Questions for the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) As It Pertains to Stabilizing Braces

The Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) administration has now retroactively decreed through a new unconstitutional and arbitrary "rule" (ATF Rule 2021R-08F) earlier this year (January 31, 2023) that pistol stabilizing braces are now illegal to own, possess and/or use unless you comply with their new law or what they call, "rule". Once the "rule" was published (ATF "rule" link), an individual in possession of an unregistered pistol stabilizing brace was technically committing an arrestable felony offense. Thankfully, the ATF was kind enough to allow for an amnesty period that expired on June 1, 2023. 

​Following the amnesty period, the ATF expects law-abiding citizens to bend the knee, or what they call "comply" with their new "rule". Compliance with the new "rule" is not as simple as it should be. This is due to government overcomplicating things, along with conflicting statements made by Steven Dettelbach (ATF Director) during his testimony (under oath) before Congress on April 26, 2023 (testimony link) and then later by the ATF. During questioning from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Director Steven Dettelback implied through a statement that if an individual simply removed the stabilizing brace from their pistol, that was sufficient means of compliance. The ATF later stated that was not sufficient means of compliance and laid forth the following guidance.

• Register your pistol as a short barrel rifle (SBR) (tax stamp fee waved during amnesty period)
• Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm,
• Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached,
• Turn the firearm into your local ATF office,
• Destroy the firearm,

 
All of those "options" provided by the ATF are not rational options. This is why I say that. For over 10 years an individual could legally and without any restrictions own, possess, and use a stabilizing brace on a pistol. That is not opinion or hyperbole, that is fact corroborated by the ATF on multiple occasions. For 10 years the ATF stated it was legal and then because of political pressure (they did the same thing with the bump fire stock following pressure from then President Trump), the ATF altered and/or changed definitions to better fit certain criteria and categories. Then, through the use of a new "rule", they go back on their previous statements and positions to make was what once a legal and common use object now an illegal, but still common use object.

The ATF put this new "rule" out after millions of people purchased stabilizing braces. The exact numbers are not known, but estimates are between 10 - 40 million people own a stabilizing brace. This means the ATF, along with the politicians pushing and backing this new "rule" willingly and knowingly put a large number of law-abiding citizens into a no win legal position for possession of an object, that they were told by the government was legal to be in possession of, but now, through no fault of their own and without due process, they are forced to destroy, surrender, or register their property or face criminal prosecution.

​It is the job of government to protect our rights, not limit them. The actions of the government as it pertains to stabilizing braces is without a doubt limitation of rights. If they are willing to publicly do this to millions of Americans, just think what they will do outside of the public view. Another dangerous aspect of this is the precedent this sets. What other rights will the government arbitrarily infringe on?

Some people vigorously embrace this action from the government because those same people do not support the Second Amendment and believe that no private citizen should be able to exercise their Second Amendment Right. That is fine, people have the right to be willfully ignorant. But if those same people think for a second that the government, at some point, will not come for a Right that they support, they are filled with stupidity. History has shown, governments will always seek more power and when they take a Right from the people, the people never get it back. 

The stabilizing brace issue is a pivotal moment as it pertains to free people. 

Questions

Question 1:
What is the difference between an ATF rule and a law? 


Question 2:
Where does the ATF get the authority to lawfully punish/prosecute a person for breaking or failing to comply with an ATF rule?


Question 3:
Was this new rule specifically designed to target law abiding citizens who own pistol braces or was this law designed to target lawless, violent criminals who may or may not own pistol braces?


Question 4:
According to the research done and data compiled by the ATF in order to make this new rule not be arbitrarily constructed and disenfranchise a certain group of people for absolutely no legal reason, who is believed to own more pistol braces. Law-abiding citizens or lawless, violent criminals?


Question 5:
Who does the ATF have a problem with, law-abiding citizens or lawless, violent criminals?


Question 6:
Who does the ATF expect to largely comply with this new rule. Law-abiding citizens or lawless, violent criminals? 


Question 7:
If it’s law-abiding citizens why did the ATF create a new rule targeting them? If it’s lawless, violent criminals, why didn’t the ATF create a new rule targeting only the criminal?


Question 8:
After millions of people legally purchased and used a pistol brace, why did the ATF suddenly change their mind and decide to put law-abiding citizens in a “no win” and compromising situation for owning/using something that was legal and without committing any previous crime?


Question 9:
According to the research done and data compiled by the ATF, does the ATF believe that the “safety” this new rule brings about benefit society more than it benefits the millions of law abiding citizens that will potentially be labeled and prosecuted as felons now from owning and using a piece of plastic/metal that was once legal and is not a firearm? 


Question 10:
If the benefit to society does not greatly outweigh the damage done to millions of law-abiding citizens, why is the ATF implementing this new rule? What is their motivation?


Question 11:
The ATF is kind enough to give people options on how they can comply with this new rule (thank you for that). Unfortunately, none of these options provide compensation for loss of property and/or time occurred by the owner in order to comply. The only compensation is lack of prosecution if one complies. Therefore, compelled seems to be a more accurate term as one would be “complying” in lieu of prosecution for owning and using something that even the ATF said was legal not that long ago. One of those options is to register the firearm as short barrel rifle (SBR) what is the realistic turn around time from moment of application submission to approval? As it stands right now, that takes many months. What happens when all of a sudden millions of applications are submitted onto of the backlog. With it now be years?


Question 12:
As it pertains to bump stocks, in June of 2018 the ATF said they “misclassified” some bump stock devices, which is why the agency is “entitled” to “correct” its “mistakes”. Is the same true with pistol braces? Did the ATF misclassify some pistol braces and are you now “correcting” a “mistake” on your part by issuing this new rule? If so, why does the ATF continually make these “mistakes” that will eventually lead to Americans, in some cases, millions of Americans being deprived of their property? Also, how do we (The People) know that this new rule is not yet another misclassification mistake on the part of the ATF? A reasonable person can surmise that ATF “mistakes” in the past can also happen in the present and in the future. 


Question 13:
Are these “mistakes” made by the ATF and later “corrected” by the ATF a result of intentional deprivation of property owned by American citizens, ATF incompetence, political pressure, and/or agenda driven? If the answer to any of those is yes, leadership within the ATF should be immediately held accountable both civilly and criminally and the ATF should be dissolved since they cannot be trusted to protect the rights of The People.  


Question 14:
What is the next piece of property that is now legal to own and use that the ATF will realize they “mistakenly misclassified” and demanded that the American people comply with (using fear of future prosecution)? In other words, what will the ATF go after next? Optics, magazines, grips, slings, triggers, charging handles, rifle cases, muzzle breaks, flip up sights, weapon mounted lights, lasers, thermal optics, etc. I would like to know that why I can better prepare to be deprived of my property, money, and/or time for subjective and arbitrary reasons without any compensation. 


Question 15:
What does the ATF care more about as it pertains the the Second Amendment Rights of American citizens?
1: Protecting those Right from government overreach.
2: Infringing on those Rights using government overreach.
The answer is either 1 or 2. There is no explanation or sidestep needed as the answer is that simple. 


Question 16:
The ATF is allowing individuals who own pistol braces to submit the short barrel rifle paperwork without paying the fee since the ATF changed the definition which now negatively effects millions of Americans. Technically an individual is not supposed to be in possession of a SBR until their paperwork is submitted and they are approved. Since the ATF has now made millions of Americans be in possession of what they classify as an SBR, those said Americans are now in possession. If they submit that paperwork and they get an automatic deny due to background being open for more than 88 days (assuming it is because of the overflow of new submissions) what will happen to that individual? Since the ATF is making people incriminate themselves (submission of paperwork), with the ATF then take enforcement action against them for being in possession of an SBR because they government changed the definition on the previously legal item they owned? If enforcement action is taken, what can that individual expect to have happen? This situation is being caused because of the government. What this an unintentional oversight of the writers of this new rule or an intentional “oversight” to turn law abiding citizens into felons and take their guns from them? Intentional or unintentional, this is a problem. 


Question 17:
Does this new “rule” limit our rights or protect our rights?

Video Version of This Article

Thank you for reading this article. We hope it was informative. If so, please share it with others and don't forget to leave a comment below!

- Intuitive Defense -
"TRAIN. ACT. LIVE."