desire to regulate or remove these types of firearms from individuals. The statement that it would be ‘problematic’ because manufacturers could continue to produce these items is simply hand waving the only reasonable solution away. The ATF is supposed to be the regulatory agency in charge of these matters, and if manufacturers are continuing to make braces after a particular type of brace is deemed to fall under the NFA, that would be the ATF’s responsibility to follow through with that manufacturer. It is ludicrous to expect citizens to throw away or modify their property because the ATF doesn’t want to do it’s job and educate manufacturers on what is now acceptable to produce.

24. Forgiveness of the NFA Tax - https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-127 As mentioned, Grandfathering is the only acceptable option. However, if this rule must be implemented as-is and be enforced as-is, with no grandfathering, the NFA Tax to register these firearms as Short Barreled Rifles (or Short Barreled Shotguns in some cases) should be waived as it is entirely the fault of the ATF for not providing guidance on this earlier, or for changing the ATF’s stance on braces multiple times over the years. The reason for this being currently rejected is cited as ““because stabilizing braces” are not serialized and an individual or entity could merely register all firearms possessed with the intent of later obtaining a “stabilizing brace.” Further, although the “brace” is used on a particular weapon, an individual might register all pistols as SBRs and then attempt to utilize other stocks on these firearms.” These are not valid or reasonable excuses. Braces are not serialized, and stocks are not serialized either, meaning that existing SBRs are not SBRs because of the stock on them, but because the firearms themselves were the serialized and registered part. Braces not being serialized is not a valid reason for not forgiving the NFA Tax. The statement that although a brace is used on a particular weapon and that an individual might register that weapon as an SBR and then utilize a conventional stock on the firearm is equally nonsensical. Once a firearm is registered as an SBR, it does not matter what type of stock or brace or other accessory is attached to that firearm. There would be nothing stopping someone from attaching a stock to a registered SBR, because that is the point of registering it as an SBR. This is again, a nonsensical, ridiculous statement.

In summary, the current proposed rule is a convoluted, confusing, arbitrary, subjective, unnecessary, unworkable mess. The overwhelming majority of subjective fields in the Worksheet 4999, the Worksheet 4999 itself being negated in its opening sentences by stating that the ATF won’t be held to the standards within the worksheet, the arbitrary points system, and the justifications given throughout the proposed rule to attempt to provide reasoning for these proposals (attempts which miserably fail in countless ways), all show a profound lack of understanding of the term “objective”, and an astounding lack of sympathy for the consumers and manufacturers who have acted in good faith for nearly a decade under the previous rulings, opinion letters, and comments from the ATF. The fact that the industry (both manufacturers and consumers alike) have been asking for reasonable, clear, concise, measurable, objective definitions of what a brace actually is and is not, and that the ATF has continuously failed to publicly provide this clarification for several years, is a failure of the ATF, not of the industry. As such, all members of the industry, be they manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or consumers, should be held entirely harmless in this matter. The public has acted in good faith in regard to the topic of stabilizing braces.

The ATF should either;
1. Completely grandfather all affected parties,
2. Forgive any NFA Tax to those that may want to register their braced pistols as Short Barreled Rifles,
3. Discard this current disgrace of a rulemaking attempt and focus on reasonable, justified, measurable, objective factors regarding what the ATF determines is a brace, and what is a stock.

As this current iteration of this rule stands, none of those descriptors can possibly be applied, and as such, this rule should be discarded.

Joel Bailey

Rumors are that the hi-jinks are over and you've been pegged with a coke bottle; your once legal braces have magically become more lethal and are ready to be taxed into their original harmlessness.

I'm certain you all will comply with the same veracity as Hunter Biden looks at Schedule II substances.


https://gatdaily.com/breaking-brace-you ... mpaign=2_8

"... word is ... The ATF has made their decision, it is said, that braced firearms are going to be scored per the rule 2021R-08 on a form 4999.


This does not make braces illegal, which is a very clever way to not repeat the disaster that the bumpstock ban kicked off, it makes braces into stocks by use. It scores the brace itself, its attachment to the firearm, and then the other attachments on the firearm, to determine whether or not it is a stock… and therefore the former pistol is now an SBR"

https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” ~ John Locke (1690)

Quote gleaned from the comments on an article about Mayor Bruce's desire to eliminate state preemption.

'Must weigh more than 64 ounces'..

So, if it's less than 4 lbs, you can have whatever brace/attachment you want?

Unless it's more than 120 ounces... which would then make it a rifle, regardless.... So, all AK pistols are now rifles if they have anything remotely resembling a brace.

If you have sights, it's a point, if you don't have sights, it's also a point.


Arbitrary language....

It's a classic Kafka Trap, not MEANT to be complied with. The entire GOAL is to make us all unwitting felons that can be popped at-will as soon as any given individual becomes inconvenient to the Regime, or its Jackboot enforcers decide another example needs to be made to keep the Deplorable kulaks in line.