Reject the ATF's Proposed Rule 2021R-08 On Criminalizing Pistol Braces

All right, welcome to “Whose ATF Is It Anyway,” where the rules are made up and the points don’t matter! But in all seriousness, the rule I’m prepared to discuss is made up and the points do not matter.

This article is a twin to one I recently published where I discussed the many ways we can oppose a proposed rule by the ATF to reclassify the definition of a firearm. In this article, I will do the same for another proposed rule from the ATF, rule 2021R-08.

In 2021R-08, the ATF hopes to single-handedly (yes, that’s a pun) destroy the pistol brace industry and turn millions of legal gun owners into criminals. 

The Convention of States project, ultimately, seeks to uphold our Constitutionally protected rights, including the second amendment. Specifically, the Convention of States seeks to limit the intrusion of the federal bureaucracy onto the legitimate domain of the legislative branch.

Our purpose would be to prevent situations like what the ATF is doing right now from ever arising. In the meantime, we must act using the tools at our disposal.  

(If the next few paragraphs seem familiar, it is because I’ve included them from my article on R-05.)

We are not simply at the mercy of the ATF in this. In the past, rules they have proposed were withdrawn based solely on the level of outcry and public commentary against them. Just a year before, a proposed rule trying to do something very similar was overcome. 

This is my goal here, to encourage anyone who reads this to be a part of this public outcry.

But it will require some effort on the part of everyone who would see our rights and freedoms preserved. First of all, there is a limited window in which the ATF will consider public commentary.

We only have until September 8, 2021 to submit our well thought out opinions to the ATF for consideration. But there are caveats.

The ATF will summarily reject duplicate submissions of commentary. It is not as simple as me or another commenter putting down a copy-paste job for you to knock out in a short minute.

The ATF has other reasons for which they will discard commentary. Vulgar or profane language will cause the comment to be summarily rejected.

Commentary that does not meet certain informational guidelines can be rejected. And, no, the submission of the phrase, “shall not be infringed,” though noble and apparent, will not suffice for their reckoning.

Only their version of legitimate commentary will be considered. (In addition, I will point out that quoting “sic semper tyrannis” isn’t the best idea, I wouldn’t want any of my readers to end up on some list...) 

And I will take you into that process if it encourages you to provide some.

Mailing your submission pen-and-paper (or printer-and paper) is perfectly valid for providing commentary. Doing so requires a few clerical additions. You must ensure you identify the  docket number ATF 2021R-08 clearly near the beginning of your commentary.

You must also include your full name and address (maybe google writing a “business letter” if you don’t remember that element). Legibility of a paper letter is paramount as well, since if the ATF believes the submission to be illegible, it will be discarded and unconsidered.

ATF also provides an online alternative for filing a submission. One downside is there is a 5000 character limit whereas there is none for paper submissions. Other than that, the process is very straightforward.

You either copy-paste or write directly into the text box. You can even upload a pre-written word file of myriad types; the key ones are likely .docx and .pdf for most people. Then you must finish filling out the form, providing an email and indicating your affiliation and lack of robot-ness.

That’s the how. And that’s the easy part. The hard part is what do you say to the ATF expressing that you think they are wrong? How do you back it up? Especially when they have the imprimatur of the current regime in office... I cannot say I have the solution, exactly.

It is up to each of us to determine what will encapsulate our displeasure with the proposed rule. Once again, we must all be original. I am not offering a copy-paste solution.

But here are key elements of dispute regarding this ruling, any of which can be chosen as points for consideration.

(Back to my current article)

1. I think one of the most fundamental arguments you can make is that this represents a violation of our Constitutional rights, on the whole. Specifically, it disenfranchises gun owners with disabilities who benefit from these devices. Please cite this, especially if it disenfranchises you, personally.
2. This rule, it is easy to point out, creates law from nowhere. You can point out that Congress has not spoken on whether or not a pistol brace is equivalent to a shoulder stock. More to the point, in Gun Owners of America v. Garland, the judges affirmatively denied the ATF’s right to do so regarding bump stocks.
3. Another point to make is that even where the ATF addresses the actual laws, it still attempts to skirt them by redefining legislatively defined terms to help them reach their preferred outcome. They would seek to add to the term “rifle” specifically to attack the pistol brace.
4. You can argue that the ATF has granted limited approval to the concept of the pistol brace going back to 2006. This rule clearly represents an ex post facto prohibition that criminalizes thousands, if not millions, of legal gun owners. 
5. And beyond the capricious criminalization, you can say that the “relief” offered is that gun owners can destroy their property or pay a tax that may come a decade after the legal purchase.
6. Strangely, this rule assumes information about firearms not presented. Express to the ATF that the rule asserts information about shoulder stock designs that it does not present, as though they are common knowledge.
7. You can address how this rule issues arbitrary assignments of intent to users. How could the ATF truly know that a person’s intent when buying a pistol brace is to use it as a shoulder stock? Ask them if a farmer is buying all that fertilizer to make bombs or if that pressure cooker is really for creating a distillery. Are you not allowed the right to buy tools to use for their intended purpose free of suspicion?
8. In the same vein, it arbitrarily assigns intent to the manufacturers. You could point out that the design produces the intended result effectively. Is not a hammer designed for nails, even when the user bashes someone on the head with it? Ask why the ATF would punish responsible businesses for the behaviors of a vanishingly small number of users.
9. This rule would implement the use of a point system through worksheet 4999, which would assign 1-4 points to the weapon and the pistol brace based on arbitrary criteria. I might point out that there isn’t really a 0 point category for pistol braces. The assumption is that it will be used as a shoulder stock.
10. One of the worst parts of this rule I discovered was that even following the rules is not guarantee that you're following the rules. Within the rule it points out that even if your weapon does not meet their absurd points system, it may still be classified as a short-barreled rifle. As I pointed out in the first sentence, ask the ATF if there is a point to the worksheet 4999 if the result is not upheld?
11. To further complicate the issue, worksheet 4999 takes into account the involvement of other detachable features being used in determining if a specific one, the pistol brace, is to be illegal. That is to say, in some cases, the pistol brace is illegal, while in others it is not. Ask the ATF if that makes sense.
12. Another arbitrary category involves the Length of Pull classification. Indicate that the length of a pistol brace needs to be variable, as the length of the forearm is variable.
13. Last, but certainly not finally, the ATF wants to include weight tests to determine whether a weapon will classify as a short barreled rifle. Explain how this is absurd with so many material design options. The same weapon configuration can be achieved with variable overall weights.

As I have said before, please take the time to register a comment. Even if you only have a few minutes and only want to touch on one or two points, go for it. Please let them know how you feel about any of the issues I have raised here. Be polite. Follow their rules for submitting. And let’s scare them with how many people disagree vehemently with this rule. We can make a difference, every one of us!

After you've done that, consider volunteering for the Convention of States Project. Only a Convention of States can permanently and effectively limit the power of overreaching federal agencies like the ATF.

Only Congress should create laws--it's time we forced the federal government back into its constitutional box.