Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08930

The ongoing instability surrounding the ATF’s treatment of pistol stabilizing braces has persisted far longer than it should have. The repeated reversals — first stating that attached braces do not constitute a stock, then later reclassifying braced pistols as NFA firearms, and subsequently requiring tax‑exempt Form 1 submissions — have created unnecessary confusion and frustration for millions of lawful firearm owners. Pistol braces are not stocks. While certain designs may resemble a stock in appearance, resemblance is not the same as intent or function. By rescinding the problematic definitions of “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” the ATF would restore regulatory clarity and eliminate the legal uncertainty that has burdened responsible gun owners for years. I support the ATF’s proposal to remove the regulatory language introduced in the 2023 final rule regarding stabilizing braces. The prior rule relied heavily on subjective or cosmetic factors rather than clear, objective standards. As a result, myself as well as millions of Americans who purchased these products legally and in good faith were suddenly placed at risk of noncompliance without any intentional wrongdoing. These types of rules are confusing precisely because they attempt to regulate law‑abiding citizens based on what they might do, rather than focusing enforcement on individuals who actually violate existing laws. This approach is neither fair nor effective. For these reasons, I strongly urge the ATF to rescind or substantially revise the 2023 stabilizing brace rule and restore a consistent, objective regulatory framework.