Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Here’s What I Asked the ATF in My Public Comment on the Pistol Brace Ban [Member Exclusive]

Recommended Posts


The early results are in, and Americans are not happy with President Joe Biden's plan to dismantle, register, or confiscate millions of guns equipped with a stabilizing pistol brace. At the beginning of the week, the public submitted nearly 37,000 comments on the proposal. As of Thursday night, the number had risen to over 79,000. And the vast majority appear to be opposed to the regulation.

The proposal raises all sorts of questions the ATF hasn't answered to this point. I detailed some of them in a Member Exclusive (join today!) post this week.

But that wasn't all that happened. Governor Greg Abbott officially made permitless gun carry the law of the land in the Lone Star State. And 22 state AGs asked the Ninth Circuit not to block a federal judge's ruling that California's "assault weapons" ban is unconstitutional.

Plus, a former ATF director speaks out against Biden's pick to head the agency, the case against the McCloskeys gets resolved, a detailed look at a straw purchaser, and more in links this week!


The ATF proposal to restrict pistol braces on the Federal Registr
The ATF proposal to restrict pistol braces on the Federal Registry / Stephen Gutowski

Americans Flood Biden’s Pistol Brace Ban Proposal With Negative Comments

The Biden Administration’s attempt to ban most stabilizing pistol braces is facing swift backlash.

In only five days, the rule change has received nearly 37,000 comments. That’s tens of thousands more comments than most proposals ever get, and the two other proposals in the Federal Register’s “popular documents” section have just 143 and 8 comments, respectively. The comments on the brace ban were also overwhelmingly negative, with people accusing the administration of overstepping its authority and putting millions of Americans in legal jeopardy. The Reload reviewed dozens of comments and couldn’t find any in support of the rule change.

“This is the most arbitrary set of rules I’ve ever heard of,” said Jack Ort, “and you’ll just make millions of normal Americans into felons despite a complete lack of evidence that these braces are a problem.”

The backlash could jeopardize the proposal if it grows big enough. The Trump Administration withdrew a similar proposal in 2020 after an outcry from gun makers and gun owners. The Obama Administration pulled a proposal to ban a kind of ammunition commonly used in AR-15s after it received more than 300,000 public comments opposing it.

Click here to read the full article.


Here’s What I Asked the ATF in My Public Comment on the Pistol Brace Ban [Member Exclusive]

While reporting on the ATF's new pistol brace ban proposal, I asked the agency a series of questions that the press department told me couldn't be answered during the public comment period. Instead, they encouraged me to submit my questions as a comment so the agents working on the proposal could review it and, potentially, answer those important lingering questions. So, I did, and I published the comment for members to check out while it's under review. Here is some of what I asked the ATF:

First, The ATF repeatedly relies on the purported intentions of the first person to apply for approval of a pistol brace as the starting point for much of this regulation. Why did it do that instead of relying on statute?

The ATF also uses an inconsistent standard for determining the weight of a gun. When deciding whether a gun is too light to use a brace, it uses an unloaded gun stripped of its accessories. However, when deciding if a gun is too heavy to use a brace, it uses a gun with a magazine inserted all of the accessories equipped. The weight standard also raises the question of subjectivity. It arbitrarily determines weight limits based on what the ATF believes will be beneficial to helping shooters fire the gun with one hand.

Though shooters vary greatly in size and strength, the regulation offers little reasoning for why the ATF chose the weight limits it did beyond a brief discussion of the weight of an unloaded 1911 and, oddly, a loaded Glock 17.

Similarly, the regulation describes a “cuff-type” design as only capable of partially wrapping around a shooter’s forearm even though the size of shooters’ forearms varies greatly. What doesn’t fit around an ATF agent’s forearm very well may fit around the forearm of a person with a smaller build.

The regulation also raises many questions about enforcement.


Edited by Charlie T Waite
Link to comment

I’m with you, OLG!!!

Link to comment

Sorry, mine did as well & I'm waiting to renew.  Here's a link to who he is and what he now does - I will also keep everyone up to date on the topic once it's posted in the Federal Register.


Stephen Gutowski Leaves Free Beacon to Start His Own Publication About Guns - Gutowski's new joint, "The Reload," launched Monday.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

That'll work!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.