Apparently this is the proposal for the rule change on stabilizing braces from the ATF. GD thread on it.

https://www.atf.gov/file/154871/download

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (“Department”) proposes amending Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) regulations to clarify when a rifle is “intended to be fired from the shoulder.” The Department proposes factors ATF considers when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). This proposed rule is a separate action from the Notice on the Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces” published on December 18, 2020, and withdrawn on December 31, 2020. No comments received under the withdrawn notice were considered for this proposed rule, and no comments received pursuant to that notice will be considered as part of this proposed rule. Commenters will need to submit new comments in connection with this proposed rule.

I can't see this ending badly...  

People who owned others are mega, truly, super fucked with this change. You convert to a rifle or pistol, you're creating an Assault Weapon. Since the registry was closed they're a state felony to own. So your only options are to turn them in or destroy them.

More fear mongering......  Just what we need in CT.

Meanwhile others are calmly reviewing the document, parsing it, and will explore ways to circumvent this proposed rule.

I am glad you are calling out the fear mongers

There is always a way- just have to find it

Yep. Ultimately one can simply choose to ignore it and hope "the man" doesn't enter their life and discover the firearm.

Hypothetically and purely speculating of course I do wonder how many will simply put their Other into compliance of the ATF proposed rule change by changing the barrel to be longer than 16 inches, removing the brace and using a buffer tube, or what ever else they need to do to get the firearm over 26 OAL so long as it's not a rifle under CT's definitions. The real issue is what will SLFU do? What will their interpretation or "guidance" if any be.

They specifically exempt the shockwave and tac14. Granted they make mention of the fact that they are smooth bore, but they also mention that they are intended to be fired with 2 hands and are defined as”firearms” under GCA. (Page 11)

Also the second prerequisite on the work sheet is that the overall lengthy be between 12 and 26 inches. One of the characteristics of ct others is an overall length greater than 26 inches so as not fall into the pistol definition. So right of the bat that work sheet is meaningless for us.

CT will be faced with quite a problem. There are a zillion of these out there.

I mean, how many unregistered "AWs" are there?

I'd bet most people just won't care. In the interim, submit a comment, have friends submit comments, etc.

I’m reading this the same way. Curious if CT would allow others to be registered as AWs, and then SBR’d.

The ATF proposed rule claims something like 1.4 million people would be affected by their proposed rule for either having already bought braces or were intending to buy braces. Will be hilarious to watch ATF claim braces are not in popular/common use when they are owned by more people than the population of some 15+ states and territories.

It is the secondary grip on firearms with an OAL  of 12 to 26 inches that will be an issue for some. Removing the brace wouldn't solve the issue with those specific firearms, the secondary grip would still cause it to be an SBR.

ATF shoots down the idea of having a grandfathering alternative.

ATF states the following with respect to  braces on Mossburg Shockwave or Remington TAC-14 (or similar shotguns): Thus, the addition of a “stabilizing brace” does not assist with single-handed firing, but rather redesigns the firearm to provide surface area for firing from the shoulder.

And the ATF gets to be the final arbiter of deciding if the firearm is not a SBR even if the firearm doesn't accrue 4 or more points per their worksheet.

ATF also wants to expand the definition of what a rifle is by adding the following sentence to the end of the rifle definition in § 478.11 and § 479.11:

Rifle. * * * The term shall include any weapon with a rifled barrel equipped with an accessory or component purported to assist the shooter stabilize the weapon while shooting with one hand, commonly referred to as a “stabilizing brace,” that has objective design features and characteristics that facilitate shoulder fire, as indicated on Factoring Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with Accessories commonly referred to as “Stabilizing Braces,” ATF Worksheet 4999, published on [date final rule is published].

The speculation back in 2014 was less than 15% (probably more like less than 10%) registered their AW's and LCM's in CT which is on par with what the speculation has been about registration rates in Cali and NY.

The real issue is most simply do not pay attention to such proposed rule announcements or when such rules (or laws) are enacted. They assume their stuff isn't affected. Folks find out when law enforcement enters their life and discovers the banned/restricted items or if they try to sell it or transfer it to someone else. A much smaller number simply don't care and assume they never will be caught. Of course their angry spouse or significant other, or even the expanded red flag laws, could end up being the wild card in their situation. Then thenre are the even smaller number who know about the law and intentionally giving the finger to ATF by not following it.

ATF likely could care less. They know full well this proposed rule cannot be complied with due to the intentionally vague nature of the rule. They know that people will be caught, one at a time. ATF knows that if one goes to the range with the contraband chances are good there will be at least ONE range nazi that narcs on them to law enforcement. ATF knows the sales and transferring of them will be legally cut off. No passing down the braced firearm to family members since ATF shot down the idea of grandfathering. ATF knows full well this rule divides the "gun community" between brace owners and FUDDS who don't care because their stuff isn't being banned. Already some showing this last one in various discussions about this proposed rule.

Technically that would require the legislature to pass a law or statute opening up the AW registration. Does anyone honestly think they'll do it? Don't think they did that with full featured rimfires that were purchased between 4/4/13 and 6/18/13.

Right now this is a proposed rule. There will be a comment period on it. ATF may or may not enact this rule. If enacted this rule (along with other recently proposed rule changes) will be challenged in court. The wildcard in all this will be what SLFU decides to do, if anything. How will they interpret the rule and what will they tell people to do about it (either law enforcement and or brace owners/gun shops).

So hypothetically, if they did open "registration" to CT to allow you to register and turn into SBR, wouldn't that cause an issue as well?

Many of these CT "others" were sold with barrels that were sub-16" long. Wouldn't turning an "other" into a "rifle" make it an SBR prior to paperwork being filed / approved?

Or would the "other" stay as an "other" until the SBR paperwork was returned, then swap the brace for a stock?

Obviously this is just speculation

Same as almost all scenarios since the OP. Just remove the brace. A brace doesn't make it more pistolly or otherly...

Comment period apparently ends on September 8th, 2021.

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces

Updated regulations.gov link: https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2021-0002-0001

Isn't the alteration of the rifle definition in itself an issue for the ATF?  they cannot rewrite weapons definitions passed by Congress previously.  This smells like a big lawsuit opportunity, which should normally send the ATF packing.  It would take a while, but it looks like a very ambitious move from that agency.  Plus they are on record clearing older braces for use, and even issued that statement about "you can shoulder it as long as you don't convert the brace into a stock" or something like that.  I just don't see how they expect this to work in their favor

It's too early so it's all speculation, however wouldn't ATF's changing weapons definitions negate prior CT bans that were put in place under now obsolete rules?  People cannot be held accountable if rules changed after they purchased something legally.  My gut tells me, if this passes, that CT would open a new window for registrations.  But, it's anyone's guess.

They won't.

Write comments. Tell your friends to write comments. There are >3mil braces in circulation. People need to write comments. If you have a residence outside of CT, contact THOSE reps (because god knows the CT state reps won't do anything in our favor).

Your kidding right?

People who bought bump stocks had to get rid of them. People are walking around with illegal AW's and LCM's because the laws changed. There are numerous other examples of things be purchased "legally", becoming illegal at the stroke of a pen or new/changed government rule. Legal one day, banned the next. Note the various methods ATF proposes in the brace proposal PDF as remedy's. Grandfathering ISN'T one of them.

ATF changing their rules doesn't negate existing CT law like the AWB, the ghost gun statute, etc. That is why no one know what will happen with braces and others in CT. Lots of opinions being tossed around based on interpretations of ATF's proposed rule and CT's various statutes and CT rifle/pistol definitions. Right now others are not rifles and not pistols. Any change to move others into being rifles or pistols by ATF is the core underlying issue in CT because once that happens the CT AWB possibly applies and all that it entails. Right now it's entirely speculation.

Edit to add: As indicated above, AFAIK the legislature didn't open the registration window for full featured rimfire rifles and certain featured semiauto shotguns that were sold between 4/4/13 and 6/18/13. Nor did they open up the registration for the numerous people who bought banned by name prebans based on the SLFU/Bradford reinterpretation of the preban statute that the Kaminsky opinion indicated was an incorrect interpretation of the preban statute. Fair number folks likely have contraband even though they had a proper sales authorization performed on the firearm transfer and submitted a DPS-3-C to the state. Those folks will likely have their guns confiscated if the firearm is discovered.

The bump stock ban has lost in courts. Again, it's speculation regarding the braces, and if this proposal passes CT will have to clarify next steps for those who bought Others.  If they want to they can refresh the 2013 ban to include pre bans as well, nothing and no one is safe.  They have trifecta and super majority on top.  They can do whatever they want, unless the courts stop them.

Agreed. My comment is in already.

If enough people just told the commie overlords to "go get fucked" then the issue would be solved.

Seven months after the ATF ban went into effect and that case is still working its way through the courts.

That ATF case likely won't affect CT's bump stock ban since a legislature passed CT's.

over 10K comments so far, that feels good. Hopefully there will be exponential growth into the millions by the time this travesty expires.

The criteria only applies to firearms that measure between 12 to 26 inches.
Since most all CT Others measure over 26" in length this proposed ruling precludes them.

Doesn't change the fact that this proposal is complete bullshit

I thought so too at first, until I realized the CT Others are 26+ OAL which means they would automatically qualify as SBRs (assuming barrel is shorter than 16")

https://hudson.house.gov/press-releases/hudson-leads-140-members-calling-on-atf-to-withdraw-stabilizing-brace-guidance?fbclid=IwAR02YvBN_sgZI7PWel_S8EH3rJTh1O9TYHJjV1FcWy7W9h8_UTADvEX0K-E

https://hudson.house.gov/sites/hudson.house.gov/files/Hudson%20and%20Members%20letter%20to%20DOJ%20ATF%20re%20Stabilizing%20Brace%20Proposed%20Guidance.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0ThztGycjXBfUW4gxcIE2Qy06ecsjbJ1vJhiYZclP0I6Oo-yGSllP1kWc

Sounds like there is going to be a run on 16"+ uppers.

Just remove the brace for now.