ATF Brace-change now live on Federal Register
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Re: ATF Brace-change now live on Federal Register
Has anyone posted comments to the ATF on this? If so, do you have a template that we could all use to do the same? Time is short.
Re: ATF Brace-change now live on Federal Register
In entirely unrelated news, the change to ACOE firearms regulations was open for comment for two months, closed on 12 June 20 with overwhelmingly positive comments, and...still is not implemented.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
USAF 1982-2005
____________
____________
Re: ATF Brace-change now live on Federal Register
Here's a what GOA sent our for a suggested comment.
ATTN: Docket Number ATF 2020R-10
To: Office of Regulatory Affairs
I am submitting comments in opposition to proposed regulations posted on December 18 and entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces.’”
Millions of law-abiding American citizens took ATF at its word when the agency approved the installation of so-called “stabilizing braces” onto firearms receivers and promised that said firearms were handguns and not rifles.
Now, over eight years after your initial determination, you are soliciting comments on what the ATF is calling “objective design features” with an apparent goal of determining that many firearms with rifled bores that are shorter than 16 inches are short barreled rifles (SBRs).
The new, design based “features” are not objective, they are clearly subjective and look like they are designed and intended to bring your agency’s rule-making to a predetermined outcome.
These “features” do not appear anywhere in the US Code:
• Type and Caliber
• Weight and Length
• Length of Pull
• Attachment Method
• Stabilizing Brace Design Features
Not only do these terms NOT appear in the US Code, they are subject to varying interpretations. For example, a firearm that is considered heavy and long by a small statured person could just as easily be considered light and short by a larger framed person. Likewise for length of pull. In a free society, it is virtually impossible to regulate design features because smart people will continue to innovate and introduce newer, more effective products to the free market.
Furthermore, the inclusion of accessories in your evaluation process is equally absurd. ATF has the authority (within limits set by Congress) to regulate firearms and ammunition in interstate commerce. There is absolutely no statutory authority to regulate accessories such as:
• Secondary Grip
• Sights and Scopes
• Peripheral Accessories
It would be impossible to regulate what is literally thousands of different grips, sights, scopes and other peripheral accessories.
It is clearly obvious that ATF is attempting to write the law instead of enforcing the laws that Congress has enacted. This violates the Separation of Powers, not to mention the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I urge you to reject this idea at once and immediately fall back to the position that ATF has taken since at least 2012, that the installation of a “stabilizing brace” on a firearm, does not change the firearm from a handgun into a rifle, irrespective of what other accessories might be used such as scopes or grips.
Thank you for kind consideration.
ATTN: Docket Number ATF 2020R-10
To: Office of Regulatory Affairs
I am submitting comments in opposition to proposed regulations posted on December 18 and entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces.’”
Millions of law-abiding American citizens took ATF at its word when the agency approved the installation of so-called “stabilizing braces” onto firearms receivers and promised that said firearms were handguns and not rifles.
Now, over eight years after your initial determination, you are soliciting comments on what the ATF is calling “objective design features” with an apparent goal of determining that many firearms with rifled bores that are shorter than 16 inches are short barreled rifles (SBRs).
The new, design based “features” are not objective, they are clearly subjective and look like they are designed and intended to bring your agency’s rule-making to a predetermined outcome.
These “features” do not appear anywhere in the US Code:
• Type and Caliber
• Weight and Length
• Length of Pull
• Attachment Method
• Stabilizing Brace Design Features
Not only do these terms NOT appear in the US Code, they are subject to varying interpretations. For example, a firearm that is considered heavy and long by a small statured person could just as easily be considered light and short by a larger framed person. Likewise for length of pull. In a free society, it is virtually impossible to regulate design features because smart people will continue to innovate and introduce newer, more effective products to the free market.
Furthermore, the inclusion of accessories in your evaluation process is equally absurd. ATF has the authority (within limits set by Congress) to regulate firearms and ammunition in interstate commerce. There is absolutely no statutory authority to regulate accessories such as:
• Secondary Grip
• Sights and Scopes
• Peripheral Accessories
It would be impossible to regulate what is literally thousands of different grips, sights, scopes and other peripheral accessories.
It is clearly obvious that ATF is attempting to write the law instead of enforcing the laws that Congress has enacted. This violates the Separation of Powers, not to mention the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I urge you to reject this idea at once and immediately fall back to the position that ATF has taken since at least 2012, that the installation of a “stabilizing brace” on a firearm, does not change the firearm from a handgun into a rifle, irrespective of what other accessories might be used such as scopes or grips.
Thank you for kind consideration.