ATF Pistol Brace Ruling Controversy

The ATF pistol brace ruling, issued in December 2020, has been a controversial and highly debated decision with significant implications for gun owners in the United States. In this ruling, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) changed its definition of what constitutes a “pistol brace,” a device that attaches to the back of a firearm to aid in stabilization when firing with one hand.

Previously, certain types of pistol braces were considered to be an accessory and could be used on firearms, such as AR-15 pistols, without requiring the firearm to be registered as a short-barreled rifle (SBR) under the National Firearms Act (NFA). However, the ATF’s new ruling changed this, stating that certain pistol braces would now be considered to be an SBR, requiring registration under the NFA.

The SBR classification is highly regulated, and those who own SBRs are required to pay a $200 tax stamp, submit fingerprints, and undergo a background check. The registration process can be lengthy and complicated, and it is not uncommon for the process to take several months.

The ATF ruling applies to specific types of pistol braces that are designed to be used as a stock or that can be shouldered like a stock. According to the ATF, if a brace is designed to be used as a stock, it is considered to be a stock and, therefore, an SBR. Additionally, if a brace is designed to be shouldered, it is also considered to be a stock and, therefore, an SBR.

The ruling has been met with criticism from gun owners, including myself, and rights groups who believe that the ATF’s decision to reclassify certain pistol braces as SBRs is an attempt to restrict the use of these devices. We argue that the ruling is arbitrary, as many pistol braces have been marketed and sold for years as an accessory to aid in shooting accuracy and stability, and there is no clear distinction between a brace and a stock.

Following the ruling, the ATF issued guidance to clarify its definition of a pistol brace and to provide guidance to gun owners on how to determine whether a specific brace is legal or not. The ATF guidance includes specific criteria that must be met for a brace to be considered legal. For example, the weight of the brace must be less than 2.5 pounds, the brace must not be designed or intended to be used as a shoulder stock, and the brace must have a non-slip surface that contacts the shooter’s forearm.

The guidance also includes a list of factors that the ATF will consider when evaluating whether a particular brace is legal, including the design and function of the brace, the weight and length of the brace, the method of attachment to the firearm, and the shooter’s use of the brace.

In response to the ATF’s ruling, some gun manufacturers have already announced that they will no longer produce certain types of pistol braces, and some gun owners have chosen to remove or replace their existing braces to avoid any potential legal issues.

The ATF pistol brace ruling has also been the subject of legal challenges. In March 2021, the Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit challenging the ruling, arguing that it is arbitrary and capricious and that the ATF did not follow proper administrative procedures in issuing the ruling. The case is still ongoing, and it is unclear what the outcome will be.

In conclusion, the ATF pistol brace ruling is a significant change in how the ATF defines and regulates pistol braces. While the ruling has been met with criticism from gun owners and rights groups, the ATF has provided guidance to clarify its definition of a pistol brace and to help gun owners determine whether their specific brace is legal or not. However, the ruling is still the subject of legal challenges and its ultimate impact on gun ownership