The other thing is that they have all the reach. We cannot afford to be wrong, even once, even in a fairly innocuous manner like this. It's convenient that most of the antis are so ignorant that they probably don't even know Lott was wrong, but once they find out, they'll undoubtedly trumpet it high and low.
We have to shoot a 100 score. They get away with shooting a 20 and calling it a 100.
I could say more about how true. I will be using your scorekeeper analogy, and quoting you and giving you credit in a couple of posts I am writing about how the Left's control of the media is the "reach" for the weapons that they have used to carry themselves to victory in their Long March through the Institutions. Thanks!!!
I suspect that the unusually high compliance rate among brace owners resulted from the free Form 1s the ATF was handing out.
A Form 1, for anyone who doesn't know, is an application to build a short-barreled rifle/shotgun. It takes about a month to approve, and the associated tax stamp costs $200. ATF said that during the amnesty period, pistol brace owners who wanted to convert their brace guns to SBRs would get moved to the front of the application line, and they'd waive the tax fee.
I can understand why some people did it, but I very much don't want to be in that database. Yeah, I know, it's probably irrelevant, but it's just how I feel about it anyway. I don't trust F-Troop, and I don't want to be any further an object of their attention than necessary.
Yep. I'm already in there, so if I'd dodged a stamp with a brace after the fact I'd happily sign up for free extra stamps now. I even considered making one or two more pistols to get free stamps with after they issued the rule, but ultimately just didn't feel like I needed to own that many AR-15s.
I think maybe I should have registered a few of my pistols that I'd like to be able to run in an SBR config. Another benefit is that they aren't requiring the gun to be marked in the usual NFA fashion.
Yup. Makes perfect sense. If you're already in the registry and *can* get a free, fast Form 1 done, why not?
I'm not in there (and don't even own a pistol braced AR, mostly because I don't particularly care for the platform) so if I were in that position, I'd be hella leery about adding myself to it.
I really hope that we get the NFA and Miller overturned in my lifetime. There's a bunch of stuff I'd like to make.
My guess is that this inflated number isn't apart of a direct attack on the ruling but to bolster "common use" claims in the inevitable court battle.
If braced AR pistols are numerous enough to be in "common use", and they are, according to ATF, a subset of short barreled AR rifles, which are a subset of ARs in general, then all are protected by the second amendment. Boom. Assault weapon bans and a good chunk of the NFA are on the chopping block.
I’ll preface with, I love the work at HWFO, and I cite it often. With that said… If we’re all about being honest, and calling out bad information… someone should either ASK John how he arrived at 29M, yeah? Absent actually asking him, you could derive that information from the 20-40M pistol type “guns” procured in that pistol configuration, then halving that number and erring on a value slightly lower than the reported median (29M). OR, one could investigate how many pistol braces have been sold, and extrapolate how many firearms those were applied to, along with the number of firearms sold in THAT configuration. It’s not entirely unreasonable to arrive at an estimated number. AND, if we are being honest, these types of figures are ALWAYS estimates, because we don’t have a registry for these things and include an estimated guess (with appropriate contextual explanation) to substantiate that estimate.
Furthermore, if we are being honest, you can’t simply remove a stock from a “rifle” and suddenly have it become a pistol. If the firearm in question was sold as a rifle, per the law, it doesn’t become a pistol when the stock is removed. To wit:
“Some Dude: “And if I pull the stock off of a rifle, then it’s a pistol right?”
ATF: “Yeah I guess.””
is at a minimum confusing and at most dishonest, with regards to the interpretation from the ATF concerning Title 1 firearms and configurations, per the USC definitions and case precedent. The ATF even explains this, with their USC source in the below ruling. Pistol > Rifle > Pistol is allowed. Rifle > Pistol is not allowed. If it starts as a rifle, it’s always a rifle. Pistol/Handgun “originally” designed is referenced in this ruling (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2011-4-pistols-configured-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download)
This is why “receiver” is a category, during A&D (Acquisition and Disposition) at an FFL. A receiver can go either way, and categorizing in the bound book as a “rifle” when a “receiver” is sold marks the item as “starting life as a rifle” and can be legally problematic for the purchaser. This is also defined on the 4473 sec. 24 (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download)
Again, appreciate the work, but there’s some additional context required on this posting.
I think the ATF actually did a great job of deriving their number, based on their comment response in the federal registry I linked. A closer look though shows that I went with 5 million (the number recommended to the ATF by Sig) and the ATF went with 3 million. I realize that's a very long document though, so here's the relevant section:
Several commenters were confused by the difference in population numbers—the 3 million estimated “arm braces” versus the 1.4 million individuals affected. They stated that ATF's cited population of 1.4 million individuals in possession of “braces” was too low. Another commenter suggested the cost estimate was incorrect because the population of firearms impacted by the proposed rule was too low. Many commenters pointed out a discrepancy regarding the number of pistol-braced firearms projected to be impacted by the proposed rule. These commenters additionally stated that the proposed rule used an estimated circulation of 3 to 7 million pistol braces, while a recently published Congressional Research Services (“CRS”) report had an estimate suggesting there may be between 10 and 40 million braces with some arguing that the number of braces and pistol-braced firearms would be “upwards of 40,000,000.” Another commenter suggested ATF's intentional use of the lower estimate of 3 million was “self-serving.” One commenter implied that, if ATF were to use the 3 to 7 million range, then the midpoint (5 million) should be the number used. One commenter believed that ATF likely underestimated the number of FFLs engaged in the buying and selling of “brace” devices, thereby suggesting that the impact to the industry would be greater than what was stated in the proposed rule. Finally, a commenter stated that ATF's analysis assumed that “every stabilizing brace in existence is covered by the NPRM” (emphasis omitted), and the commenter thus worried the rule will ban all existing “stabilizing braces.”
Department Response
The Department disagrees with the commenters regarding the estimated population of individuals affected by this rule and the number of “brace” devices and firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace” currently in circulation. ATF estimates that there are 3 million “stabilizing braces” and firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace” currently in circulation. While ATF estimated in the NPRM that the number of “brace” devices is between 3 million to 7 million, ATF anticipates that the more accurate figure is closer to 3 million. This estimate is based on anecdotal commentary from the manufacturers, information gleaned from ATF field offices throughout the United States, and subject matter experts' conclusion that—based on the number of pistols manufactured during the same time period and the popularity of the “brace” devices over the years—manufacturers may have inflated their sales estimates in recent years. In particular, “stabilizing braces” have only been on the market since 2012 and became more popular only in the last few years, so there has not been enough time for as many of them to be sold as reported in some estimates.
The Department disagrees that there is a 1:1 ratio between the number of individuals affected and the number of “stabilizing braces” or firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” in circulation. The Pew Research Center reports that, of people who own firearms, two-thirds own multiple firearms; and, as evidenced by the number of bump-stock-type devices turned in by each individual after a previous ATF rulemaking, individuals can and are likely to purchase more than one firearm or, in this case, more than one “stabilizing brace” or firearm with an attached “stabilizing brace.” [157]
After publication of the Bump-Stock-Type Devices final rule in December 2018,[158] individual owners turned in between 1 and 63 bump-stock-type devices. Overall, ATF found that people turned in to ATF an average of 2 bump stocks. Therefore, the number of individuals affected by this rule is likely lower than the number of “stabilizing braces” or firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” currently in circulation.
It should be noted that the original maker of the “stabilizing brace” marketed it in 2012 and 2013 to assist persons with disabilities or limited mobility to shoot a heavy pistol with a single hand. The demand and production for “stabilizing braces” did not appear to take off until 2017, when numerous other models were produced that were marketed to shoulder fire a firearm and several manufacturers sold firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace.” This relatively recent rise in popularity suggests that “brace” devices and firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” have not been around long enough to warrant larger figures, as discussed further in this section below.
ATF is aware that the CRS report provided higher numbers of “stabilizing braces,” but it also provided no basis for its unofficial estimate.[159]
To determine whether this estimate was suitable for purposes of ATF's RIA, ATF compared CRS's figures against those provided in the report on
Firearms Commerce in the United States: Annual Statistical Update 2021.[160]
This report provides an estimate of the number of firearms (including pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and miscellaneous firearms) manufactured in the United States, as reported by manufacturers. According to the report, ATF estimates that a total of 65.1 million firearms, with just under 27 million pistols, were manufactured in the United States between 2013 and 2019.[161]
Although the most recent report is not yet final, ATF's estimates that 12 million firearms were manufactured in 2020.[162]
Therefore, ATF now estimates that, between 2013 to 2020, a total of 77.1 million firearms, of which 32.4 million pistols, were manufactured in the United States.
If there was a population of 10 to 40 million “stabilizing braces,” as suggested by CRS, this range would be too high. Using the high end of the range would mean there are at least as many “brace” devices or firearms with an attached “brace” device as there were pistols manufactured in the U.S. between 2013 to 2020 (i.e., 32.4 million pistols). And even at the low end of the CRS estimate, it would mean nearly a third of the pistols manufactured between 2013 to 2020 are equipped with a “stabilizing brace.” Because “stabilizing braces” are only used on a subset of pistols, not on all pistols, and because not all pistols manufactured are pistols equipped with a “stabilizing brace” or are the type of pistol for which a person would attach a “stabilizing brace,” ATF's subject matter experts concluded that using the CRS estimate was not appropriate for this analysis. Further, anecdotal commentary from industry that ATF received as it was preparing the preliminary RIA for the NPRM also suggested to ATF that the CRS estimate is much too high. Therefore, ATF does not adopt the CRS figures.
ATF is also choosing not to use the mid-point estimate of 5 million as suggested by Sig Sauer. Based on the historical number of pistols produced, an estimate of 5 million would suggest that there was just under one firearm with an attached “stabilizing brace” produced for every six pistols manufactured (or approximately 16 percent of all pistols). Additionally, based on information gleaned from field offices throughout ATF, only a subset of FFLs may carry “braces” or firearms with an attached “brace,” and of those that do carry these items, they carry in their inventory only an average of seven “braces” or firearms with a “brace” device.[163]
ATF's survey, as described in footnote 163, suggests that a ratio of one firearm with a “stabilizing brace” produced for every six pistols would still be too high. ATF thus concluded that, based on its experience, an estimate of 5 million was too high. ATF also considers that choosing to use 3 million rather than 5 million is reasonable because “stabilizing braces” did not become more popular until recent years, and hence manufacturers likely did not have sufficient time to produce numbers in the range of the higher estimates suggested by commenters or CRS and as discussed in the paragraphs above.
ATF agrees that it may have not accounted for all “stabilizing braces” being used by persons with disabilities; however, ATF disagrees that this oversight indicates that the rule prohibits any “stabilizing braces,” including those used by persons with disabilities. For purposes of the final RIA analysis, ATF incorporates this public comment and estimates that a portion of the existing “stabilizing braces,” including some that may have been purchased by persons with disabilities, will not, when attached to a firearm, result in a weapon designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. That portion of existing “braces” will not be affected by the rule.
Under the statutory provisions, companies may still produce “stabilizing braces,” and individuals may continue to possess and use them to assist with one-handed shooting. In publishing the NPRM and this rule, ATF made every effort to make clear that neither the rule nor the statutes prevent persons with disabilities from possessing a “stabilizing brace” that aids in stabilizing the arm to shoot a pistol with one hand. The rule only articulates—based on the best interpretation of the relevant statutes—how to determine which of those firearms configured with a “stabilizing brace” fall within the definition of “rifle.” Rifles with barrel lengths of less than 16 inches are short-barreled rifles subject to NFA registration and taxation requirements, but they are not illegal to possess so long as those requirements are followed.
The 20 million number might be right in a way, but not the way it's being sold to us.
AR-based pistols are only part of the pistol brace market. There's dracos, 'firearm' short shotguns, a vast assortment of SMG-style pistols, all are contributing to this number that could easily reach 20 million installed pistol braces.
But the new rule effect isn't making them all felons.
First we have those who took advantage of the free form 1s. Then we have the people who took the braces off, pitched them, or just put them in the closet, waiting for the rule to be struck down to put them back on. We have no numbers on these people because they are impossible to track. We know that the number that turned them in to local law enforcement is low enough to be considered zero, but as for all the rest
Who knows?
"29 million felons" though is a blatant reach. "29 million potential felons" would have at least been journalisticlly more honest, if an extrapolation based on very little real data.
So, while I agree with what you wrote, for the most part, one issue still occurs (as you pointed out). IMO, the difference between 6 and 30 million is a rounding error in terms of impact. You move it from 2%-10% of the population. Regardless, on those scales, either number (IMO) is completely ridiculous. No, I don't agree with fudging the numbers to try and win arguments (aka, interweb points). For that matter, just stick to the raw numbers (like the low information haters do) and ignore the percentage. Both are large enough numbers that should concern anyone.
The video sums up the absurdity and again ATF has no constitutional authority to “infringe” on the simple, black & white language of 2A. 2A was written so even stupid people could understand, but Gov is beyond stupid 🤦
Even Wikipedia explains that the only reason the NFA of 1934 covers weapons based upon barrel length is an artifact of its legislative history. The Act was originally written to regulate handguns just like machineguns. The barrel length provisions were included to prevent the conversion of rifles and shotguns into [the functional equivalent of] unregulated handguns.
As the Act was being deliberated, public opposition motivated Congress to remove the language regulating handguns. But it neglected to remove the now-redundant barrel length provisions.
Fast forward ninety years and a not insubstantial federal bureaucracy has evolved to police firearms based upon barrel length. Many people have also been sent to federal prison for possessing rifles and shotguns with barrels that were too short. To top it all off, any discussion involving guns is ridiculously polarized and the meaning of the phrase “gun control compromise” is universally understood to mean Republicans voting for more gun control.
Considering the number of lives that have been destroyed by overzealous enforcement of these patently absurd provisions of the NFA, I’d give anyone fighting it a lot of slack.
I suspect most people who complied simply removed the brace. I find the brace to get in the way of aiming with my back-up sights and I do not possess the shoulder strength to shoot a large platform pistol one handed.
You're killing it. I'm going to stick these in an article. What else you got? Do you want credit for the inspiration whenever I do finally get around to writing it?
Heh. I said basically the same thing when someone trotted out that headline.
"That number seems wrong."
Yes. The right "doing the same crap the left does in the gun debate". It's a mistake in the long run.
We are right, they are wrong. Us being wrong too is not an improvement.
++
The other thing is that they have all the reach. We cannot afford to be wrong, even once, even in a fairly innocuous manner like this. It's convenient that most of the antis are so ignorant that they probably don't even know Lott was wrong, but once they find out, they'll undoubtedly trumpet it high and low.
We have to shoot a 100 score. They get away with shooting a 20 and calling it a 100.
Perfectly true.
I could say more about how true. I will be using your scorekeeper analogy, and quoting you and giving you credit in a couple of posts I am writing about how the Left's control of the media is the "reach" for the weapons that they have used to carry themselves to victory in their Long March through the Institutions. Thanks!!!
I suspect that the unusually high compliance rate among brace owners resulted from the free Form 1s the ATF was handing out.
A Form 1, for anyone who doesn't know, is an application to build a short-barreled rifle/shotgun. It takes about a month to approve, and the associated tax stamp costs $200. ATF said that during the amnesty period, pistol brace owners who wanted to convert their brace guns to SBRs would get moved to the front of the application line, and they'd waive the tax fee.
Took a year to approve the last time I did it, which is a credit to the ATF to be honest.
Giving the devil his due, the EForms system works pretty well. It's been responsible for a lot of my recent financial irresponsibility.
I last registered several NFA toys around 2010, they were much faster back then - 3-4 months.
I can understand why some people did it, but I very much don't want to be in that database. Yeah, I know, it's probably irrelevant, but it's just how I feel about it anyway. I don't trust F-Troop, and I don't want to be any further an object of their attention than necessary.
My bet is that the vast majority of braced pistol owners are like you and either don't care or are unwilling to go on the NFA list.
I think the vast majority of the forms filed are from people who already are in the list and wanted free stamps for guns they want to SBR.
Yep. I'm already in there, so if I'd dodged a stamp with a brace after the fact I'd happily sign up for free extra stamps now. I even considered making one or two more pistols to get free stamps with after they issued the rule, but ultimately just didn't feel like I needed to own that many AR-15s.
I think maybe I should have registered a few of my pistols that I'd like to be able to run in an SBR config. Another benefit is that they aren't requiring the gun to be marked in the usual NFA fashion.
Yup. Makes perfect sense. If you're already in the registry and *can* get a free, fast Form 1 done, why not?
I'm not in there (and don't even own a pistol braced AR, mostly because I don't particularly care for the platform) so if I were in that position, I'd be hella leery about adding myself to it.
I really hope that we get the NFA and Miller overturned in my lifetime. There's a bunch of stuff I'd like to make.
Don't worry, we here are all already on a list...... Just by association and thanks to the alphabet "security" agency
Back in the day, I had people use that excuse to not join the NRA (Back when the NRA was worth a damn): "I don't want to be put on a list."
I quit worrying bout that LONG ago. I'm already on so many lists that one more doesn't matter. 😎
Yeah, I know. It's almost certainly a pointless thing to consider at this time, but old habits die hard.
My guess is that this inflated number isn't apart of a direct attack on the ruling but to bolster "common use" claims in the inevitable court battle.
If braced AR pistols are numerous enough to be in "common use", and they are, according to ATF, a subset of short barreled AR rifles, which are a subset of ARs in general, then all are protected by the second amendment. Boom. Assault weapon bans and a good chunk of the NFA are on the chopping block.
I’ll preface with, I love the work at HWFO, and I cite it often. With that said… If we’re all about being honest, and calling out bad information… someone should either ASK John how he arrived at 29M, yeah? Absent actually asking him, you could derive that information from the 20-40M pistol type “guns” procured in that pistol configuration, then halving that number and erring on a value slightly lower than the reported median (29M). OR, one could investigate how many pistol braces have been sold, and extrapolate how many firearms those were applied to, along with the number of firearms sold in THAT configuration. It’s not entirely unreasonable to arrive at an estimated number. AND, if we are being honest, these types of figures are ALWAYS estimates, because we don’t have a registry for these things and include an estimated guess (with appropriate contextual explanation) to substantiate that estimate.
Furthermore, if we are being honest, you can’t simply remove a stock from a “rifle” and suddenly have it become a pistol. If the firearm in question was sold as a rifle, per the law, it doesn’t become a pistol when the stock is removed. To wit:
“Some Dude: “And if I pull the stock off of a rifle, then it’s a pistol right?”
ATF: “Yeah I guess.””
is at a minimum confusing and at most dishonest, with regards to the interpretation from the ATF concerning Title 1 firearms and configurations, per the USC definitions and case precedent. The ATF even explains this, with their USC source in the below ruling. Pistol > Rifle > Pistol is allowed. Rifle > Pistol is not allowed. If it starts as a rifle, it’s always a rifle. Pistol/Handgun “originally” designed is referenced in this ruling (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2011-4-pistols-configured-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download)
This is why “receiver” is a category, during A&D (Acquisition and Disposition) at an FFL. A receiver can go either way, and categorizing in the bound book as a “rifle” when a “receiver” is sold marks the item as “starting life as a rifle” and can be legally problematic for the purchaser. This is also defined on the 4473 sec. 24 (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download)
Again, appreciate the work, but there’s some additional context required on this posting.
I think the ATF actually did a great job of deriving their number, based on their comment response in the federal registry I linked. A closer look though shows that I went with 5 million (the number recommended to the ATF by Sig) and the ATF went with 3 million. I realize that's a very long document though, so here's the relevant section:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/31/2023-01001/factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces
*********************************************
b. Population
Comments Received
Several commenters were confused by the difference in population numbers—the 3 million estimated “arm braces” versus the 1.4 million individuals affected. They stated that ATF's cited population of 1.4 million individuals in possession of “braces” was too low. Another commenter suggested the cost estimate was incorrect because the population of firearms impacted by the proposed rule was too low. Many commenters pointed out a discrepancy regarding the number of pistol-braced firearms projected to be impacted by the proposed rule. These commenters additionally stated that the proposed rule used an estimated circulation of 3 to 7 million pistol braces, while a recently published Congressional Research Services (“CRS”) report had an estimate suggesting there may be between 10 and 40 million braces with some arguing that the number of braces and pistol-braced firearms would be “upwards of 40,000,000.” Another commenter suggested ATF's intentional use of the lower estimate of 3 million was “self-serving.” One commenter implied that, if ATF were to use the 3 to 7 million range, then the midpoint (5 million) should be the number used. One commenter believed that ATF likely underestimated the number of FFLs engaged in the buying and selling of “brace” devices, thereby suggesting that the impact to the industry would be greater than what was stated in the proposed rule. Finally, a commenter stated that ATF's analysis assumed that “every stabilizing brace in existence is covered by the NPRM” (emphasis omitted), and the commenter thus worried the rule will ban all existing “stabilizing braces.”
Department Response
The Department disagrees with the commenters regarding the estimated population of individuals affected by this rule and the number of “brace” devices and firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace” currently in circulation. ATF estimates that there are 3 million “stabilizing braces” and firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace” currently in circulation. While ATF estimated in the NPRM that the number of “brace” devices is between 3 million to 7 million, ATF anticipates that the more accurate figure is closer to 3 million. This estimate is based on anecdotal commentary from the manufacturers, information gleaned from ATF field offices throughout the United States, and subject matter experts' conclusion that—based on the number of pistols manufactured during the same time period and the popularity of the “brace” devices over the years—manufacturers may have inflated their sales estimates in recent years. In particular, “stabilizing braces” have only been on the market since 2012 and became more popular only in the last few years, so there has not been enough time for as many of them to be sold as reported in some estimates.
The Department disagrees that there is a 1:1 ratio between the number of individuals affected and the number of “stabilizing braces” or firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” in circulation. The Pew Research Center reports that, of people who own firearms, two-thirds own multiple firearms; and, as evidenced by the number of bump-stock-type devices turned in by each individual after a previous ATF rulemaking, individuals can and are likely to purchase more than one firearm or, in this case, more than one “stabilizing brace” or firearm with an attached “stabilizing brace.” [157]
After publication of the Bump-Stock-Type Devices final rule in December 2018,[158] individual owners turned in between 1 and 63 bump-stock-type devices. Overall, ATF found that people turned in to ATF an average of 2 bump stocks. Therefore, the number of individuals affected by this rule is likely lower than the number of “stabilizing braces” or firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” currently in circulation.
It should be noted that the original maker of the “stabilizing brace” marketed it in 2012 and 2013 to assist persons with disabilities or limited mobility to shoot a heavy pistol with a single hand. The demand and production for “stabilizing braces” did not appear to take off until 2017, when numerous other models were produced that were marketed to shoulder fire a firearm and several manufacturers sold firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace.” This relatively recent rise in popularity suggests that “brace” devices and firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” have not been around long enough to warrant larger figures, as discussed further in this section below.
ATF is aware that the CRS report provided higher numbers of “stabilizing braces,” but it also provided no basis for its unofficial estimate.[159]
To determine whether this estimate was suitable for purposes of ATF's RIA, ATF compared CRS's figures against those provided in the report on
Firearms Commerce in the United States: Annual Statistical Update 2021.[160]
This report provides an estimate of the number of firearms (including pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and miscellaneous firearms) manufactured in the United States, as reported by manufacturers. According to the report, ATF estimates that a total of 65.1 million firearms, with just under 27 million pistols, were manufactured in the United States between 2013 and 2019.[161]
Although the most recent report is not yet final, ATF's estimates that 12 million firearms were manufactured in 2020.[162]
Therefore, ATF now estimates that, between 2013 to 2020, a total of 77.1 million firearms, of which 32.4 million pistols, were manufactured in the United States.
If there was a population of 10 to 40 million “stabilizing braces,” as suggested by CRS, this range would be too high. Using the high end of the range would mean there are at least as many “brace” devices or firearms with an attached “brace” device as there were pistols manufactured in the U.S. between 2013 to 2020 (i.e., 32.4 million pistols). And even at the low end of the CRS estimate, it would mean nearly a third of the pistols manufactured between 2013 to 2020 are equipped with a “stabilizing brace.” Because “stabilizing braces” are only used on a subset of pistols, not on all pistols, and because not all pistols manufactured are pistols equipped with a “stabilizing brace” or are the type of pistol for which a person would attach a “stabilizing brace,” ATF's subject matter experts concluded that using the CRS estimate was not appropriate for this analysis. Further, anecdotal commentary from industry that ATF received as it was preparing the preliminary RIA for the NPRM also suggested to ATF that the CRS estimate is much too high. Therefore, ATF does not adopt the CRS figures.
ATF is also choosing not to use the mid-point estimate of 5 million as suggested by Sig Sauer. Based on the historical number of pistols produced, an estimate of 5 million would suggest that there was just under one firearm with an attached “stabilizing brace” produced for every six pistols manufactured (or approximately 16 percent of all pistols). Additionally, based on information gleaned from field offices throughout ATF, only a subset of FFLs may carry “braces” or firearms with an attached “brace,” and of those that do carry these items, they carry in their inventory only an average of seven “braces” or firearms with a “brace” device.[163]
ATF's survey, as described in footnote 163, suggests that a ratio of one firearm with a “stabilizing brace” produced for every six pistols would still be too high. ATF thus concluded that, based on its experience, an estimate of 5 million was too high. ATF also considers that choosing to use 3 million rather than 5 million is reasonable because “stabilizing braces” did not become more popular until recent years, and hence manufacturers likely did not have sufficient time to produce numbers in the range of the higher estimates suggested by commenters or CRS and as discussed in the paragraphs above.
ATF agrees that it may have not accounted for all “stabilizing braces” being used by persons with disabilities; however, ATF disagrees that this oversight indicates that the rule prohibits any “stabilizing braces,” including those used by persons with disabilities. For purposes of the final RIA analysis, ATF incorporates this public comment and estimates that a portion of the existing “stabilizing braces,” including some that may have been purchased by persons with disabilities, will not, when attached to a firearm, result in a weapon designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. That portion of existing “braces” will not be affected by the rule.
Under the statutory provisions, companies may still produce “stabilizing braces,” and individuals may continue to possess and use them to assist with one-handed shooting. In publishing the NPRM and this rule, ATF made every effort to make clear that neither the rule nor the statutes prevent persons with disabilities from possessing a “stabilizing brace” that aids in stabilizing the arm to shoot a pistol with one hand. The rule only articulates—based on the best interpretation of the relevant statutes—how to determine which of those firearms configured with a “stabilizing brace” fall within the definition of “rifle.” Rifles with barrel lengths of less than 16 inches are short-barreled rifles subject to NFA registration and taxation requirements, but they are not illegal to possess so long as those requirements are followed.
The 20 million number might be right in a way, but not the way it's being sold to us.
AR-based pistols are only part of the pistol brace market. There's dracos, 'firearm' short shotguns, a vast assortment of SMG-style pistols, all are contributing to this number that could easily reach 20 million installed pistol braces.
But the new rule effect isn't making them all felons.
First we have those who took advantage of the free form 1s. Then we have the people who took the braces off, pitched them, or just put them in the closet, waiting for the rule to be struck down to put them back on. We have no numbers on these people because they are impossible to track. We know that the number that turned them in to local law enforcement is low enough to be considered zero, but as for all the rest
Who knows?
"29 million felons" though is a blatant reach. "29 million potential felons" would have at least been journalisticlly more honest, if an extrapolation based on very little real data.
So, while I agree with what you wrote, for the most part, one issue still occurs (as you pointed out). IMO, the difference between 6 and 30 million is a rounding error in terms of impact. You move it from 2%-10% of the population. Regardless, on those scales, either number (IMO) is completely ridiculous. No, I don't agree with fudging the numbers to try and win arguments (aka, interweb points). For that matter, just stick to the raw numbers (like the low information haters do) and ignore the percentage. Both are large enough numbers that should concern anyone.
The video sums up the absurdity and again ATF has no constitutional authority to “infringe” on the simple, black & white language of 2A. 2A was written so even stupid people could understand, but Gov is beyond stupid 🤦
But it says "mmmmmmuhlitia"
Sensible gun control: bothering to do the actual math.
Even Wikipedia explains that the only reason the NFA of 1934 covers weapons based upon barrel length is an artifact of its legislative history. The Act was originally written to regulate handguns just like machineguns. The barrel length provisions were included to prevent the conversion of rifles and shotguns into [the functional equivalent of] unregulated handguns.
As the Act was being deliberated, public opposition motivated Congress to remove the language regulating handguns. But it neglected to remove the now-redundant barrel length provisions.
Fast forward ninety years and a not insubstantial federal bureaucracy has evolved to police firearms based upon barrel length. Many people have also been sent to federal prison for possessing rifles and shotguns with barrels that were too short. To top it all off, any discussion involving guns is ridiculously polarized and the meaning of the phrase “gun control compromise” is universally understood to mean Republicans voting for more gun control.
Considering the number of lives that have been destroyed by overzealous enforcement of these patently absurd provisions of the NFA, I’d give anyone fighting it a lot of slack.
The ATF stands for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, right?
Next things on the list for the ATF to regulate: grills, barbecues, beer, coolers, and midday to afternoon gatherings in backyards.
Then open stores with "pre-approved goods". Make a ton of money with the ATF Pre-Approved store.
I suspect most people who complied simply removed the brace. I find the brace to get in the way of aiming with my back-up sights and I do not possess the shoulder strength to shoot a large platform pistol one handed.
I love that framing. We have 2 million people in US prison systems, this would triple that.
You're killing it. I'm going to stick these in an article. What else you got? Do you want credit for the inspiration whenever I do finally get around to writing it?
We can't say we collab until we do. :)