ATF’s Proposed Brace Rule is Unlawful and Should Be Withdrawn

SB Tactical SBPDW and SBM4 Braces IMG SB Tactical gallery
SB Tactical SBPDW and SBM4 Braces IMG SB Tactical gallery

U.S.A.-( The NFA Freedom Alliance (NFAFA) and National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA) issued the following joint statement regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) proposed rulemaking no. 2021R-08, entitled “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’”:

NFAFA and NFATCA are strongly opposed to the ATF’s proposed rule to regulate the possession and use of stabilizing braces and brace-equipped firearms.

The ATF’s proposed rule is an unlawful proposal that would violate the statutes and put tens of millions of individuals at risk of serious criminal liability. Moreover, the ATF’s proposed rule underscores the need to repeal the underlying National Firearms Act (NFA) regulatory scheme, which severely restricts items commonly possessed for lawful purposes and adds substantial financial burdens to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

The ATF does not have the power to unilaterally expand the laws that Congress enacts. Accordingly, the ATF should immediately withdraw its unlawful proposed rule. NFAFA and NFATCA will continue to work to defend the rights and property of our members and eliminate restrictions on the possession and lawful use of firearms currently regulated under the NFA.

About the NFAFA

The NFA Freedom Alliance (NFAFA) is a nonprofit advocacy organization with specialization and experience in legislative, legal, and policy matters related to the ownership, manufacture, sale, transfer, and use of items regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA), NFAFA’s members and supporters, and members of the public benefit from our advocacy efforts.

NFAFA logo

About the NFATCA

The NFATCA is a 501(c)(6) organization incorporated to get things done on behalf of the entire NFA community of collectors, dealers, manufacturers and importers. We work with legislators, regulators and stakeholders, on a daily basis, to ensure that the things that matter to our communit are addressed. We do not flood your mailbox with junk, we do not jump at every hiccup. We take our time to methodically insure that your interests are fairly and properly represented.


Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The Supreme Court ruled in Haynes v. United States that only noncriminals were required to register NFA weapons and pay the tax, citing the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. Under the proposed rule, the ATF will knowingly and intentionally discriminate against peaceful, law abiding people, while felons will not be subject to the rule, the registration or the tax! Talk about unlawful!

Roland T. Gunner

Ok, bear with me please; I am unfamiliar w Haynes. If I traipse down behind the barn to my machine shop, with my AR15, and crank it up good and tight in my mill, and start carving away; and later come out giggling and doing mag dump 30 rd bursts with my newly converted M16, I have become a felon. And not subject to prosecution under the NFA? Or is there a distinction for “previously convicted”? And why is this not how a typical BATFE NFA prosecution plays out in court? Can you please elaborate on both the legsl theory… Read more »


All that means is that felons cannot be required to register an NFA weapon. It does not mean they can possess it. If you, as a non-felon, create an NFA weapon, then you can be charged with possesion of a non-registered NFA weapon. But you would not be guilty of failure to register. Ain’t the patchwork system of stupidity stupid? 🙂
OFC, it works good for those in charge. As long as they have statutes piled up 50 deep, everybody is always guilty of something…


It’s why I’ve stated I will not comply with their rule change. I won’t destroy, hand over or register my AR Pistols. If that action on my part makes me a criminal, then I may as well put new buffer tubes and stocks on the pistols. Either way, I’ll be a felon.


Right, the gov will try to jail you either way, it just means one person gets charged with possession while a prohibited felon, another gets charged with possession without registering, but the technical fact remains they are discriminating and being absolute hypocrites. The only way to control us is to make us felons, so they keep passing tens of thousands of ways to define us as felons.


You just love to say “WRONG” hoping you can appear knowledgeable. Kinda sad.

WRONG! You are very talented at cutting and pasting wikipedia descriptions of court cases, which is what you did. The Freed ruling doesn’t make what I said wrong, in fact, Freed notes Congress updated the NFA to only apply to those who can lawfully manufacture or build NFA items, which doesn’t include felons. HAYNES still Protects felons from having to register and be charged with failing to register under state laws.

Roland T. Gunner

I kind of feel like, this is too little onfo, and too little action? I joined NFAFA years ago, and since have heard nothing but crickets. Releasing statements does not impress me nor energize the movement.


Sure. Functionally it does not need a brace to fire. But the utility is greatly reduced, especially for older folks like me who aren’t able to hold 5½ or 6 lbs. straight out with one arm or for those with a physical handicap.






only people required to follow the law are people who are not criminals, it is what haynes vs us says the gun control act excludes criminals from its requirements which would include background checks nice loophole cant charge someone with a crime that would require them to lie to avoid so 4473 form is also bs now I understand why hunter biden has not been charged the defense would cause background check to be thrown out as unlawful under 5th