Photo of a Pistol Brace from SB Tactical

141 lawmakers led by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) have called for the ATF to end the new crackdown on pistol braces.

It is plain to see that the pistol brace has become the target of the ATF, DOJ, and gun grabbers everywhere. The DOJ recently releases its 71-page new document about the rule changes for pistol braces and SBRs, now it appears lawmakers are fighting back.

From Guns.com:

letter on the subject, penned by U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson, NC-R, and signed by 140 other members of the House, was fired off this week to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Acting Director Marvin Richardson.

The lawmakers outline that ATF has repeatedly stated, “the brace concept was inspired by the needs of disabled combat veterans who still enjoy recreational shooting but could not reliably control heavy pistols without assistance,” and points out the agency acknowledges there are legitimate uses for certain stabilizing braces. Further, it says the $200 tax in its rule won’t affect gun crime but instead put a direct tax on many, including disabled combat veterans.

“This proposed guidance is alarming and jeopardizes the rights of law-abiding gun owners and disabled combat veterans across the country,” the members write. “Should this guidance go into effect, a disabled combat veteran who has chosen the best stabilizing brace for their disability is now a felon unless they turn in or destroy the firearm, destroy the brace, or pay a $200 tax. Furthermore, it could make millions of law-abiding citizens felons overnight.”

While this effort might not help in the battle against the gun grabbers, the DOJ and ATF tend to get what they want, you can still help in the fight against radical gun control. The DOJ opened the new pistol brace rules for public comment, you can leave a comment and tell the DOJ why it is you don’t like these new rules here.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
1 month ago

I always wonder if these so-called statesmen and executives have consulted a dictionary for the definition of “infringe” as in “…shall not be infringed.” I’m sure many armed, private citizens feel their anger rising when they debate tinkering with things that clearly are uninfringible and affirmed as a human right.

Old Soldier
Old Soldier
1 month ago
Reply to  Gene Ralno

most of the so-called statesmen are not literate enough to read the US Constitution with comprehension (it does require about an 8th grade level of reading comprehension, after all). They rely on their ‘aids’ (as in Flappers as discribed in Gulliver’s Travels), to read bills, laws, and other things and tell them what they say. Kind of like I did for my sons when they were 2-3 years old.

Robert Taylor (DAV)
Robert Taylor (DAV)
1 month ago

I wonder why all these lawmakers are so afraid of the citizens of this country? Did you take note of how fast they put up a fence around their place of work(?) and call out the NG to protect them from a staged display on Jan 6? I think they need to be reminded that we are paying for all that protection but do not want them to use it against us so keep their hands off all our rights both in the Constitution and those not listed.

You may also like