Glock Firearms banner

21 - 30 of 30 Posts

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
35,755 Posts
Discussion Starter #21
Update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ith-stabilizing-braces-withdrawal-of-guidance
AGENCY:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice.

ACTION:
Notice; withdrawal.

SUMMARY:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) is announcing the withdrawal of a notice and request for comments entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with `Stabilizing Braces',” that was published on December 18, 2020.

DATES:
The withdrawal is effective December 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
This Notice also will be made available on the ATF website (www.atf.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Lange, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Ave. NE, Mail Stop 6N-518, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070 (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Upon further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, ATF is withdrawing, pending further Department of Justice review, the notice and request for comments entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with `Stabilizing Braces',” that was published on December 18, 2020. 85 FR 82516. As explained in the notice, the proposed guidance was not a regulation. The notice informed and invited comment from the industry and public on a proposed guidance prior to issuing a final guidance document.

The withdrawal of the guidance does not change any law, regulation, or other legally binding requirement.

Marvin G. Richardson,

Associate Deputy Director.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
I may be wrong but pistol braces don't fit any definition in the 1968
firearm act? Do they? Or is there a later revision?
 

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
35,755 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
I may be wrong but pistol braces don't fit any definition in the 1968
firearm act? Do they? Or is there a later revision?
Fairly recent invention. Regulatory agencies are given wide latitude on interpretation of law and enforcement.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
951 Posts
That's the issue right there, "wide latitude on interpretation of law".
Either they comply with an established federal law or not, not under an interpretation.
Hence if there was a federal law then braces wouldn't have been manufactured in the
first place.
 

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
35,755 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
That's the issue right there, "wide latitude on interpretation of law".
Either they comply with an established federal law or not, not under an interpretation.
Hence if there was a federal law then braces wouldn't have been manufactured in the
first place.
We can say that it should be moot altogether as it should be viewed as infringement of the second amendment.
But who cares what the founders meant in the first place?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
934 Posts
We can say that it should be moot altogether as it should be viewed as infringement of the second amendment.
But who cares what the founders meant in the first place?
This !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danzig

·
Grumpy Old Man
Joined
·
4,155 Posts
I must admit I had to look up , what a pistol brace is. Now apart from the rifle type, the pistol type to me would include the Wooden Holster /stock for both 96 Mausers and Lugers ? What about the Colt offerings as far back as 1860 or the Holster and folding stocks for 1911s? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?
 

·
Glockin’ since 1993
Joined
·
35,755 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
I must admit I had to look up , what a pistol brace is. Now apart from the rifle type, the pistol type to me would include the Wooden Holster /stock for both 96 Mausers and Lugers ? What about the Colt offerings as far back as 1860 or the Holster and folding stocks for 1911s? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?
Guns from before 1899 are exempt.
 
21 - 30 of 30 Posts
Top