Yes, once again — as they did with the bump-fire stock NPRM and the “ghost gun/frame/receiver NPRM — the ATF published docket ATF 2021R-08, took comments, then deleted that docket, and opened new docket ATF-2021-0002 without the old comments. This appears to violate the Administrative Procedures Act. It also appears — due the regularity with which they do this — to be a deliberate attempt to discourage public comment on legally dubious proposed rules. The ATF publishes, the hardcore Second Amendment advocates rush to comment and publicize the NPRM so more people will comment…
And when they try, the publicized link is dead. Some will be sufficiently dedicated to search out the new docket. Others may assume the docket wasn’t real and never comment. Those who had commented may never check back (something TZP has learned to do), and discover their comments are gone; possibly never to be transferred over to the new docket.
But for now new docket ATF-2021-0002 is there. Please comment; be sure to click the “Opt to receive email confirmation” box so you get verification of your Comment Tracking Number. Bookmark the docket so you can can go back to check it (and your comment’s) status.
Comments are due by September 8, 2021.
The Zelman Partisans submitted this comment.
Comment Tracking Number: kpq-zrva-s2yf
The Zelman Partisans oppose this proposed rule.
This proposed rule is an incoherently expressed description of an arbitrary, capricious, and incoherent process of classifying firearms.
As no standards were given, a subjective examiner’s guesstimate of “rear surface area” could pass a brace, or put it right on the edge of alleged short-barreled rifle by itself. Will one examiner estimate the “rear surface area” of a cuff-type brace by the physical area of the rear EDGE of the cuff, while another goes by the area of the space ENCLOSED by the cuff?
“Length of pull” presupposes that all braced pistols are SBRs until proven otherwise. The restriction on brace length would make it a one-size-fits some piece of junk. A brace properly fitted for a large male would be unworkable for a smaller female. Defensive firearms are commonly purchased with shared use by family members in mind.
Also, it appears that the ATF is unaware of braced pistols that are not AR-type. The attachment evaluation assumes an AR-type buffer tube. The weight and overall length exclude the entire class of drop-in pistols braces, such as for Glocks. The rule is silent on those. Is the braced Glock automatically an SBR because it fail the 4999 Section tests? Or would the chassis resembling a carbine NEVER be a rifle?
And why would flip-up iron sights (which one might well want for storage and transport) make a pistol into a rifle?
Because the 4999 “test” requires that any specific pistol-brace combination be evaluated in whole, rather than evaluating the BRACE itself, none of the millions of owners of braced pistols currently in existence can know whether their equipment has the a ATF’s dubious blessing, or requires NFA registration. This proposed rule thus puts those millions in danger of unwitting felonhood. The only legal option is those MILLIONS to flood the The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division with MILLIONS of firearms for evaluation, depriving them of their property for years as the FATD struggles with the backlog.
We think the ATF will need to go on a hiring spree, for examiners. And when MILLIONS of newly-annointed “short-barreled rifles” are created by fiat, the tax stamp backlog will be amazing.
Additionally, one should recall that braces were first designed for handicapped people. This proposed rule would appear to put the ATF in conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Expect to be sued.
We think the Department of Justice will need to hire more lawyers.
This collection of follies could have been avoided by adopting a sane definition of stabilizing brace: “A device designed to aid a user in holding a large pistol with one hand, which extends no further than the user’s forearm when gripping the firearm normally, and which conforms to the user’s forearm.”
The Zelman Partisans also note that once again the ATF has violated the Administrative Procedures Act by opening docket 2021R-08, taking comments on that docket, DELETING it, and opening new docket ATF-2021-0002 without the old docket comments. The ATF does this on such a regular basis that we believe it is a deliberate attempt to discourage public comment on legally dubious proposed rules.
