Firearms Talk banner
Cancel

ATF Ruling on "Stabilizing Braces"

202 Views 12 Replies 5 Participants Last post by  OldGnome, 
danf_fl
I received this yesterday. This is an ATF Ruling.
Affected persons have 120 days from the date of publication to come into compliance, which is May 31, 2023.​

TAKE ACTION
Firearms Registration
​
​
​
Notification Regarding Compliance With ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces”
On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending the regulatory definition of “rifle” to clarify when a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The final rule took effect on January 31, 2023, the date it was published in the Federal Register. Affected persons have 120 days from the date of publication to come into compliance, which is May 31, 2023. The compliance options provided under the final rule are the following:
  • Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm,
  • Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached,
  • Turn the firearm into your local ATF office,
  • Destroy the firearm,
  • Register the firearm tax-free by May 31, 2023.
The option to register the firearm tax-free pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F will be discontinued in the eForms System effective May 31, 2023, at 11:59 p.m. (ET).
For additional information regarding the final rule, including instructions on how to register your firearm, please visit: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov).
Find additional information!
Resources
Submit technical questions

Firearms Licenses and Permits

Order forms

Freedom of Information Act

​
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Avenue NE
Washington, DC 20226
​
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES:
​
See less See more
Save
Like
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
M
actually there is no mention of requirement of destroying the brace in the actual legal language which this is not , this is a letter sent out by the ATF , but is not the language of what they submitted as the final rule , this is smoke and mirrors to get you to bend to them , you only need to remove the brace and store separately , it is not illegal to own a brace , only to have one "installed" on a firearm with a barrel length less than 16" , you must store separately due to constructive possession , for instance storage unit where no firearms are , family members home that does not have a weapon that it could be applied

you can not put padding , tennis balls , rubber bumpers ,or anything that increases the surface area of the end of the buffer tube , there is no language that requires alteration of the buffer tube

there is a big difference in what this "letter" is and what the actual legal documents that were submitted , this by design is to sow confusion to prompt people to doing what is un necessary

these two do not click bait and are very sharp attorneys and will give it straight

See less See more
Save
Like
danf_fl
The final ruling is available from the ATF website. but I am inserting a link here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-31/pdf/2023-01001.pdf

Youtube is not the source, but does provide some insight.

Thanks!
Save
Like
O
I like the perjury of dettlebach the other day

And could one technically just wear a nice shooters jacket in place of any larger surface brace?
Save
Like
M
danf_fl said:
The final ruling is available from the ATF website. but I am inserting a link here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-31/pdf/2023-01001.pdf

Youtube is not the source, but does provide some insight.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
these two trial lawyers specialize in criminal 2a defense , their entire firm only take cases regarding cases involving firearm charges , such as self defense cases where the victim is being prosecuted for defending themselves , he was a prosecutor that couldnt stomach imposing and prosecuting unconstitutional gun laws so decided to switch sides

i get the YT caveat , but the more you watch these two you will see its not a normal YT channel
Save
Like
M
oaklandopen said:
I like the perjury of dettlebach the other day

And could one technically just wear a nice shooters jacket in place of any larger surface brace?
Click to expand...
whats that
Save
Like
M
the fact is a stabilizing brace in of itself is not illegal to possess , you could argue that you use it on a "rifle" not a SBR , but a rifle as defined as a rifle and who are they to say different , im sure why you would but im sure theres someone out there that likes wearing their shoes on the wrong feet

however in close proximity to an AR pistol ,it is constructive possession
Save
Like
danf_fl
This is from the same people who call a suppressor a firearm.
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
M
danf_fl said:
This is from the same people who call a suppressor a firearm.
Click to expand...
the simple fact is they are creating law at their leisure with real world , real federal jail time consequences , that is not what their branch is tasked to do , thats why we have a legislative branch , the ATF tries to back door this through calling them "policy changes ,or rules" , they try to say they are implementing Chevron deference which is suppose to be utilized in minor interpretations of existing laws , not to make sweeping changes and is written that chevron deference does not apply when it involves serious public consequences such as sending people to federal prison
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Southernguns
micmacman said:
the simple fact is they are creating law at their leisure with real world , real federal jail time consequences , that is not what their branch is tasked to do , thats why we have a legislative branch , the ATF tries to back door this through calling them "policy changes ,or rules" , they try to say they are implementing Chevron deference which is suppose to be utilized in minor interpretations of existing laws , not to make sweeping changes and is written that chevron deference does not apply when it involves serious public consequences such as sending people to federal prison
Click to expand...
Someone in the Executive Branch needs to be sent to prison for sending OUR monies (this is called "spending") to other countries without legislative approval. This is undeniable and is one reason we get involved in illegal proxy wars. War is war.

Chevron deference is not needed in anything remotely or indirectly when interpreting the 2A. Why are we not allowed to buy and own machine guns today? They only have minor difference than semi-auto's. Answer: The People allowed politicians interpret the 2A for them. It's the simplest of all amendments and politicians are afraid of why it was put in the constitution and some of them give reason for this fear. The simplicity of the 2A negates any contrived need for chevron deference. It doesn't take an attorney to figure this out.
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
danf_fl
A small correction. We can buy and own full auto firearms.
Who Can Own a Full-Auto Machine Gun? - FFL License
Save
Like
M
its all a game of chess , a armed populous is one feared by the governing body , its clear the liberal lefts endgame is total control , the pacify their drone followers with drugs , and welfare ,and persecute the very people that try and go about society in a responsible manner , they do not want to disarm us because of lives saved , drugs kill more than all gun related deaths annualy and they not only turn a blind eye , they literally facilitate it , they want our arms so they dont have to fear another civil war when they implement their grand plan , once 2a is stripped its check mate

look at gun control in Canada , each measure they took in disarming the people led to the next phase ,the next level , it does not end until we are helpless , now lever guns , single shot , and they are literally voting to ban Airsoft , now they are becoming more brazing , government sponsored euthanasia , because they have gov health care and its cheaper to terminate critically ill than to keep them alive , canada is the perfect litmus to where we are headed
See less See more
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
OldGnome
We are no longer in the realm of NFA/Class 3 & FFL Discussion, but politics.

We have a place for that, but it's not here.

Thread closed.
Save
Like
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Firearms Talk
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Rifle Discussion Legal and Activism AR-15 Discussion General Handgun Discussion New Member Introductions
Top