It’s a new rule or definition.
On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
The rule outlines the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a purported “stabilizing brace” (or other rearward attachment) to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act. The rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as listed in the definition, indicate the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
If challenged, this rule should go down based on the recent US appeals court decision that shot down Trump’s attempted ban on bump stocks, by ruling that changes to firearm prohibitions should only come from Congress, not Executive branch fiat.
The power to make law in the United States belongs to Congress; lawmakers who are elected and are representatives of the people who voted them into office. That’s the thought at the heart of the recent court decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned the federal ban on bump stocks
“Many commentators argue that non-mechanical bump stocks contribute to firearm deaths and that the Final Rule is good public policy. We express no opinion on those arguments because it is not our job to determine our nation’s public policy. That solemn responsibility lies with the Congress,” the opinion reads.
Seems like Lugers and High Powers with detachable stocks fell under this situation, back in the day.
They were classified as ‘stocks’, not as braces, however.
Comment?
What is the constitutional authority to pass such laws or make such rules?