Steve_in_PA

ATF now going after pistol braces

Rate this topic

11 posts in this topic

It appears the ATF is now going after pistol braces after they determined they were allowed on pistols for many years.

They targeted a small gun company with few resources.

Precursor to banning all of them?

And making owners criminals for not getting a tax stamp on the now "SBR"?

Was this done by deep staters to piss off gun owners when Trump needs them most?

(Supposedly the ATF lawyers involved were Obama era people.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, nalu22 said:

Q, LLC whom we make parts for recently (this week) got a C&D on their Honey Badger firearm for barrel length.

I have felt for some time that some of the braces introduced recently look quite a bit like skeletonized shoulder butts, especially if they can telescope to provide a rifle LoP. I was not familiar with this model but this seems to be of that class. Outstanding design with its integration into the receiver but....

 

HB-PISTOL-RIGHT-CLOSED.jpg

 

HB-PISTOL-RIGHT-OPEN.jpg

 

FPC Statement on ATF’s Cease and Desist to Q, LLC Regarding the Honey Badger Pistol’s Status as a Purported Short Barrel Rifle

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 6, 2020) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement regarding ATF’s action against Q, LLC’s (Q) Honey Badger Pistol and its status as a purported short barrel rifle:

 

ATF has once again unlawfully and unconstitutionally exceeded its authority and changed the law by issuing a new determination that is devoid of logic and reason, contains no explanation as to the manner in which it arrived at its conclusion, conflicts with its prior determinations, and embodies the very essence of “arbitrary and capricious”. 

 

After examining a sample Q Honey Badger Pistol, the ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) concluded that “the objective features of the Honey Badger firearm, configured with the subject stabilizing brace, indicate the firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” FATD further concluded that it is a SBR as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA). Yet, ATF does not explain how it arrived at this conclusion other than vague generalizations that the firearm was “designed” to be fired from the shoulder and by virtue of its barrel length meeting the definition of a SBR. 

 

Earlier this summer, regarding the possible action regarding pistol braces,  we said that our “Constitution requires an accountable legislature to enact just laws within specific, limited, and enumerated powers, not decreed by nameless bureaucrats with a political agenda, or even a president.” And when the ATF previously reversed a long-standing and well understood position that bump stock-type devices were not machine guns, FPC and Firearms Policy Foundation led the charge with the first lawsuit in the nation against ATF’s unlawful and unconstitutional act.

 

There can be no question that our Constitution requires accountability to coincide with the enactment of laws, and that those laws must be within specific, limited, and enumerated powers, not left to bureaucrats who escape all aspects of responsibility. Once more, we remind ATF and the executive branch that their authority has limits and that, if need be, they will once again be reminded of those limits through legal action.

 

FPC believes that the ATF, NFA, GCA, and every other law that threatens the People with disarmament and prison for exercising human rights should be abolished. Our legal team will continue to closely monitor this issue and take whatever action is necessary, possible, and prudent to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and our members against abusive government agencies and policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

↑ ↑ ~ They are former Sig guys that make some very nice firearms for sure, the Honey Badger was certainly pushing boundaries. ~ ↑ ↑

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, flyangler said:

I have felt for some time that some of the braces introduced recently look quite a bit like skeletonized shoulder butts, especially if they can telescope to provide a rifle LoP. I was not familiar with this model but this seems to be of that class. Outstanding design with its integration into the receiver but....

 

HB-PISTOL-RIGHT-CLOSED.jpg

 

HB-PISTOL-RIGHT-OPEN.jpg

 

FPC Statement on ATF’s Cease and Desist to Q, LLC Regarding the Honey Badger Pistol’s Status as a Purported Short Barrel Rifle

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 6, 2020) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement regarding ATF’s action against Q, LLC’s (Q) Honey Badger Pistol and its status as a purported short barrel rifle:

 

ATF has once again unlawfully and unconstitutionally exceeded its authority and changed the law by issuing a new determination that is devoid of logic and reason, contains no explanation as to the manner in which it arrived at its conclusion, conflicts with its prior determinations, and embodies the very essence of “arbitrary and capricious”. 

 

After examining a sample Q Honey Badger Pistol, the ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) concluded that “the objective features of the Honey Badger firearm, configured with the subject stabilizing brace, indicate the firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” FATD further concluded that it is a SBR as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA). Yet, ATF does not explain how it arrived at this conclusion other than vague generalizations that the firearm was “designed” to be fired from the shoulder and by virtue of its barrel length meeting the definition of a SBR. 

 

Earlier this summer, regarding the possible action regarding pistol braces,  we said that our “Constitution requires an accountable legislature to enact just laws within specific, limited, and enumerated powers, not decreed by nameless bureaucrats with a political agenda, or even a president.” And when the ATF previously reversed a long-standing and well understood position that bump stock-type devices were not machine guns, FPC and Firearms Policy Foundation led the charge with the first lawsuit in the nation against ATF’s unlawful and unconstitutional act.

 

There can be no question that our Constitution requires accountability to coincide with the enactment of laws, and that those laws must be within specific, limited, and enumerated powers, not left to bureaucrats who escape all aspects of responsibility. Once more, we remind ATF and the executive branch that their authority has limits and that, if need be, they will once again be reminded of those limits through legal action.

 

FPC believes that the ATF, NFA, GCA, and every other law that threatens the People with disarmament and prison for exercising human rights should be abolished. Our legal team will continue to closely monitor this issue and take whatever action is necessary, possible, and prudent to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and our members against abusive government agencies and policies.

Functionally equivalent to other braces on ARs.  I didn't check measurements to see if they exceed common braces.

Complete pistols are in very short supply.

There are some suppliers of uppers that have product in stock in some of the more common setups.

Bear Creek Armory comes to mind.  (I have no association with them other than satisfied customer.)

Lowers can be had but I'm not seeing lowers with braces i stock anyplace I frequent.

Braces by themselves also hard to find.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A barrel under 16" has always meant a pistol. Total length over about 27" means a rifle. You cannot have a pistol with rifle length. You cannot have a rifle with a pistol length barrel. The BATFE was perfectly correct in my understanding. There is another potential violation with a pistol length 12 Ga double barrel pistol. It could be made legal by rifling the barrel, but I don't know if it has rifling or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turns out Donald Jr owns a couple AR pistols and is not happy with the ATF action.

DOJ is involved and putting a hold on all actions for 60 days.  Essentially pushing it past the election.

Trump wins and it goes away.  Biden wins and it's irrelevant as all semi-autos are banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it be enough?

Negative Reactions Dominate Pistol-Brace Ban Proposal as Comment Period Ends

The legal status of a popular firearm accessory is facing a direct challenge from the ATF, and the response from opponents was immense.

 

The public comment period for the Biden administration’s proposed ban on most stabilizing pistol braces ended Wednesday, after 90 days and more than 209,000 submitted comments. April Langwell, Chief of the ATF’s Public Affairs Division, said the proposal is among the most commented on in the agency’s history.

 

“ATF received over 186,000 comments on the NPRM on bump stocks,” she told The Reload. “In comparison, ATF received 294,632 on the NPRM for definition of firearm frame/receiver that closed on 8/19, but as mail is processed this number will increase. Currently, the number of comments received on the NPRM for stabilizing braces that closed on 9/8 is 209,044, but as mail is received & processed that number will increase as well.”

 

The comments on the proposed brace ban were overwhelmingly negative, as many commenters accused the ATF of criminalizing law-abiding Americans while failing to substantively improve violence prevention.

 

“Banning the use of pistol braces will not lower gun crime rates,” Blake Nicholson said. “As a matter of fact it will only raise the gun crime by turning many law abiding gun owners into felons.”

 

Opponents of the proposed rule change are hopeful that their comments will make the agency rethink the pistol-brace policy, as it has in the past. In 2020, the ATF under the Trump administration proposed a similar ban, only to withdraw the proposal after more than 70,000 mostly negative comments. However, the Biden administration may have more resolve than its predecessor, despite facing greater backlash, due to the president’s enthusiasm for pursuing new gun control measures.

 

As previously reported by The Reload, several gun-rights groups created campaigns to organize their members in opposition to the rule once it became available for public comment. It appears that gun-control groups recently launched comment campaigns of their own.

 

“Don’t let the gun lobby and its extremist adherents drown out the voices of the gun safety majority and decide the future of gun regulation in this country,” said Robyn Thomas, the executive director of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in an email sent to members Tuesday. “Please take this opportunity to make your voice heard before tomorrow’s deadline.”

 

The group attached a sample letter for members to copy in support of the pistol-brace proposal.

 

Everytown for Gun Safety created a web page urging supporters to “Tell the ATF to Close the Arm Brace Loophole” and also crafted a sample comment for supporters to use.

 

“Much like with bump stocks, the gun industry has exploited a loophole to intentionally evade the law in order to make and market particularly dangerous short-barreled rifles,” the group’s page said. “Some arm braces allow a user to turn a pistol into a short-barreled rifle — one of the most highly regulated weapons in the country due to its combination of lethality and concealability.”

 

Many of those who commented in support of the proposed brace ban seemed to do so relatively recently, and they often used the comment templates provided by the gun-control groups. They focused heavily on public safety as their concern.

 

“This proposed rule is necessary to make clear that pistols configured with arm braces designed to be fired from the shoulder should properly be classified as short-barreled rifles and subject to the National Firearms Act,” Leslie Leffel said. “This proposed rule would be a win for public safety because short-barreled rifles are particularly dangerous due to their combination of concealability and lethality.”

 

Others pointed to the fact that braces have been used in certain mass shootings. “The ‘arm brace loophole’ has already seen deadly consequences: mass shooters in Boulder and Dayton used weapons equipped with arm braces to modify their pistols into more deadly weapons,” Renee Rule said.

 

Meanwhile, opponents approached their comments from a variety of positions.

 

Some see the ATF as exceeding its constitutional authority in attempting to regulate pistol braces. “ATF has invented over 40 criteria from which to re-define a short-barreled rifle in its ATF Worksheet 4999,” David Duncan said. “It is not acceptable for ATF to legislate and regulate in excess of the statute as written and intended by Congress.”

 

Others were critical of the agency’s inconsistency in its approach to pistol braces. “The ATF has repeatedly ruled on stabilizing braces in the past,” Daniel Schillinger said. “To continually change position on the legality of a firearm part has a high risk of making criminals out of what were previously law abiding gun owners. These individuals, myself included, felt safe in purchasing and possessing firearms with stabilizing braces due to the ATF having previously ruled and settled on this issue, after already previously revising their position.”

 

David Hawkins said he opposed the proposal simply out of consideration for the disabled. “I personally think pistol versions of rifles are stupid,” Hawkins said. “However in deference to individuals with disabilities I think pistol braces should not be a regulated item. Please reconsider this rule change.”

 

Langwell said the agency is now reviewing the comments on the brace ban and redefinition of what constitutes a “firearm” under federal law. She said the agency would take all of the comments into consideration as it crafts its final rule.

 

“ATF currently has a group of employees reviewing both the comments on definition of firearm and stabilizing braces,” she said. “Those reviewing track the comments expressing support and opposition. All comments are reviewed for content and given careful consideration. The notice and comment period enabled anyone to submit comments on any part of the proposed rules. While drafting the final rule, the agency will base its reasoning and conclusions on the rulemaking record, consisting of the comments, expert opinions, and facts accumulated during the rulemaking process.”

She said the ATF’s final draft would then be reviewed by Congress before adoption.

 

“Congress and the Government Accountability Office will have an opportunity to review the final rule prior to its effective date,” Langwell said.

UPDATE 9-9-2021 3:34 pm: This piece has been updated to include comment from the ATF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't see this coming when bump stocks were outlawed?  This journey start in inches. Inches grow to feet, feet grows to yards. It's like a football game. We need to push back that line. Firearm owners are a ununited group. Content when their little piece of the firearms world when it's not being attacked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.