12-18-2020, 02:44 AM
The change is not really surprising if you actually read the BATFE letter to SB Tactical in March 2017.* This is the letter that many have said allowed the blanket approval of "pistol arm braces". When I read it, I did not come to the same conclusion and was frankly amazed that it was interpreted as such. According to my reading, the letter applied to virtually none of the arm braces being sold. Then again, I spent years reading government regulations and guidance letters. My job was to make sure the factories I worked for (that generated hundreds of tons of hazardous waste) were in compliance with OHSA and EPA regulations. There were massive fines and potential jail time if I screwed up, so I learned to pay attention to details in regulations and determinations made by regulating agencies.
Determination letters like this one tend to apply only to the particular example submitted for evaluation. The letter specifically mentions features that were important in the determination. These features are not shared by the majority of shoulder braces sold since then.
Emphasis has been placed on the parts that stood out to me in the letter BATFE sent to SB Tactical. The determination is for a brace "... designed, intended and marketed for use only to shoot from the arm..." An important observation is that the foam on the unit evaluated was soft and floppy to easily conform the the shape of the shooters forearm when it was strapped on. It made a crappy shoulder stock. That helped demonstrate its intent. Any feature that makes a brace a better shoulder stock undermines the argument that its design and intent is to be used "only to shoot from the arm".
The BATFE also noted that the particular pistol-brace that they evaluated was not comfortable to shoot from the shoulder, something they consider pertinent to demonstrating the "intent" that it was unsuitable for use as anything but a forearm brace. This is spelled out clearly in the letter: "With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not "make" a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by the FATD, it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder."
In other words, a brace must be uncomfortable when used as a shoulder stock for this determination to apply. This seemed so obvious to me that a few months ago in another forum, I joked that attorneys will probably start telling their braced-pistol owners to yell "OUCH" each time they shoot them from the shoulder. The big question to me now is whether any legitimate forearm braces will be exempted from the latest determination to allow the handicapped shooters, for whom the braces were initially designed, to continue to use them. It is clear to me that for this to happen, the brace must be damned painful to use from the shoulder.
*The March 2017 ATF letter can be seen on SB Tactical's website: https://www.sb-tactical.com/resources/ba...inion-use/
Determination letters like this one tend to apply only to the particular example submitted for evaluation. The letter specifically mentions features that were important in the determination. These features are not shared by the majority of shoulder braces sold since then.
Emphasis has been placed on the parts that stood out to me in the letter BATFE sent to SB Tactical. The determination is for a brace "... designed, intended and marketed for use only to shoot from the arm..." An important observation is that the foam on the unit evaluated was soft and floppy to easily conform the the shape of the shooters forearm when it was strapped on. It made a crappy shoulder stock. That helped demonstrate its intent. Any feature that makes a brace a better shoulder stock undermines the argument that its design and intent is to be used "only to shoot from the arm".
The BATFE also noted that the particular pistol-brace that they evaluated was not comfortable to shoot from the shoulder, something they consider pertinent to demonstrating the "intent" that it was unsuitable for use as anything but a forearm brace. This is spelled out clearly in the letter: "With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not "make" a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by the FATD, it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder."
In other words, a brace must be uncomfortable when used as a shoulder stock for this determination to apply. This seemed so obvious to me that a few months ago in another forum, I joked that attorneys will probably start telling their braced-pistol owners to yell "OUCH" each time they shoot them from the shoulder. The big question to me now is whether any legitimate forearm braces will be exempted from the latest determination to allow the handicapped shooters, for whom the braces were initially designed, to continue to use them. It is clear to me that for this to happen, the brace must be damned painful to use from the shoulder.
*The March 2017 ATF letter can be seen on SB Tactical's website: https://www.sb-tactical.com/resources/ba...inion-use/