AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13th

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by M-Quigley »

Something odd here, all the legal pundits thought the new ruling, announced on 1-13, would probably be published in the federal register the following week. Even according to ATF the ruling isn't legal until it's published in the register. So far I haven't seen it published in there, nor any firearms related rules at all yet. Here is the link.

https://www.federalregister.gov/index/2 ... ade-bureau" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
machinegunkelly
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:56 am
Location: redmencountry

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by machinegunkelly »

Soooooo!
How will the no one else using an NFA item but the registered person work with a trust ?
MGK
User avatar
DOA33
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:46 am
Location: 40601

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by DOA33 »

M-Quigley wrote:
DOA33 wrote:Another update from the fine people at the ATF.

Any and all NFA item from now on can only be used by the registered person. No more letting anyone else use it even if you're right there supervising.

You can find this gem under their website FAQ.

eforms.atf.gov/faq
I'm sure it's probably there but I went to the link and couldn't find anything referencing this on that page. Is there another link on that page I'm supposed to click on to get to that?

What will happen to the gun shops that rent full auto firearms at their own range?
Here is where I first found someone talking about it.

https://twitter.com/FenixAmmunition/sta ... 4SLRoV4kZw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Open Carry, shhh it's a dirty secret.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by M-Quigley »

DOA33 wrote:
M-Quigley wrote:
DOA33 wrote:Another update from the fine people at the ATF.

Any and all NFA item from now on can only be used by the registered person. No more letting anyone else use it even if you're right there supervising.

You can find this gem under their website FAQ.

eforms.atf.gov/faq
I'm sure it's probably there but I went to the link and couldn't find anything referencing this on that page. Is there another link on that page I'm supposed to click on to get to that?

What will happen to the gun shops that rent full auto firearms at their own range?
Here is where I first found someone talking about it.

https://twitter.com/FenixAmmunition/sta ... 4SLRoV4kZw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's going to take me a while to find it, if I even can, but somewhere among the many papers I've saved over the years related to firearms stuff is a copy of a letter from the ATF to someone whose NFA item is individually owned and not part of a trust, which essentially states exactly the opposite of this. (at least in regard to shooting it at a range while the owner is present)
Of course whoever at the ATF answered that question on the website will just probably say so what, we've changed our mind. :(

I wonder if a woman is holding and shooting a NFA item and a man is behind her with his hand touching the item while she is firing it, does THAT constitute legal possession of the item? (you know, like tandem parachuting :roll: )

On a possibly related note, I heard the ATF now has a agency theme song, by the Monkees. :roll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5BU3DCatjY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by FormerNavy »

machinegunkelly wrote:Soooooo!
How will the no one else using an NFA item but the registered person work with a trust ?
MGK

All trustees (responsible parties) of the trust would be able to use the item as long as its owned by said trust.
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by FormerNavy »

M-Quigley wrote:
DOA33 wrote:Another update from the fine people at the ATF.

Any and all NFA item from now on can only be used by the registered person. No more letting anyone else use it even if you're right there supervising.

You can find this gem under their website FAQ.

eforms.atf.gov/faq
I'm sure it's probably there but I went to the link and couldn't find anything referencing this on that page. Is there another link on that page I'm supposed to click on to get to that?

What will happen to the gun shops that rent full auto firearms at their own range?
It is there... I went and found it yesterday when I first heard about this.

Presumably, gun shops that do the full auto rental would no longer be able to do so if this holds up.
User avatar
FormerNavy
Posts: 2342
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: Southwest Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by FormerNavy »

I am really curious, though, about this change in who can use an NFA item.... as others have stated, it used to be that as long as the owner was present, others could use said item.

Was this change part of the pistol brace rule change? Was there a legal definition in the statute of how this worked or was this something always left up to ATF interpretation (and hence, more likely to survive a challenge)?

This page from SilencerShop, dated 2020 seems to imply it may have actually been this way for a while (although the page doesn't specify if it means loaning something to someone or while you're present): https://www.silencershop.com/blog/post/ ... y-silencer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if this was part of the 41F change and nobody caught it until now.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by M-Quigley »

FormerNavy wrote:I am really curious, though, about this change in who can use an NFA item.... as others have stated, it used to be that as long as the owner was present, others could use said item.

Was this change part of the pistol brace rule change? Was there a legal definition in the statute of how this worked or was this something always left up to ATF interpretation (and hence, more likely to survive a challenge)?

This page from SilencerShop, dated 2020 seems to imply it may have actually been this way for a while (although the page doesn't specify if it means loaning something to someone or while you're present): https://www.silencershop.com/blog/post/ ... y-silencer" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if this was part of the 41F change and nobody caught it until now.
The link in your post refers to "borrowing" a suppressor, which could imply having it away from the physical area of the actual owner. The copy of the letter that I'm still looking for (and probably means nothing now anyway) is in strict reference to an individual owner literally being alongside someone who is either handling or shooting a SMG at a shooting range. In the letter the ATF said it was not a violation of law as long as the legal owner was physically present in the immediate area of the NFA item. I do recall however it saying that if the owner was not present for any reason, (like for example going to another room briefly) it could be considered a violation, so you couldn't for example let someone "borrow it" without you being with it.

Also, in the link it says this:
If the silencer was filed as an individual, only you and the people under your direct supervision can use the suppressor. - Chase
Hi Silencer Dad! We don't want to lead you down the wrong path, this is not legal advice and all legal advice should be provided by your legal counsel. That being said, as long as you are in the immediate space of the item while it is being used by your son or another individual (as long as it is not a PROHIBITED PERSON), your son is fine to use the item because you are still in possession of the item.
User avatar
DOA33
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 11:46 am
Location: 40601

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by DOA33 »

It looks like it was a "mistake" made on the FAQ. Idiots. :roll:

https://bearingarms.com/ryan-petty/2023 ... ers-n66642" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Alerted to this change, Larry Keane, Senior Vice President of Government and Legal Affairs at the NSSF, reached out to ATF for a response. The ATF response, as reported by NSSF to Bearing Arms, is as follows:

“The Q&A currently listed on the eforms account is incorrect. In this scenario, the registered owner of the NFA weapon is co-located with the firearm and thus no transfer has occurred. However, if the person firing the NFA weapon is prohibited from possessing the firearm there could be a GCA violation. We are working to correct the site as quickly as possible.”
Open Carry, shhh it's a dirty secret.
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by Brian D. »

Without enforceable oversight, the BATFeebs could reinterpret this regulation again and again.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by M-Quigley »

Well, the final rule that was announced on 1-13 has now been published in the Federal Register, now making it legally enforceable (according to ATF) ATF however is graciously (sarcasm) giving owners of pistols with braces 120 days (end of May) to do one of the things ATF says you must do in order to avoid being charged with an unregistered SBR, and face a possible 10 yrs in prison and quarter million dollar fine. SAF already has a pending lawsuit in Texas and just about every gun group and one veterans organization is planning on filing suits, any one of which might result in a temporary injunction.

ATF told an attorney in response to a question about what happens if someone decides to file a form 1 to make it a legal SBR, the background check takes longer than 88 days, and the answer was yes it is an automatic denial and the ATF will take "enforcement action." So basically if the ATF starts a background check and it is delayed for any reason, and the ATF doesn't follow up on it, the clock runs out, the person automatically fails the check and "enforcement action" could happen.

On the issue of whether an owner of a brace has to remove it from the pistol and destroy the brace (one of the options) the NRA said that could be in conflict with existing federal law, IF the owner also has a 16" or longer barrel or upper that could potentially be installed. You would still have to remove the brace from the pistol, but not destroy it. (Thompson Center case)

Without an injunction IDK what states will do in the next 3 months is someone has a loaded AR or AK pistol in their car, are they technically in violation of a state law regarding a loaded rifle in a car? Just because the ATF isn't enforcing it doesn't mean states couldn't just say "well it's not a pistol now, according to ATF".
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by M-Quigley »

There is no big cities really "local" to me (and that's the way I like it :) ) but the closest big city with TV stations is Dayton Ohio. With a large powered antenna I can receive them. Anyway they finially got around to mentioning this rule, because one of the two shootings the ATF uses to justify this rule is the Dayton Ohio Oregon mass shooting, killed 9 people and wounded several others. The Oregon district is a street of bars that people hang out on the street at night. He started shooting outside and then walked toward a bar but there were police outside on that end of the street and they shot and killed him as he was trying to enter a bar. Anyway his weapon happened to be an AR pistol and it had a stabilizing brace and a drum mag. The reports I heard was that he wasn't just making careful shots at individual people one at a time, he was just hosing a crowd down, pulling the trigger as fast as he could, and at very close range. He could've done the exact same thing without a brace or without shouldering it.

The ATF is trying to claim the pistol with the brace makes it more concealable but that is a lie, the brace does not shorten the overall length of a pistol at all.

The liberal democrat mayor of course supports the rule, but then he supports all gun control measures of any kind. He supports the city being able to enact their own gun control laws, which is illegal under state law. He supports universal background checks but the article failed to mention that the purchaser of the pistol passed a background check and then sold it to someone in a straw purchase, which is already illegal and a universal background check law doesn't stop a straw purchase from happening.

If you read the article or watch the news video at the top, I think it gives a false impression to the general public about AR or AK pistols and them being more dangerous with a brace on. The news and ATF talk about short barrelled rifles being more powerful than regular pistols, but they are comparing them to the pistols commonly carried for CC. A stabilizing brace on an AR pistol does not make the round coming out more powerful, nor does it increase the rate of fire. The only thing it might do is allow the shooter to be more accurate, but mass shooters don't care about strict accuracy anyway, particularly when you're shooting into a group of people all crowded together and you're just spraying bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger.

The news allowed a rep for Buckeye firearms to respond but the only response they covered was basically if someone in the crowd had been armed the shooting would've been stopped faster. While this is probably true, it was a crowd full of drunks, some of them college students. Even if you have a CHL you can't carry and drink, not even one drink, not in a bar or on the street outside. (where this shooting occurred)

The news story says the new rule doesn't ban pistols with braces it just requires registration. While it is true that it doesn't outright BAN putting a brace on a pistol, it does change (according to ATF) the label of the firearm from pistol to short barrelled rifle, and in effect DOES BAN possession of it in certain states, and or DOES BAN certain use of it, like a friend of mine who uses it in his car in a church parking lot. He can't legally have a loaded SBR in his car but he can have a loaded pistol.

The ATF admits in the rule that handicapped people could use the brace but then say they aren't bound by the Americans with disabilities act, and also if someone is disabled, they can just register it as an SBR. If however you are handicapped and live in a state where SBR's are illegal, or a state where the CLEO won't sign simply because he/she is anti gun, (like what Ohio used to be like before the law changed) you are just out of luck I guess. :( Also, what if you become disabled after the end of May? You then have to pay a $200 tax to exercise what is supposed to be a constitutional right?
Betts modified a pistol and made it function as a semi-automatic rifle that killed nine people and injured 27. City of Dayton Mayor, Jeffrey J. Mims Jr. was a City Commissioner when the mass shooting happened.

“We keep making it easier for them, with the laws we have and the lack of restrictions and controls. They’re generally people that want to do harm to large numbers of individuals,” said Mims on why he thinks people make modifications to guns.

It does not outlaw using stabilizing braces to convert pistols into rifles, commonly called short barrel rifles. It does, however, require a gun owner to pay an extra $200 tax, register the gun, and required background checks for transfers of that weapon to anyone, including family and friends.

Joe Eaton of Buckey Firearms Association believes the key to protecting people in schools and places like the Oregon District is not to wait for the police to arrive but for responsible gun owners who can protect themselves.

“Have they had every opportunity to decide how to keep themselves, their families, or in this case, the children they are responsible for every day safe,” said Eaton.

Mims says, “this is just one small step forward for protection.” He wants to see some weapons banned and universal background checks implemented.
“Clearly not enough, the background checks on a wide scale basis is something that needs to be done,” said Mims.
https://www.whio.com/news/small-step-fo ... U5XNBIBQY/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by Brian D. »

M-Quigley wrote:There is no big cities really "local" to me (and that's the way I like it :) ) but the closest big city with TV stations is Dayton Ohio. With a large powered antenna I can receive them. Anyway they finially got around to mentioning this rule, because one of the two shootings the ATF uses to justify this rule is the Dayton Ohio Oregon mass shooting, killed 9 people and wounded several others. The Oregon district is a street of bars that people hang out on the street at night. He started shooting outside and then walked toward a bar but there were police outside on that end of the street and they shot and killed him as he was trying to enter a bar. Anyway his weapon happened to be an AR pistol and it had a stabilizing brace and a drum mag. The reports I heard was that he wasn't just making careful shots at individual people one at a time, he was just hosing a crowd down, pulling the trigger as fast as he could, and at very close range. He could've done the exact same thing without a brace or without shouldering it.

The news allowed a rep for Buckeye firearms to respond but the only response they covered was basically if someone in the crowd had been armed the shooting would've been stopped faster. While this is probably true, it was a crowd full of drunks, some of them college students. Even if you have a CHL you can't carry and drink, not even one drink, not in a bar or on the street outside. (where this shooting occurred)
A young shooting pal of mine was there to have a reunion with college friends. He planned on having (literally) one drink, so he played by that ridiculous part of our law and disarmed. That's right, ridiculous. Other states don't require that to carry lawfully, and they don't have BLOOD RUNNING IN THE STREETS. He was into his first sip when the crap hit the fan. Two takeaways for me:

1) The young dude is not a drunk. You broadbrushed there.

2) He was in a position to drop the nutjob, and he certainly has the skillset. Therefore, he carries around survivor's remorse. In the same circumstances I would too.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4780
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by M-Quigley »

Brian D. wrote:
M-Quigley wrote:There is no big cities really "local" to me (and that's the way I like it :) ) but the closest big city with TV stations is Dayton Ohio. With a large powered antenna I can receive them. Anyway they finially got around to mentioning this rule, because one of the two shootings the ATF uses to justify this rule is the Dayton Ohio Oregon mass shooting, killed 9 people and wounded several others. The Oregon district is a street of bars that people hang out on the street at night. He started shooting outside and then walked toward a bar but there were police outside on that end of the street and they shot and killed him as he was trying to enter a bar. Anyway his weapon happened to be an AR pistol and it had a stabilizing brace and a drum mag. The reports I heard was that he wasn't just making careful shots at individual people one at a time, he was just hosing a crowd down, pulling the trigger as fast as he could, and at very close range. He could've done the exact same thing without a brace or without shouldering it.

The news allowed a rep for Buckeye firearms to respond but the only response they covered was basically if someone in the crowd had been armed the shooting would've been stopped faster. While this is probably true, it was a crowd full of drunks, some of them college students. Even if you have a CHL you can't carry and drink, not even one drink, not in a bar or on the street outside. (where this shooting occurred)
A young shooting pal of mine was there to have a reunion with college friends. He planned on having (literally) one drink, so he played by that ridiculous part of our law and disarmed. That's right, ridiculous. Other states don't require that to carry lawfully, and they don't have BLOOD RUNNING IN THE STREETS. He was into his first sip when the crap hit the fan. Two takeaways for me:

1) The young dude is not a drunk. You broadbrushed there.

2) He was in a position to drop the nutjob, and he certainly has the skillset. Therefore, he carries around survivor's remorse. In the same circumstances I would too.
Sorry, I didn't mean to broadbrush and imply that everyone there was a drunk, although the last time I was there, there were a lot of people so intoxicated they could barely stand up straight, but there were also people who didn't have much to drink. Regardless of how much, the law is clear, you can't legally drink and carry. Not agreeing with the law, I think it's ridiculous too, but that's just the way it is and I doubt it will ever be changed in this state. (I can hope common sense will someday prevail though) The last time I was there I wanted to have a drink with the others I was with, but someone had to be the designated driver. Since I couldn't drink alcohol anyway, I was carrying, but I wouldn't have been if I wasn't the designated driver and had been consuming alcohol. What I meant to say is at that time of night almost all the patrons there were likely to be consuming alcohol so the chances of someone being legally armed were slim. He shouldn't be blaming himself, people should be able to drink at a place and not have to worry about gun violence, or not having someone to protect them or being able to protect themselves if something occurs.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: AG Garland announced pistol brace rule on friday the 13t

Post by bignflnut »

Brian D. wrote: 1) The young dude is not a drunk. You broadbrushed there.
That is MY understanding of the law, IANAL.

Is it not the law's point that if one has any alcohol in the system, they are impaired and has therefore forfeited RKBA?
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
Post Reply