ATF’s Proposed Brace Rule is Unlawful and Should Be Withdrawn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.-(AmmoLand.com)- 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.

NFATCA logo

Subscribe
Notify of
32 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago

Can you remove a pistol brace and still have an AR15 pistol function?

Bozz
Bozz
1 month ago

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.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
Reply to  Bozz

I wanted to know if I buy one would it be taken if I removed the brace. I would fire it from the hip at close range with high power green laser I have. I do not trust my aim beyond 7 yards anyway. I am 70 and can hold a rifle in one hand, but I am a fit 190 pound man 6’4″. I am not trying to make any argument to justify people control laws. I live with two women, one who is 74 and has her concealed handgun license. My .45s are too stout for her, but… Read more »

Stag
Stag
1 month ago

#AllArmsLawsAreUnconstitutional

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
Reply to  Stag

You can claim anything you want, but the US Supreme Court, under the Constitution, does the interpreting and Congress, under Article 1, Section 8, has the power to make such laws. This is a republic; not a democracy. Your opinion has no power because YOU HAVE NO VOTE ON THE ISSUE. #AllArmsLawsViolateRights, but your Constitution is just paper. A 50 BMG passes through SEVEN REAMS of paper. The Constitution neither grants nor guarantees rights. It justifies abusing all of them, starting with enslaving you through conscription. My Dad said, “Wish in one hand. Spit in the other. See which one… Read more »

Stag
Stag
1 month ago

#AllArmsLawsAreUnconstitutional

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
Reply to  Stag

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence…

Vulgarity, name calling, baseless reiterated claims, and personal attacks are not a substitute for civil communication, logical argument, or facts. YOU WIN THE WEASAL AWARD: For distinguished use of words and phases communicating vague or ambiguous impressions that something meaningful has been said.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago

More who object to what I say but have neither the guts, facts, logical argument, or civility to prove what they claim.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
Reply to  Stag

More who object to what I say but have neither the guts, facts, logical argument, or civility to prove what they pretend to stand for.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
1 month ago

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.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago

“Overruled!” “No, I strenuously object!” That is a line from A FEW GOOD MEN where one lawyer on the defense team taunts another for her pathetic emotional performance during trial. In a practical sense, the ATF has the power to shoot your dog, you, your spouse, and your child while burning down your home. They will not be arrested or charged. In fact, they will stick it in your face when the President appoints one of them to head the ATF or, “AFT.” When the ATF INTERPRETS law, they have qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has held, if you are… Read more »

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago

I was essentially agreeing with you, but the response was whinny silence to disagree. More who object to what I say but have neither the guts, facts, logical argument, or civility to prove what they pretend to stand for.

swmft
swmft
1 month ago

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

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
Reply to  swmft

WRONG: United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the National Firearms Act’s registration requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Additionally, the Court held that the Act’s restrictions against a person’s “receiv[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm which is not registered to him,” did not require the recipient to have the specific intent to possess an unregistered firearm. Consequently, the Court ruled that the buyer of unregistered hand grenades was subject to criminal liability, despite a lack of a requirement that the defendant… Read more »

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago

More who object to what I say but have neither the guts, facts, logical argument, or civility to prove what they pretend to stand for.  

Arizona
Arizona
1 month ago

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!

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

Which also extends to tard cards and anything else that requires permissions and/or fees at both state and federal crybaby levels. In reality there is precedent to lawfully overturn any rule the crybaby ATF has. They rely soley upon the ignorance of We The People and fake courts operating outside of Constitutional law to stay in power.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
  • That “WE THE PEOPLE” is they, the Congress. The US Supreme Court was established by this constitutional republic. It is not democratic. You do not get to vote on what is or IS NOT Constitutional. In 1770, Adams defended the British soldiers who were charged with committing murder at the Boston Massacre saying, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence…”
Last edited 1 month ago by JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago

THey delayed publishing this one, but:
More who object to what I say but have neither the guts, facts, logical argument, or civility to prove what they pretend to stand for will down vote what I wrote without reason.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

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 »

Knute
Knute
1 month ago

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…

Chuck
Chuck
1 month ago
Reply to  Knute

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.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
Reply to  Chuck

You are a felon, now. You have the intent and ability to commit a felony. It is called criminal intent. This law on braces reduces your accuracy, but you can keep your pistol without the brace. Or you can register it as a SBR and put on a full sized rifle butt. If they succeed in invoking this interpretation, they will make firearms more unsafe by making them less accurate. The ATF is not a convenience store or consumer advocate, obviously. They function as an example of institutionalized tyranny against the working class. They exist because this is a republic;… Read more »

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago

More who object to what I say but have neither the guts, facts, logical argument, or civility to prove what they pretend to stand for.  

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago

More who object to what I say but have neither the guts, facts, logical argument, or civility to prove what they pretend to stand for.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
Reply to  Knute

The 13th Amendment exempts the government when it imposes slavery as punishment for the conviction of a crime. They can conscript you for involuntary servitude and then convict you for refusing. There are over 10,000 felonies in the US Code created by Congress. Everyone can be convicted of a felony. You are just a free range slave of Uncle Sam and Beijing Biden.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago

More who object to what I say but have neither the guts, facts, logical argument, or civility to prove what they pretend to stand for.

Arizona
Arizona
1 month ago
Reply to  Knute

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.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

The 13th Amendment only allows the government to make you a slave if you are convicted of a crime. They have over 10,000 felonies created by Congress in the US Code.

Of course, I am agreeing with you, but there will be:More who object to what I say but have neither the guts, facts, logical argument, or civility to prove what they pretend to stand for.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

WRONG: Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was superceded by United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971), a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the National Firearms Act’s registration requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Additionally, the Court held that the Act’s restrictions against a person’s “receiv[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm which is not registered to him,” did not require the recipient to have the specific intent to possess an unregistered firearm. Consequently, the Court ruled that the buyer of unregistered hand grenades was subject to criminal… Read more »

Arizona
Arizona
1 month ago

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.

JohnLloydScharf
JohnLloydScharf
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

WRONG. I do not hope to be anything but correct and about the claim about the source is an arbitrary ad hominem fallacy. United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971)Held: 1. The revised statutory scheme of the amended Act, which significantly alters the scheme presented in Haynes, does not involve any violation of the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 401 U. S. 605-607. Page 401 U. S. 602 2. The amended Act fully protects a person against incrimination for past or present violations, and creates no substantial hazards of future incrimination. P. 401 U. S. 606. 3. The amended Act’s prohibition… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by JohnLloydScharf