Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Calif. "Assault Weapons" Ban Struck Down | Main | Thoughts on striking down the Calif "AW ban" »

ATF proposed rule on stabilizing braces

Posted by David Hardy · 7 June 2021 02:35 PM

Here's their explanation, and here's the text of the proposed rule. Once it hits the Federal Register, we'll have 90 days to comment,

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Alan Booth | June 7, 2021 4:49 PM | Reply

So how do they think they are going to enforce these new regulations against all the owners who already have such guns ?

Tasso Rampante | June 7, 2021 8:52 PM | Reply

They say the SBA3 fails to wrap around the arm when it clearly does.

Is there a US Government Standard Minimum Wrist Diameter that I am unaware of? Will wrists smaller than that diameter be a disqualifying factor in government service? Will small wristed individuals be eligible for disability because they lack government standard arms?

Michael Murray | June 8, 2021 9:39 PM | Reply

I'll have to give their work sheet some thought and see how it all applies. Right now it still sounds like the old definition of pornography- "I'll know it when I see it".
This "rule" will be about as effective as the bump-stock ban. The last numbers I saw were less than 1000 turned in by private citizens, out of half a million sold.
It will be just another charge that can be piled on if one of the unapproved braces is found.

AR-nonymous | June 12, 2021 3:15 PM | Reply

How many owners will decide "Since the penalty for putting a brace on an AR pistol is now the same as putting a stock on an AR pistol, f*** it" and put a stock on an AR pistol?

Eldon W Dickens Jr | June 13, 2021 2:17 AM | Reply

This problem is created by the law (actually a multiplicity of inconsistent laws as the proposed rule is forced to admit) itself, which is a collection of myths, indeed fantasies, the central fantasy being that there is an essential difference between a rifle and a pistol (or a shotgun and a pistol, for that matter), when in fact a pistol is just a short shotgun or rifle, the degree of shortness entirely a matter of interpretation or judgment. Worse yet for the situation, when one searches the devices which are offered as "stabilizing braces" those are generally nothing but short buttstocks, which I must presume are being offered consistent with current law and rules. How the proposed rule might change this, if at all, remains obscure if not imponderable.

Leave a comment