2A Cops' Formal Comment to ATF's Arm Brace
It is imperative that all 2A loving Americans submit a Formal Comment to ATF's "Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with Stabilizing Braces” in the Federal Register. We will provide our formal comment below, but we think it is important to let you know how to do it so that your comment is added to the official record. You have a voice and your comment will make a difference. We need to stop the mayhem that will be caused for gun owners that have an arm brace.
Comments Have Made a Difference Before
@fromtheguncounter (instagram) gave some great advice today that bears repeating. They said in an instagram post today
In 2015, ATF tried to ban green-tip M855 5.56 ammo. They received 80,000 comments, mostly critical. They abandoned it. That's our new goal. We're at 13,000, so there is a long way to go still. Pressure your friends. Have your spouse file a comment. Call out 2A social media and YouTube pages that are not pushing this. From now through January 4 when the comment period ends, this needs to be all we are talking about.
Instagram @fromtheguncounter
How to Comment
Matt and I have worked for the government for a long time. We know some government workers are looking for any reason to ignore your comment about the arm brace guidelines. Here are some fool proof ways to make sure that your comment go through. First, you'll need to go to this link. Then make sure you do the following:
Reference docket number ATF 2020R-10
Make sure your comments are legible
Include the commenters complete first and last name and full mailing address. This is very important. If you don't do this, you won't have your comment counted. I'm picky with where I put my address because of my job. However, I learned long ago that any kindergartner with an internet connection already has my information.
Do not use profanity. I get it. I want to tell the ATF to fuck off too. But that won't get your message heard.
Our Arm Brace Comment
The following comment was submitted by me today. Please do not cut and paste my comments when you file your comment. This is for reference to help you write your own comment.
I am a retired police officer with 30 years of experience in law enforcement. My experience includes working high level drug trafficking cases and criminal street gang investigations. This experience lead me to investigate a number of gun crimes. Additionally, I have 20 years experience working as a SWAT Team Leader and experience as a firearms instructor. I also own my own training firm teaching law enforcement officers how to investigate drug crimes. As part of my instruction, I do cover firearms laws. Lastly, I have my Federal Firearms License 01/03 with an SOT endorsement. As an FFL 01/03, I am well versed in the NFA.
After reviewing ATF's document titled "Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with 'Stabilizing Braces'” in the Federal Register, I felt that it was important to submit my input. I do not agree with ATF's guidelines. Specifically, I believe that the guidelines are completely subjective and leaves gun owners open to the interpretation of an individual's own bias. As a law enforcement officer, these guidelines do nothing to help me determine if a weapon is an SBR or a pistol. To say the guidelines are unclear is an understatement.
ATF proposes that they will take a "holistic" approach to determining whether a pistol with an arm brace is actually an SBR. ATF claims that one factor is the caliber of the pistol. For over 40 years there have been pistols chambered in large calibers like .30-06, .308, and even .50. If ATF will consider caliber as a guide to determining of the pistol is an NFA items, which calibers make the pistol an SBR? The public and law enforcement is left guessing. There should be very clear guidelines.
ATF also proposes "weight and length" as an indicator. I have never seen weight used as an indicator if an item is an SBR. If weight is a factor, what is the specific weight ATF is looking for? Again, this is left to the interpretation of each agent, which is wide open for bias.
The ATF mentions rear contact surface area of the stabilizing brace as an indicator. There is no mention of a specific amount of contact surface. Again, this is left open to interpretation from each ATF agent. The public also has no guidance to determine if they are within the law.
ATF also mentions that the type of sight that is on the pistol can help determine if it is an SBR. However, there are so many types of sights available that it leaves the public guessing if they are in compliance. Also, manufacturing and technology is advancing at a rapid clip. As technology advances, end users have no idea if they are now in compliance. Again, it is open to bias from individual ATF agents.
Lastly, I want to address peripheral accessories. ATF states that peripheral accessories like bipods and monopods can be used to help determine if the weapon is an SBR. However, I have seen Thompson Contenders chambered in magnum rifle rounds with a bipod and a telescopic scope. Hunters and other enthusiasts have used this setup to extend the range of their pistol for over 40 years. However, because of the caliber, the scope and the bipod this would meet the definition of an SBR by ATF's new guidelines. Clearly, though, it is a pistol.
As an experienced law enforcement officer, it appears to me that the ATF is trying to make "guidelines" to counter the ingenuity and manufacturing prowess of the gun industry. However, this is the wrong way to do this. It only makes matters more unclear and leaves citizens wondering if they are within ATF's vision of lawfulness.
If you have any other further questions, feel free to contact me via email or phone. I will be glad to answer your questions.
Keith Graves, Retired Police Sergeant/FFL 01-03