Millions of Americans face the prospect of becoming lawbreakers overnight, pending a decision by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) on the status of pistols equipped with stabilizing braces.
“It’s not an exaggeration; it’s not hyperbole,” said William Kirk, an attorney from the state of Washington. “Everyone is deeply concerned about this issue.”
Tim Harmsen is one of those gun owners. The Valparaiso, Indiana-based firearms dealer and YouTube creator said that, in his view, the ATF has an ulterior motive.
He said the motivation is not safety or crime prevention. Harmsen described the strategy as gun control “by a thousand cuts.”
“The anti-gunners are playing the long game. They know they have time on their side,” said Harmsen.
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) has introduced a bill to remove these firearms from under ATF jurisdiction. Marshall’s bill, S.4986, is titled the “Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act.” (SHORT Act)
The bill would remove short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain other weapons from the definition of firearms for purposes of the National Firearms Act.
“We now await the publishing of the Biden administration’s rule attempting to turn millions of law-abiding citizens into felons unless they comply with the ATF’s vague reinterpretation of what constitutes a short-barreled rifle, despite Congress taking no action to amend Federal law on this matter.
“My bill is the only way to ensure the Constitutional rights of gun owners are protected against the ATF’s reckless abuse of the NFA to justify its pistol brace rule,” said Marshall.
The number of Americans impacted is difficult to determine. The ATF estimates that 3 million pistol braces have been sold. Second Amendment advocates say the number is closer to 40 million.
At issue is a device introduced in 2012 to assist shooters with disabilities and others who may need help shooting pistols built on the AR 15 platform.
The stabilizing brace attaches to the rear of the pistol and the shooter’s forearm. This allows the shooter a steadier aim while holding the pistol with one hand.
In 2014 the ATF received requests from law enforcement and firearms dealers about the possible reclassification of pistols equipped with stabilizers as short-barreled rifles (SBR) under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
Those who contacted the ATF were concerned that the brace could be used as a stock, allowing the shooter to shoulder the pistol like a rifle.
The NFA was written in 1934 to address gangland violence.
ATF Considers Intent of Gun Owner
The NFA defines an SBR as “a weapon made from a rifle is such weapon as modified has an overall length of fewer than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.”In an open letter dated Jan. 16, 2015, the ATF indicated that the stabilizing brace alone did not reclassify the weapon as an SBR. Instead, the intent of the person who installed the brace was the determining factor.
In part, the letter reads, “Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol [having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length] must file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.”
This did little to settle the debate.
The AR15, reportedly the most popular rifle in the United States, is popular specifically because it can be modified to suit the shooter’s tastes. Various manufacturers sell kits and specialized parts for AR15 owners to customize their firearms.
Harmsen said the AR15 pistol with the stabilizing brace is one of the most popular items in his store.
“They’re used for self-defense, they’re used for hunting, they have a variety of uses,” he said.
The confusion has resulted in the ATF issuing, then withdrawing rules that didn’t answer all the questions raised.
The most recent rule was issued in 2020 and called for a worksheet to determine if the item in question constituted an SBR.
Points May Not Matter
On the worksheet, he first note clarifies that the ATF “reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with ‘stabilizing braces’ for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a ‘short-barreled rifle’ and circumvent the GCA or NFA.”The rule gave those who owned the newly-illegal items options for correcting the situation.
First would be replacing the short barrel with a legal one at least 16 inches long. This would convert the SBR to a legal rifle under the NFA.
The next option is to remove the brace and modify it so it can’t be reattached to a pistol.
In an instructional video on his website, Kirk said this doesn’t necessarily mean destroying the brace, but it would have to be rendered useless for its original purpose.
Finally, the rule called for an “amnesty” period in which the new SBR owners could pay the tax and register their firearms without fear of prosecution.
Kirk takes issue with the idea of amnesty for an action that was legal when it was first undertaken.
“Now, with the stroke of a pen, the ATF is going to do an about-face on that?” Kirk said.
Second Amendment Advocates Expect Litigation
Erik Longnecker, deputy chief of the ATF’s Public Affairs Division, would not comment on the rule. Longnecker said the rule is still being written, but he expects it to be released this month as scheduled.“Once the final comes, and barring any litigation, we’ll be free and ready to talk about it,” he said.
Harmsen and Kirk said litigation is guaranteed. Both warn that the real issue has little to do with braces or helping disabled shooters.
“Gun control is never about the guns,” Kirk said. “It’s always about control.”
Kirk said the Biden administration makes no bones about its desire for stricter gun control.
The strategy is to hammer away at the industry by increasingly tighter rules and regulations to achieve what cannot be done through legislation.
Kirk said Congress has shifted its authority to federal agencies and allowed them to issue rules with the weight of the law.
‘You’re a Free American’
Harmsen agreed. Stressing that he is not an attorney, Harmsen pointed out that he—like most gun owners—can read and understand the constitution.They also want to comply with the law. But that is made difficult by government agencies, he believes are focused on denying citizens their constitutional rights.
“The Second Amendment doesn’t say [a firearm] has to be practical. We have to fight this,” Harmsen said.
Kirk said the best course of action is for individuals to educate themselves and others and to vote.
“This is an all-out war on this right. We need to get out and vote; we need to nominate good candidates. We have an obligation to start educating people,” Kirk said.
Harmsen agreed. He said that people come to his store every day and ask what they should do in light of what appears to be an assault on their constitutional rights.
“We are not in a position to offer legal advice, and we won’t tell people to break the law,” Harmsen said. “We do urge people to be politically active. You do what you feel is right. You’re a free American.”
