Tag Archives: NPRM

Hey! My “Engaged In The Business” NPRM Comment Finally Appeared.

It only took four tries, and a week, but they finally accepted one from me.

Regulations.gov claims…

Posted by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau on Sep 15, 2023

…but I happened to check on the 15th, and it was not found.

Between my personal commenting and TZP’s, we only have a 42.9% success rate in getting the ATF to accept comments.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

ATF NPRM Commenting FUBAR As Usual

As I noted on September 8, the ATF is screwing up commenting on the “engaged in the business” Notice of Proposed Rule-Making.

In short, as dockets changed and vanished in a period of minutes, I found it desirable to comment six times; three times on behalf of TZP, and three times for myself personally.

Regulations.gov is now posting comments, so I checked the status of our comments. It ain’t pretty. I’m documenting the results so I have a public record of what is happening.

TZP Comment Tracking Numbers (in order submitted)

One lost, submitted after first that’s there, and before the other that’s there.

Personal Comment Tracking Numbers (in order submitted)

  • lma-m7xn-uqi0 (not found)
  • lma-nseu-zlmo (not found)
  • lma-p5qv-j9z4 (not found)

NONE of my personal comments can be found. Note that all were submitted after the first TZP comment appearing, and two before the third TZP comment that appears. My third comment was posted last. I see other people’s comment appearing that were submitted
days after mine. I have email confirmation that my comments were received (for two; I forgot to enter my email address for one).

I have now submitted a fourth attempt at commenting; Comment Tracking Number: lmg-ih6a-k2ww. I’m still waiting for the email confirmation.

Please let us know in comments below if you are also having difficulty commenting on the NPRM.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

ATF Officially Publishes Brace Notice of Proposed Rule-Making

Twice. Again.

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 a coherently 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.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

ATF’s Stabilizing Brace Rule On the Way

The Epoch Times reports that the ATF’s Notice of Proposed Rule-Making on whether a stabilizing brace turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle has been published in the Federal Register.

However, while they link a DOJ pre-published copy, and provide no link the NPRM on the Register. A search there does not turn it up, nor does it yet appeared on Regulations.gov. The document that ET links to even states that the text of what gets published may differ.

This one differs greatly from the ATF’s previous abortive attempt at rule-making on braces last year. The 2020 fiasco was purely subjective; We’ll know an SBR when we see one. This one at least makes the attempt to appear objective. They will create an evaluation worksheet, a “4999.”

The meat of the NPRM, the 4999, is a checklist, which assigns “points” to a braced firearm on a ranked basis. The more like a brace, the lower the points. More like a buttstock, more points. They would “evaluate” various characteristics. It’s broken down into two testing sections.

Starting with Section I, the firearm must weigh at least 64 ounces, but — as we’ll see — no more than 120 ounces. It must be at least 12 inches long, but no more than 26. If your brace meets those “prerequisites,” you get to proceed to the next part.

Section II looks at “accessory design,” “rear surface area,” “adjustability,” and “stabilizing support.”

If the design accrues 4 or more points in Section II, do not pass go. It’s a short-barreled rifle.

Frankly, about the only design that would pre-qualify as a brace in Section II would be a nonadjustable (for length, one presumes) fabric arm loop/”cuff” with some feature like a rear point to make it specifically uncomfortable to shoulder. I really don’t wants points on a brace, and fixed length brace that’s fine for six-footer me probably won’t fit my four-foot, eleven inch sister.

Rear surface area? It’s purely an arbitrary guessimate by the examiner, No standard is given. Much of the “objective” process is like that.

The subject of “cuff” is interesting. That reminded me of part of my comment on the December NPRM, more reasonable definition of 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.

Maybe they read it.

If we survived Section II, we get the privilege of advancing to Section III, where the evaluator looks at “length of pull,” “attachment method, “stabilizing brace modification/configuration,” and “peripheral accessories.” Again points are assigned on a sliding basis.

The only way not to get points for length of pull is for it to be less than ten and a half inches. If I were stabilizing an AR pistol, I’d want 13, which would earn me 3 points just on that. And note that even calling “length of pull” implies it’s an SBR unless proven otherwise.

For attachment method, most braced AR pistols I’ve seen would be safe, using a “standard AR-type pistol buffer tube.” Not all, though.

If one accepts that the ATF has any constitutional business regulating rifles, short-barreled or not (I don’t), the the mods/config section more or less makes sense.

The accessories test is bizarre. Some are consistent with other rules (no secondary forward vertical grip), but why the devil bureaucrat does putting flip-up iron sights (think for storage and transport) matter? That alone earns a point, of which you can have no more than 3. Four or more, SBR.

The proposed rule is a mess. It doesn’t allow for the possibility that someone might want to brace anything but an AR pistol. Even the only attachment method mentioned is the buffer tube. And what about this?

That’s right out.

It might meet the minimum length prerequisite, but not the weight standard. Does that mean it is good to go, because it’s light, it cannot be an SBR? What about this one?

Good to go?

Or, because it’s light and attaches at other than the nonexistent buffer tube, it’s automatically an SBR? My definition would have settled it. The ATF’s doesn’t.

As usual, the ATF is an incoherent solution in search of a nonexistent problem.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Bump-Stock-Type Devices” (sic) Commenting Now Open

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Bump-Stock Type Devices
Summary

The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA’s effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.

Direct link to comment form.

I submitted my comment a few minutes ago.

Docket number: 2017R-22

The NPRM falsely states: “Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.”

That is factually incorrect, and inconsistent with objective physical reality. Firing still requires the trigger finger to engage and operate the trigger individually for each shot fired, after the firearm is MANUALLY pulled forward again with the shooter’s off hand.

Bump-fire stocks do not increase the “rate of fire.” The rate of fire from a “single trigger pull” is still 1. Each round discharged still requires an individual manual operation of the trigger IN THIS UNIVERSE. The firearm’s cyclic rate of fire is determined by the physics of the firearm’s internal parts: Mass, resistance, inertia, mechanical engagement, force of discharging cartridge. If anything, a bump-stock-type device would bleed recoil energy and cause a reduction in the theoretical maximum.

Bump-fire stocks do not “accelerate the firearm’s cyclic firing rate to mimic automatic fire.” Again, that rate is determined by the internal action of the firearm, not an external stock.

A bump-stock-type device merely aids the untrained shooter in achieving something closer to the firearm’s inherent theoretical rate of fire. (Again, since some recoil energy is bled off to assist in manual trigger operation, it probably prevents the shooter ever reaching the actual theoretical maximum.) Bump-fire stocks are training wheels.

The ATF previously ruled that the Akins Accelerator differed from modern bump-stock-type devices in that the spring in the stock acted as an active component to force the firearm into the ready-to-fire position trigger against the shooter’s finger, without additional action by the shooter. With a modern bump-stock-type device, the shooter must MANUALLY return the firearm to the ready-to-fire position, at which time the shooter MANUALLY operates the trigger again.

This is very easy to test, three ways, each using a bump-stock-type device:

1. Pull the trigger a single time and immediately move your finger forward off of the “ledge” (or “finger rest”). If the firearm continues to fire without further operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. If it does not continue to fire, it is not a machinegun.

2. Should this not be clear enough, fire again; this time keeping your trigger finger off of the “ledge” so that your finger holds the trigger down, preventing it from resetting. If the firearm continues to fire without further operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. If it does not continue to fire, it is not a machinegun.

3. If you are still unclear on the concept, pull the trigger, but keep the rifle pressed back in a conventional non-bump-fire mode (i.e.- don’t pull the rifle forward). If the firearm continues to fire without further operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. If it does not continue to fire, it is not a machinegun.

If one cannot understand this, then that person is mentally incompetent and should be adjudicated as such under 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)(4), and should be removed from office.

If one will not understand this, then that person is guilty of malfeasance and should be removed.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail