Have been a lot of screaming deals in the pistols braces, especially for AR pattern guns, with some even switching to a barely there blade pattern like the new Extar EP9. And now sometime back, PSA posted a deal for a complete lower with the SB/Maxim licensed PDW brace for $299 (see pic below). Heck of a deal considering that just around 2019, I got just the Maxim PDW Attached File
brace for $399.

Seems like many vendors are in a hurry to dump the braces off their inventories due to the uncertainty. Or, am I missing something and the big gun distributors/dealers have inside info on the outlawing of the pistol braces as they now exist (read : crazy confusing ATF points system which makes no sense essentially outlawing any and all existing pistol brace designs)

No, it’s not certain.  Ex post facto and all.

Nothing is for certain. The rules are expected to be released in a few months. The date the new rules actually go into effect will be specified when the rules are released. For example, the "Ghost Gun" rules will go into effect 120 days after they are entered into the Congressional Record. Judging by the ATF pistol brace worksheet, the future doesn't look good for a lot of AR pistol owners. If you want a pistol, there's possibly a 6 month window before the rules change. Plan accordingly...

Ex Post Facto does not apply here. That would be prosecuting you for buying and possessing the brace before it was made illegal to do so. They absolutely can say "this was always illegal, you have 30 days to dispose of it".

I would say it's 50/50. Bidens team wants it, but it affects TONS of new gun owners on both sides. It won't be pretty. That being said, if the trend continues of what looks like offloading inventory, maybe it's worse than that.

If it does go through, I'd expect it to have numerous challenges as administrative rulemaking doesn't usually apply to criminal law.

The situation does look grim with the Biden administration looking for an easy win with the low hanging fruit like this. Maybe the reason for giving the ATF a free hand at their nonsensical interpretations. If they can outlaw the bump stocks, which frankly was obscure and were a vague thing and at least in my opinion a niche range toy. Then binary triggers and the pistol braces are much easier to go against.

Maybe I missed it, but companies like SG & Gearhead Works haven’t said much.
If this goes into effect, they’re gonna have to find something else to sell...

Most companies - especially large ones - are risk-averse.  They see the writing on the wall and would probably prefer to dump inventory at or near cost now, than be in a position to be stuck with inventory that there may not be a market for in several months.  I think they are hedging their bets.

Pretty sure this is the reason. Dump inventory based on an estimated risk and market news than take a loss. They have nothing to lose either ways (the big dealers and retailers I mean). If everything turns out to be good, they will simply turn around and place large orders when and if there is demand.

Put the ATF on your “Ignore” list ?!

With our American legal system, any law means anything a judge or lawyer says it does on whatever day they say it. It could certainly be argued, in fact, that it is”Ex Post Facto”. The ATF has already very clearly said they were legal in the past and that’s why everybody has been doing it for years and years. For the ATF to say it isn’t legal, they would have to go in front of a judge and jury and say all those times they addressed the brace issue and said it was ok, they were actually saying it wasn’t ok. Now, again, any person can make any argument, but clearly this would be a very poor one. You can say “when I said my shirt was blue, I was actually saying it was orange” but clearly that is a ridiculously weak argument. And they can’t say it’s now illegal but wasn’t  then because they can’t make laws even though they think they can.

The problem is they don't have to do anything but go through the rulemaking process at first. The justification in front of a judge will come once they're taken to court after the rule is published, but by then a lot of damage has already been done, and it will be up to each person with a brace whether they want to retain it hoping for a positive outcome and reversal.

What I was trying to get at is, ex post facto would be of the ATF says "this is now retroactively illegal, so you're arrested for owning this prior to it being illegal even though you weren't doing anything illegal at the time." An analog to this would be if they made speeding a felony, and then went back 10 years and charged everyone who got a ticket with a felony.

The massive numbers of people that own firearms with braces will hopefully make it profoundly more difficult.

Holy cow!  This is not at all what "ex post facto" means!

Let me help...  To use your shirt color analogy:  Let's say that it's currently legal to wear a blue or orange shirt.  You own both colors and have worn both color shirts last week.  This week, a law is passed that says it's now illegal to wear blue shirts.  You therefore no longer wear the blue shirt anymore, going forward.  Ex post facto would mean that they arrest you for having worn the blue shirt last week when it was legal.  However, it doesn't mean that since you owned it prior to the law against blue shirts, that you can legally continue to wear it going forward.  Make sense?  What you're looking for is a "grandfathering clause".

No one knows.  We will find out more in August.  I expect (hope) to see plenty of law suits.

Pfffftttt..............you and your facts have no place on a gun forum.
E Pluribus Unum dictates that.

Facts on a gun forum!  That's a good one!  I tell myself stay away from any forum labeled "General" but every now and then I fail.  Then reality is again clearly revealed.  None of us are as dumb as all of us.  Sadly, many of us need to go back to school and repeat those boring Civics classes.  And pay attention this time.  Especially before we start throwing latin around.

Over the past five year we have be taught that laws/rules are optional.

How old are you?
I'm almost 65 and this ain't anything new.

Arm brace ban would suck.
Get real good with aiming/shooting your pistol boys. You may not have a legal AR15 braced pistol to carry in your car/truck anymore. Shooting a AR15 pistol on target is so easy it's almost like cheating. Not so with a pistol.
Practice and hone your handgun pistol skills. Thats what I am trying to do.

theres always the secret ingredient

I just bought this. Too good to pass up and I'm hoping this stupid brace rule either doesn't go through or is put off long enough via lawsuits that I'll have gotten my money's worth. If all else fails, I'll register as an SBR.

That’s the plan with most of them I guess. Many are going to SBR their pistols if that brace rule goes through.

Honestly, I'm skeptical. A number of people will go that route, but I'm thinking most people either won't even know about it (til they go to a public range and get yelled at by Hickok McFuddenstein) or they'll just remove the brace and/or try to sell the upper. I'm betting there will be tons of cheap uppers and pre-SBR hosts for sale in the months to follow.

The uppers will drop in price like crazy as the only new buyers are existing SBR owners.

Some people are going to very happy, and that is very sad.

I'm going with all gun laws are grandfathered. I'm following all the laws my grandfather did, he passed away in1956.

Even the ATF doesn’t seem to be following the law here nor adhere to the constitution, and making its own interpretations supported by whoever wants it’s purpose served.

At this point just put a real stock on your shit and be ungovernable

You think they care, they already want us all in jail or education camps.

Yep, rules for thee and not for me.

It will probably come down to this. How much govt cock you gonna suck. Some will bend the knee while others say eff it, not complying to your BS made up rules.

Who knows. Gun laws don't work any way just look at the news. Mass shootings in states with the strictest laws. It doesn't even matter if its a gun just drive your car through a Christmas parade.

Millions of people just need to give them the finger. They'd be better off taking off SBR's and Suppressors off the NFA but that would make too much sense but unfortunately the end goal is to completely disarm the whole populace at some point.

Rules don't equal laws.  They are interpretations of the law.  

The judicial system will sort it out.  

Given the precedent of rules, that may or may not work in a defendant's/plaintif's favor.

See, there is the loophole which the stronger party will make it work in their favor by interpreting it to suit their requirements or benefits.

What’s the point if laws can be interpreted differently by different courts, agencies, governments, or people

Everyone wants there to be a trial where it all gets thrown out, but no one wants to be the one that actually goes to trial.

The ATF will bankrupt you and ruin your life to make an example of you, all while spending the tax dollars that you pay involuntarily as their unlimited bank account while they come after you. Even if you win, you still lose, just less than you would have lost.

The right often follows the rules and has a lot to lose in comparison to just "getting rid of that pesky brace" and the government counts on that fact. It might work if there mass disobedience, but there's always the guy that needs to be the first in line, and no one is interested in that position because I'm this day and age, you can't actually count on someone being behind you as #2 like you could back in the day.

It sounds defeatist, and it probably is, but it's the truth. No one likes confronting it, and everyone wants to try to be tough about it, but it's a lot harder to rush in when you're the first in line. It's going to take a lot of people getting behind one person that goes to trial or one unified group standing behind and funding a competent legal team or rights group to get it done.

This is the truth

Braces aren’t illegal

Braces on a firearm with certain (any and all)
features can be ruled a SBR

This is true. In theory you could throw a brace on an existing SBR, but there's little motivation to do so (unless you're into attention at the range).

That proposed rule is detailed enough to give people hope, but the last statement at the end is enough to make people nervous enough not to be the guy that an example is made out of.

Attached File

Yeah, either everyone forgot about it or its so vague no one knows how to actually be in compliance.

Looking around this as the only thread I could find that was not archived, honestly I don't even know the effective date of their new bs.

The point isn’t mass compliance. The point is mass non-compliance out of ignorance so that whenever they want, they can make a few arrests get get a media splash. You have a huge pool of felons that you can grab a few from whenever you need to trot out the “evil white nationalist” to be the scape goat for whatever other thing they want to divert your attention from.

I recall that the new rules were due to become active in June of this year.

I just looked around the ATF website and cannot find any such date, just all the old information from December when they were looking for comments and so forth.

There must be a place that shows "upcoming rule implementation" or something along those lines.  Maybe I missed it.

I believe the 80% lower stuff was supposed to be presented to Congress in June with a 120 period after that until implementation. The “brace” rules are supposed to be introduced to Congress in August with a 120 period after that for implementation.

Someone who knows more may correct me if I’m wrong…

The timing may be right, but not sure what you mean by “presented to Congress”.  It’s not like Congress gets a vote whether to approve or not.  What they do is simply publish the rule in the Code of Federal Regulations and it become official.  Then to change it, you have to challenge it in court, or Congress passes a law to overturn it.

I may be wrong about “presented to Congress”. The rules must be published in the Federal Register, then enacted 120 after that. Here’s an article on the 80% lower ruling. Looks like that rule was published in April and will go into effect August 24th. I don’t think the “brace” rule has been published yet.

https://www.80percentarms.com/blog/atf-final-ruling-2021r05f-complete-breakdown/

The fate of pistol braces hinges on two things:

1) The ATF did publish an NPRM and got something like 180,000 comments and I suspect most of them were negative.  They do have to respond to all the comments although they can and will group them together.  The issues they will have to answer include:
- their use of the the NFA of 1934 which was explicitly intended to address weapons used by criminal gangs, and it explicitly excluded weapons in common use (like Winchester trapper carbines less than 16” in length).  Since braced pistols are not used to any significant extent, and there are over 3 million of them in use, those are pretty big stretches of the law;
- their refusal to waive the $200 tax stamp fee; and
- their refusal to grandfather pistol braces purchased during the 2013 to present period when the ATF itself said they were legal to purchase and possess without being considered NFA items.

The ATF does not have to change anything based on public comment, no matter how wrong the ATF proposed rules may be, but when they are egregiously wrong, they do have some incentive to back off.  They did that with their effort to ban M855 ammo several years ago.

2) The ATFs bump stock ban will be heard by the Supreme Court.  The issue at hand is whether Chevron deference is appropriate in issues that involve criminal penalties and whey hit can be applied prior to the rule of lenity.  

Chevron deference dates to the early 1970s and essentially states if congress wasn’t clear in the statute on an issue, or was silent on the issue, a federal cognizant agency can interpret the law however it sees fit, provided it uses a “reasonable construction” of the statute, and then those two conditions are met the court must defer to the agency’s interpretation.

Ironically enough the ATF did just that when it approved bump stocks under the Obama administration, and then did it again under the direction of the Trump administration to ban them after the Vegas shooting. The point the court has to consider is if rule of lenity must be applied prior to Chevron deference.

The rule of lenity means that when a criminal penalty is involved the federal agency must interpret the law to the benefit of the defendant, and this it takes precedence over Chevron deference.  To date, the ATF has ignored this, even though there are clear criminal penalties for possessing and unregistered full auto weapon, which the ATF re-defined bump stocks to be years after approving them.

——

It’s also what the ATF has done with braced pistols, deciding they were legal in 2013, and now reversing their decision.   The issue at hand is that while the ATF had the discretion to approve or disapprove them in 2013 based on a reasonable construction in interpreting the law and the court had to defer to the ATF in that decision, the ATF does not have that same discretion now as making them illegal puts over 3 million owners of these braced pistols in a position of having to remove and destroy them, or register them as NFA items, or face criminal penalties.  

It’s a slightly weaker case than the bump stock, issue as bump stock owners had no means to legally possess them or register the, due to the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of 1986 banning the manufacture of registerable full auto weapons, and were in violation of the law the day they became illegal.  

But if the bump stock appeal prevails it will strip the ATF of its ability to redetermine that something is now illegal and this potentially make people who legally possess them one day to be in violation of a law with a criminal penalty the next.  The odds are good that it probably will prevail as it will be seen as a critical element in protecting the executive branch from undermining congress and legislative intent in the creation and enforcement of laws.  Which is exactly what is happening.

——

The ATF did the same with suppressor kits through sub regulatory guidance with no public notice and over night made people possessing  those kits in violation of the law (owning an unregistered suppressor, and with no legal way to move forward as there is no class three dealer involved in the sale.   It’s a catch 22.  A Supreme Court ruling requiring the rule of lenity be applied before Chevron Deference would solve that issue as well.

Will Not and Do Not Comply!

So, what do you think? Will this go through soon? If so, do you think it will stick? Do you think existing pistols with braces will be grandfathered? You seem very knowledgeable, wondering what your opinion is.

The braces as we have been seeing in the last few years,  were always in a kind of no man's territory with the ATF playing ping pong with them by redefining their definitions of them back and forth, sometimes allowed, shoulder and it becomes a stock/can-shoulder/do not shoulder....and so on. Now, with the anti-gun lobby all against us and having unfortunately got the fodder (shame on them for using these tragic incidents to further their agenda)  to make a molehole of the gun ownership and scaring the general public and sowing anxiety in the lawful gunowning public.

I had a few comments on the Proposed Rule...

Dear Sir or Madame:
The following comments are with regards to the Proposed Rule, ATF 2021R–08, Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘‘Stabilizing Braces’’.  

Main Comments
•Stabilized braced pistols were allowed to be manufactured since circa 2013, with the most recent guidance in 2017 from ATF being that occasional shouldering was permissible.  Now after three to seven million of these are in circulation, this Proposed Rule seeks to turn most if not all of these firearms into NFA items, which at this point, is arbitrary and capricious.
•There's no need for this Proposed Rule.  The document lists only two cases of stabilized braced pistols being used in crimes, and no analysis as to if this Proposed Rule would have changed any aspect of those crimes.  Furthermore, there is no comparison of the percentage of stabilized braced pistols used in crimes, compared to rifles, shotguns, or handguns.  Are they used frequently in crime or not?  If not, then there is no need to potentially turn three to seven million firearms from a legal status, to an illegal status.
•If Short Barreled Rifles (SBR's) are so dangerous that stabilized braced pistols need to be removed from public ownership, then how many convictions have been obtained for SBR possession in violation of NFA rules? If that number is low, then either SBR violations are being ignored by Federal prosecutors and so additional firearm restrictions are not warranted, or SBR’s are not widely used in crime, compared to the huge numbers of crimes being committed using handguns.  
•The point system for determining which stabilized braced pistols are now NFA items is complicated, arbitrary, and subject to various interpretations as to the style and point system of stocks.
•In line with the recent ruling by the 6th Circuit with regards to bumpstocks, administrative rules cannot be used to make once legal activity illegal.  That requires a new law, as administrative agencies do not posses the ability to change regulations to the point that once legal activity can now result in a Federal felony conviction.    
•There no Grandfathering of existing stabilized braced pistols, so this Proposed Rule has the potential to make some up to 1.4 million legal gun owners felons under Federal law, for buying a legal gun, and then doing nothing.
•There is no proposed waiver of the NFA tax for registering stabilized braced pistols as SBR’s, while previous moves to NFA status for firearms, such as the Streetsweeper shotguns in the early 90’s, had the NFA tax waived.
•The economic impact of this Proposed Rule is incorrect, as the number of impacted stabilized braced pistols used for calculations is three million, while the document states that between three and seven million such firearms are in circulation  

Running Comments to Proposed Rule
The below section is a running commentary of the Proposed Rule, with reference to the document “Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules”, a PDF file that is three columns, and 26 pages long.  Any page number references will refer to this particular document.

Page 2, Column 1.  As noted even in Wikipedia on the history of the National Firearms Act, the original plan was to include handguns as NFA items, and the reason for then including Short Barreled Rifles (SBR’s) was to prevent longer barreled rifles from being shortened into handgun sized firearms.
Since then, justly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the ownership of handguns is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and so the original reason for including SBR’s into the NFA was unconstitutional.  
Also note that one of the court cases cited states that “[T]he combination of low, somewhat indiscriminate accuracy”, with regards to a Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS), while later in this document SBR’s are called more dangerous due to their ability to be fired accurately.  It’s either one or the other – SBR/SBS are either more dangerous because they can be fired more, or less, accurately, but it can’t be both, depending on what is wanted for Rule making.  Also the above citation is from a dissent, and so has no force of law or bearing.  This comment should not have been included in this Rule.
As for this court case citation: “Congress specifically found that ‘short-barreled rifles are primarily weapons of war”, considering at the time of the passage of the NFA, 1934, that almost all rifles used by militaries were full sized and length rifles, such as the Springfield 1903 and Mauser rifles, the statement is incorrect.  As above, the inclusion of SBR’s was to also allow for restrictions to be placed on handguns, not for aspects of SBR’s themselves, of which only the Thomson Sub-Machine Gun was shorter than 16 inches in barrel length – and was in very limited military use, compared to huge numbers of rifles with great than 16 inch barrels.  

Page 2, Column 3.  The document states: “there are other accessories also marketed as ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ that may be attached to a weapon platform for the purpose of circumventing the GCA and NFA prohibitions on the sale”.  There has been zero effort by the ATF to stop the sale of any of these items, so it is disingenuous to act as if these devices are somehow flying under the radar of the ATF.  Indeed, most if not all stabilizing braces are currently being used in production firearms from industry manufactures.  All that would have been required to prevent the manufacture or sale of these items is a letter from the ATF saying they were too similar to rifle stocks.  Yet nothing has been sent from the ATF, until this proposed rule.  

Page 3, Column 1.  Sever references are to various media stories, and newspaper accounts are not sufficiently reviewed to be used in a Proposed Rule.   As the two cases listed were used in crimes, official police documentation should be used for rulemaking, not reporter stories, which may or may not be accurate, or slanted in coverage.  

Page 3, Column 3.  Here the document lists a court case the ATF lost, United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505, 517 (1992), so inclusion here to cherry pick a particular sentence is ironic, even more so when that case was about the classification of a particular firearm as a SBR or pistol.  

Column 2 also lists an ATF Open Letter, a clarification to that Open Letter, and also a Reversal to the ATF Open Letter.  So to be honest here, ATF has been very inconsistent with its approach to stabilized braced pistols.  In that Reversal, ATF itself states “To the extent the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational ‘use’ of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute ‘redesign,’ such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced”.
So in 2017 not only were stabilized braced pistols fully consistent with NFA rules, the incidental, sporadic, or situational shoulder of them was fine as well.  Now, after millions more have been made and are in us by the public, ATF proposes a Rule to counteract its previous guidance?  This is not the proper way to conduct administrate guidance, where something is legal, then suddenly illegal, based on shifting political winds.  Instead, it is arbitrary and capricious, a term that will undoubtedly be used in many court filings against this Rule if instituted as proposed.  
Page 3, Column 3.  The document states “However, ATF has received criticism for not more widely publishing the criteria and for not publishing a definitive approach in the application of that criteria” – criticism by who?  For a Proposed Rule, that had the full force of law to include Federal felony charges, all statements presented as fact need appropriate documentation to support the proposal.  
The document here also states: “Therefore, to aid the firearms industry and public in understanding the criteria that FATD considers when evaluating firearm
samples that are submitted with an attached ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ or similar component or accessory, ATF proposes a worksheet to be entitled Factoring Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with Accessories”, as if the criteria for this worksheet has been used all along while three million stabilizing braces have been manufactured, while in reality, the proposed worksheet is a completely new set of criteria, not in place while these items were manufactured, sold, or purchased by the American public.  Let’s call this worksheet for what it truly is – a complete change, after the fact, of what will be considered a legal configuration for a braced pistol.

Page 4, Column 1. The document arbitrarily lays out a minimum and maximum weight of a stabilized braced pistol, without taking into account various physical abilities or limitations on those with disabilities.  Some disabled people may have such disability than even a handgun is difficult to fire accurately, while others may have disability in one arm, but not the other.  It is arbitrary and capricious for a regulatory agency to make determinations about the needs of disabled people, who should have the ability to decide for themselves what best meets their sporting, and self-defense needs.  

Page 4, Column 3.  The document proposed to change the definition of rifle by administrative rule, while the current definitions are from the NFA of 1934 and GCA of 1968.  As such, any changes in definition need to come from new law, not administrative rule.  

Page 5, Proposed ATF Worksheet 4999.  Right from the start of the worksheet, it says that regardless of all the point system and scores a firearm may have, if ATF wants to consider it an SBR, it will.  This would be like the IRS saying “please use the below worksheet to compute your taxes, but we still reserve the right to say you own more”.  Either this worksheet as proposed determines what is legally a handgun, or it doesn’t.  Not “use the worksheet but it’s still up to us anyway”.  
The worksheet lists the minimum weight as 64 ounces, and must be between 12 and 26 inches long – as before, these are arbitrary numbers, and in no way account for the wide range of the abilities of disabled people.  The worksheet also does not say if these lengths and weights include the stabilized brace, and so is the source of confusion.  
The worksheet uses the arbitrary phase “based on a known shoulder stock design”, which can’t be judged by anyone besides ATF.  With over 3 million of these owned by the American public, and those citizens needing to use this form to determine if they are now a felon or now, such arbitrary terms offer no guidance.  The same is true for the section about shoulder area.  And as previously noted, this section is in contrivance of Reversal of ATF Open Letter on the Redesign of ‘‘Stabilizing Braces’’ (Mar. 21, 2017).
The Adjustability and Stabilizing Support sections are incorrectly scored, as an adjustable stabilized brace assists in proper support for a disabled person, who may need it adjusted based on their condition, as is the case for the amount of Support needed.
The section on sighting has numerous errors.  Not having any sights, while making it less accurate, does nothing to make a stabilized braced pistol more rifle like.  Flip up iron sights are no different than fixed sights, can be used at arms length, and should not incur additional points.  
In addition, many handguns are fired off benchrests, using a sandbag to support the front of the firearm.  As such, a shorter eye relief scope can be used as shooter’s head can move closer to the scope, while still using the stabilizing brace to help support the firearm, if that person lacks the same upper body strength as a non-disabled person.  
Also, in general the document talks, over and over again, about a pistol being fired by a single hand.  I am aware that this term has been used to describe handguns.  I also know that every single law enforcement agency including ATF, the military, and every shooting instructor in the country would recommend using two hands to hold and secure a handgun while firing a handgun.  It is over-reliance on this “one handed” definition of a handgun, when all firearms will be held with both hands.  

Page 20.  The section on the effects on state and local government is incorrect, and needs further review.  As almost all stabilized braced pistols would not be considered SBR’s, if there were not registered under the NFA they would be illegal to possess, up to 3 million persons would now be felons.  This would be hugely impacting to state and local governments to have this number of persons now in violation of Federal law, and the impacts need to be considered in this Proposed Rule.  

Page 20, Column 2.  The document states that “Further, Congress chose to regulate these items more stringently, finding them to be especially dangerous to the community if not regulated since they are used for violence and criminal activity”, with regards to SBR’s.  As before, SBR’s were included in the NFA as a way to prohibit handguns, not for their characteristics themselves.  Also, for firearms that are supposed to be so often used for criminal activity, there is nothing in this document that lists the number of SBR arrests, or convictions.  Are SBR’s used frequently in crime or not?  This information should be included in this Proposed Rule, instead of making sweeping statements without supporting data.
It also states “these weapons can continue to proliferate and could pose an increased public safety problem given that they are easily concealable.”  So with three million braces in circulation, how many braced pistols have been used in crimes, and how does that compare with the percentage of rifles, shotguns, and handguns used?  Two cases were cited on Page 3, Column 1 (though only media accounts, not law enforcement reports as should have been cited).  Are there others?  Or are stabilized braced pistols so infrequently used in crimes, that these two cases are the only ones available?

Page 20, Column 3.  Previously, the number of stabilized braced pistols has been listed as 3 million – here the document states that there may be between three and seven million, and for non-stated reasons, the lower number is used.  At the very least, an average between these two numbers should be used, so five million, with a corresponding increase in the economic impact of this Proposed Rule.  As the number used for the analysis required via Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) is incorrect, the Proposed Rule should be re-analyzed, using a more realistic number of stabilized braced pistols in use.

Page 21, Column 1.  The document states that the Proposed Rule may impact 1.4 million individuals – a number that with five million stabilized braced pistols in circulation, would require each person to own three of these, which seems rather unlikely.  As such, the 1.4 million individual number is incorrect, with most probably a much higher number of individuals being affected.  As such, the Proposed Rule should be re-analyzed, using a more realistic number of affected individuals.
Also, the analysis of Scenario 2: Convert Firearm Into a Long-Barreled Rifle, is incorrect, as it does not account for gunsmithing costs, as installing a longer barrel into an AR pattered firearm requires special tools.  In addition, not all stabilized braced pistols are AR patterns, and for those, additional parts and gunsmithing costs may be involved.  As above, as the economic impact has been incorrectly calculated, the Proposed Rule should be re- analyzed.
Scenario 3: Apply To Register Under the NFA is also incorrectly calculated, as it does not account for the cost of engraving the manufacture’s name and location onto the firearm.  This typically costs 50-100 dollars per firearm, and has not been included in the economic analysis of this Proposed Rule.

Page 21, Column 3.  The document now lists 1.9 million for the number of stabilized braced pistols, while previous estimated numbers range from three to seven million.  Again, the estimated economic impact of this Proposed Rule is incorrect, and needs to be corrected prior to further rulemaking.  

Page 22, Column 1.  The document again states: “Congress placed stricter requirements on the making and possession of ‘‘short-barreled rifles’’ because it found them to pose a significant crime problem”.  As before, the reason was to further restrict the possession of handguns, a provision that is now understood to be unconstitutional.  Furthermore, no data is listed for the number of SBR’s, or stabilized braced pistols, used in crimes – just repeated reference to two shooting instances.  Surely if these firearms were such a menace to our society as the Proposed Rule claims, then SBR’s and stabilized braced pistols would be a significant percentage of the firearms used in crime.  The absence of any data as to their use indicated the actual use in crime is extremely low.

Page 22, Column 2.  For alternatives, the document states: “This alternative was
considered and not implemented because the NFA requires regulation of certain types of firearms above what is required under the GCA”.  With somewhere between three and seven million stabilized braced pistols in circulation, it’s a bit late for considering the NFA requirements, isn’t it?  It’s a case of the horse has not only run out of the barn but is in the next county, before ATF comes running out to shut the door.  
At any time from when stabilized braces were first introduced, ATF could have issued guidance as to what types of braces were allowed, and what kinds were too similar to rifle stocks.  Indeed, only four years ago ATF said that not only were stabilized braced pistols fine, but that occasional shouldering of them was fine as well.  Now with this Proposed Rule, somewhere between three and seven million once fully legal and ATF blessed firearms are going to be considered illegal, and a Federal felony to posses?  And not from a new Federal law, but administrative rule making?  That is the very definition of arbitrary and capricious.  
Furthermore, as the 6th Appellate Court has recently ruled with regards to the bumpstock case before them, administrative rules should not be used to turn once legal activities into Federal felonies.  Such a high change requires new Federal law, not administrative rules.  
With regards to Alternative 3, Grandfathering of existing stabilized braced pistols, there is no discussion on actual Grandfathering, where firearms manufactured before the effective date of the Rule would not be subject to the point system worksheet.  The Proposed Rule just says that manufactures would continue to make the same items and market them as Grandfathered items – which is not what Grandfathering means, as it means that existing items are not subject to new regulations.  Since various firearms and magazines were Grandfathered in the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, there is no real reason why existing firearms manufactured prior to the effective date of the Rule could not be exempt from the new Rule.  Since manufactures record the manufacture date of their firearms, any firearm in question could be analyzed via its serial number as to if it was in circulation prior to the Rule coming into effect.  This scenario would leave the level of crimes being committed with braced pistols the same or less as it is now – which apparently is rather low as only two cases of these being used in crimes is documented in this Proposed Rule.  I wager any number of household items such as hammers, bats, or Ming vases have been used in crime more often.
With regards to Alternative 5, the waving of NFA taxes – this is what previous has been done in cases where firearms have suddenly been changed into being considered NFA items – the most recently being in the 93-94 time frame with Streetsweeper and such shotguns being suddenly considered Destructive Devices.  The listed reasons for rejecting this alternative make no sense – the document states someone might register all their firearms as SBR’s, with neither any analysis of the likelihood of this (when NFA status of a firearm greatly increases the complexity of later sale, who can posses it, interstate movement, etc.), nor why that would matter if they did.  
As with previous changes to NFA status, at a minimum if this Proposed Rule in enacted, then the $200 NFA transfer tax should be waived, to increase compliance with the new Rule, and avoid financial impact on those who own these firearms.  To require the payment of a $200 tax stamp to keep possession of an already possessed, and fully legal at the time of purchase firearm, is capricious, and would disproportionally impact lower income persons and thus blacks and Hispanics.

Page 22, Column 3.  The document states: “This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States”, which is incorrect, when overnight, three to seven million firearms will now be considered illegal, and possession of them a Federal felony.  If even a small number of gun owners do nothing to their once fully legal firearms, the impact of having such large numbers of Federal felons will be hugely impactful to the states, due to loss of voting rights, work ability, and family trauma from having a member of their family becoming a convicted criminal, for the crime of buying a gun, and doing nothing.  

It's hard to say.  You would think something will go through, as Federal agencies will do whatever a Democrat administration tells them to, while slllooowwww dragging along the orders of any Republican administration.  It's what happens when you have a labor force that votes 95% for one party.

That said, ATF is trying to do the quad whammy here with this Proposed Rule:

1. Come to a determination about something.
2. Come to a determination 180 degrees opposite from what the same agency had previously determined.
3. Make possession of an item previously determined to be OK, now not just a crime but a felony.
4. Not offer cost free grandfathering / NFA registration of the item.

Now they did all that with the bump stock ruling - but the number of those in circulation was far lower than for braced pistols, bump stocks have the extreme imagine of being da dam, "a Machine Gun!!!" as opposed to just a short barreled rifle, and ATF could say they could not allow for registration of bump stocks due to the Hughes Act.  Even with that, the bump stock Rule has come very close to being overturned - it was only saved from a silly 6-6 tie in the en bloc 6th Circuit, with preserved the original ruing for the Rule.  

A more similar analogy would be the Streetsweeper rule change in the early 90's, when ATF at the direction of the Treasure Secretary "found" that Streetsweeper and other large capacity shotguns were actually Destructive Devices.  Not sure how the size of a firearms magazine impacts a 12 ga shotgun being a DD, but they magically found that it was.  But  - ATF allowed cost free Form 4ing of these item, something they did not propose in the Proposed Rule.  

Look, if the ATF though they could get away with a Rule that made all firearms illegal for possession by citizens, they'd publish it tomorrow without a comment period and start forceable confiscation  at gunpoint the day after.   But they only do what they think they can get away with at the current time.  And they don't want to lose too many court cases for fear of it hamstringing them in the future.  So everything they do is a balancing act.

They've already withdrawn a proposed brace rule once, I doubt if they do it again, as the first time the Proposed Rule was vulnerable due to no real definition of what a forbidden brace was.  Now they have their point system - which will always end up as everything being not allowed save for bare buffer tubes (and even they they say in the Proposed Rule they still have to right to determine a brace illegal anyway, regardless of points).  But it's something they can point to in court and hang their hat on as defendable, allowing a judge to rubber stamp it as OK, when the Rule is challenged.  

What I see possibly happening is ATF offering up a period to register a braced pistol as an NFA SBR, without the $200 dollar fee.  That would be in line with the Streetsweeper case, and be a more defendable position in court.  

Now from what I've heard posted here, Federal Prosecutors care close to zero, maybe less, about SBR and SBS cases, and don't bring those to court if that's the only crime that's been committed, or even as add-on for other crimes like felon in possession.  That was one of my comments to the Proposed Rule - if SBR and SBS cases are not currently being prosecuted, then there's no reason to make another category of firearms as SBR's.  But like everything else in our current corrupt Federal Government, if they don't like you based on your political beliefs and actions, they'll use possession of a braced pistol as a means to convict and sentence you to as long as possible.  While for a 3 time felon who used one to rob a bank - no interest.  Plan accordingly.