TLDR: A Federal district court has ruled that during the course of a case regarding validity of the ATF’s rule on pistol stabilizing braces the rule may shall not be enforced.
Important Background Info:
What’s a pistol stabilizing brace?
It’s an attachment designed to latch onto the a person’s forearm to stabilize a firearm.
Whats the deal with them?
An early draft of the 1934 National Firearms Act was going to add restrictions to pistols and also had restrictions on short barreled rifles & shotguns to avoid people skirting the rulings on pistols. The pistol part got removed from the final bill but the short barrel rifle/shotgun bit didn’t. The ATF has switched back and forth but their current opinion is that putting a brace on a pistol turns it into a rifle. Most pistols with a brace have short barrels making them unregistered short barreled rifles in the eyes of the ATF.
Not a law but a rule?
The Administrative Procedures Act lets government agencies interpret laws but not make new laws. Agencies must announce a proposed ruling and have a comment period before implementing it. Here the ATF claims the brace meets the definition of a stock, turning guns equiped with them from being classified as pistols into rifles. The plaintiff says this final rule is too different from the proposed ruling they had a comment period on and the braces aught to be protected by the Common Use doctrine.
Thanks for the information. I guess I should have listened to my buddy when he said not to waste time with the form. But I definitely didn’t feel like becoming a felon for something I legally purchased. Yeah, it’s a brace.