I was growned-up for 94' and remember the era but don't really have a grasp of what things were like for the FOPA.
Does this smell anything like that?
Looks like they've outlined a number of definitions in the document linked at the bottom of this post, much more than the LOP issue that was raised with the honey badger.
https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/12/16/a ... ed-braces/The objective design features ATF considers in determining whether a weapon
with an attached “stabilizing brace” has been “designed or redesigned, made or remade,
and intended to be fired from the shoulder” include, but are not limited to:
Type and Caliber. The type and caliber of firearm to which the stabilizing brace
or similar item is installed. A large caliber firearm that is impractical to fire with
one hand because of recoil or other factors, even with an arm brace, is likely to be
considered a rifle or shotgun.Weight and Length. The weight and length of the firearm used with the
stabilizing brace. A firearm that is so heavy that it is impractical to fire or aim
with one hand, or so long that it is difficult to balance the firearm to fire with one
hand, is likely to be considered a rifle or shotgun.Length of Pull. The “length of pull” refers to the distance from the trigger to the
point at which a stock meets the shoulder. This is a measurement for rifles and
shotguns used to accommodate shooters of different sizes. Because an arm brace
need only reach the forearm, the distance between the trigger and the back of the
brace is generally expected to be shorter than the distance between the trigger and
the back of a stock on a weapon designed and intended to be fired from the
shoulder. This measurement is not necessarily determinative of the intent of the
manufacturer but is used in making an evaluation of the firearm. If a brace is of a
length that makes it impractical to attach to the shooter’s wrist or forearm, then
that may demonstrate that it is not designed as brace but rather for shoulder fire.Attachment Method. The method of attachment of the stabilizing brace, to
include modified stock attachments, extended receiver extensions, and the use of
spacers. These items extend the distance between the trigger and the part of the
weapon that contacts the shooter, whether it is a stock or stabilizing brace. Use of
these items indicates that the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the
shoulder because they extend a stabilizing brace beyond a point that is useful for
something other than shoulder support.Stabilizing Brace Design Features. The objective design features of the attached
stabilizing brace itself are relevant to the classification of the assembled weapon,
and include:
o The comparative function of the attachment when utilized as a stabilizing
brace compared to its alternate use as a shouldering device;
o The design of the stabilizing brace compared to known shoulder stock
designs;
o The amount of rear contact surface area of the stabilizing brace that can be
used in shouldering the weapon as compared to the surface area necessary
for use as a stabilizing brace;
o The material used to make the attachment that indicates whether the brace
is designed and intended to be pressed against the shoulder for support, or
actually used on the arm;
o Any shared or interchangeable parts with known shoulder stocks; and
o Any other feature of the brace that improves the weapon’s effectiveness
from the shoulder-firing position without providing a corresponding
benefit to the effectiveness of the stability and support provided by the
brace’s use on the arm.Aim Point. Appropriate aim point when utilizing the attachment as a stabilizing
brace. If the aim point when using the arm brace attachment results in an upward
or downward trajectory that could not accurately hit a target, this may indicate the
attachment was not designed as a stabilizing brace.Secondary Grip. The presence of a secondary grip may indicate that the weapon
is not a “pistol” because it is not designed to be held and fired by one hand.
x Sights and Scopes. Incorporation of sights or scopes that possess eye relief
incompatible with one-handed firing may indicate that the weapon is not a
“pistol” because they are designed to be used from a shoulder-fire position and
are incompatible for the single-handed shooting that arm braces are designed and
intended.Peripheral Accessories. Installation of peripheral accessories commonly found on
rifles or shotguns that may indicate that the firearm is not designed and intended
to be held and fired with one hand. This includes, but is not limited to, the
installation of bipods/monopods that improve the accuracy of heavy weapons
designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder; or the inclusion of a
magazine or drum that accepts so many cartridges that it increases the overall
weight of the firearm to a degree that it is impractical to fire the weapon with one
hand even with the assistance of a stabilizing brace.
Posted on December 16, 2020 by Joshua Prince, Esq.
In a 16 page draft copy of proposed rulemaking specifying “Objective Factors for Classifying Stablizing Braces”, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has proposed entering into rulemaking to delineate the objective factors considered when “evaluating firearms with an attached stabilizing brace to determine whether they are considered firearms under the National Firearms Act (‘NFA’) and/or the Gun Control Act (‘GCA)” and the Department of Justice’s plan to “subsequently implement a separate process for current possessors of stabilizer-equipped firearms to choose to register such firearms in compliance with the NFA.”
While the proposed rulemaking has not yet been published in the Federal Register, it is expected to be published in the upcoming weeks and interestingly – seemingly in violation of the law – ATF is only providing a 14 day comment period, at least, pursuant to the draft copy. “Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before [INSERT DATE 14 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].” It would not surprise me if the proposed rulemaking is published on December 24th, so that most interested individuals and businesses will be distracted by the holidays and unable to respond in the two week response period. To prevent against these types of shenanigans, the Gun Control Act mandates a 90 day comment period.
As more information becomes known, we will update this blog post or publish new ones, depending on the development.
ATF proposal at the link below.
https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -16-20.pdf
Have a few to sell...everything is sold-out online.