The ATF announced a proposal yesterday that would outlaw the vast majority of guns with stabilizing pistol braces. There are estimated to be as many as 40 million currently owned by Americans. thereload.com/biden-admins-p…
The ATF's proposal creates a point system for determining whether a gun with a brace is illegal or not. It uses objective measures like weight or length but they are often based on arbitrary decisions about whether the gun can be fired with one hand. thereload.com/biden-admins-p…
The agency gives specific examples of how they would apply the points system to braces which implies the vast majority of the 40 million already in civilian hands would be illegal. That leaves owners with few options to avoid committing a federal felony. thereload.com/biden-admins-p…
Americans who own guns equipped with the braces can, in some cases, remove and destroy the braces. Otherwise they will have to register their gun with the ATF and pay a $200 tax or turn their gun into the agency. thereload.com/biden-admins-p…
For perspective, the Small Arms Survey estimates all American law enforcement agencies combined have about one million guns. The lowest estimate says there are at least 3 times that many stabilizing pistol braces owned by civilians. The highest estimate puts it at 40 million.
The ATF created this issue in 2012 when it approved the first pistol brace for sale outside the National Firearms Act (NFA). It then issued a series of often contradictory rulings in the years since as the devices exploded in popularity.
Now the agency is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It's arguing nearly every brace is actually illegal and the concept is just a way of exploiting a loophole in the law. It's solution would likely result in millions of new felons. thereload.com/biden-admins-p…
The proposal faces immense backlash from gun-rights groups who plan to organize comment campaigns against it once it is actually published in the federal register. If it makes it through public comment, the group's already plan to file lawsuits as they did with the bumpstock ban.
There isn't a great estimate for how many braces are actually out there. The ATF puts the number at between 3 and 7 million. The Congressional Research Service puts the number at between 10 and 40 million. There's no way to know for sure.
My best guess is 3 million is way too low and 40 million is way too high.
Here's the ATF's response to my questions on the proposal. They weren't able to answer most of them but did provide insight into where the one-handed-firing standard comes from.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Stephen Gutowski

Stephen Gutowski Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @StephenGutowski

6 Jun
Here's a critique of Benitez's ruling from an Everytown official that's actually possible to have a discussion about. I'm sure many won't agree with it but it at least engages the text of the decision as well as the text of Heller and Miller.
I think the dancing around Miller is pretty awkward, honestly. Miller was a pretty week opinion in a barely-litigated case with zero analysis of what the Second Amendment actually protects. Heller didn't need to overturn it to get where it was going so it didn't.
I've always thought Heller made a lot of compromises to get 5 votes and is more symbolic than anything. Setting the precedent that the Second Amendment at least means something was big after a 20th Century orthodoxy that declared it pointless.
Read 5 tweets
5 Jun
NEW: Federal Judge Rules California 'Assault Weapons' Ban Unconstitutional thereload.com/california-ass…
“The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machineguns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles." thereload.com/california-ass…
The ruling does not go into immediate effect. A temporary 30-day stay was granted so the California AG has time to file an appeal.
Read 6 tweets
4 Jun
It's a lot of work modifying the way The Reload functions in addition to doing the reporting and running the backend. Sometimes it's incredibly stressful as well. But it's also extremely rewarding being able to tweak everything myself and respond to members' feature requests.
Of course, The Reload wouldn't be anywhere near the quality it is without the work put in by others. @P_Crookston has noticeably improved much of the writing with his editing and insights. The guys at Astroluxe Innovations have also saved me on the tech side multiple times.
Aspects of running The Reload are definitely a team effort but the combination of WordPress, Elementor, WooComerce, and some other key software really allow me to change basically anything I want about how the site looks and feels in very little time and for very little money.
Read 4 tweets
4 Jun
NEW: Pennsylvania experienced an explosion in gun-carry licenses in 2020—except in Philadelphia, where residents were plagued by shutdowns and roadblocks thrown up by local authorities. thereload.com/pennsylvania-g…
While gun-carry licensing the rest of the state rose by 25% in 2020, it fell by 19% in Philly. That's despite a 158% increase in gun sales in the city. And it came after periodic shutdowns in permitting and a broken one-of-a-kind application system. thereload.com/pennsylvania-g…
Philly sidestepped state law requiring gun-carry licenses be issued 45 days after application by simply refusing to take applications without an appointment and appointments stretched out over a year. Some residents couldn't even get an appointment at all. thereload.com/pennsylvania-g…
Read 6 tweets
27 May
This is a weirdly threatening thing to say as somebody running to be in the government.
It's odd to start from the assumption that people do, indeed, need protection from their governments, reject the idea that an armed populous offers any protection, and offer no alternative.
This is a lot like when Congressman Swallwel, who was running for President at the time, said resisting government tyranny was pointless because the president could just nuke his own country. A very odd thing to say as a candidate for office.
Read 4 tweets
26 May
This isn't correct, @nytimes. Automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and new sales to civilians are banned. Chipman wants to ban and regulate tens of millions of semi-automatic weapons in the same way. nytimes.com/2021/05/26/us/…
Understanding the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic" is not difficult but this is one of the most common mistakes I still see in media. Even at the highest levels as evidenced in this Times piece.
It's a particularly embarrassing mistake, frankly. The kind that makes anyone who spots it immediately skeptical of everything else you're saying on the topic.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(