1) EXPLAINER -- ATF ACTIONS re: BRACES (thread): We see many comments suggesting that some view ATF as having stopped/paused/delayed actions re: pistol braces. We think that is a dangerous and likely wrong assumption. Here's why:

2) References --
ATF "guidance" doc: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5881/attachments/original/1608175224/SBCriteria.AS_SUBMITTED.pdf?1608175224
ATF "withdrawal" doc: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/191/attachments/original/1608767832/sbcriteria_withdraw.not_.final_draft.12-23-20_with_typed_signature.pdf?1608767832
FPC Dec. 23 statement re withdrawal: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/breaking-atf-withdraws-guidance-for-stabilizing-braces
Join/Donate to Fund the Work: http://JoinFPC.org 

3) Original ATF "guidance" was disclaimed to be a rulemaking under APA. ATF only asked for public comment over 14 days (could have been for show, genuinely seeking input, or both). ATF was saying: 'this is how we interpret the law and how we'll enforce it', not 'we're undecided'.

4) The above can be seen in *how* they articulated what they were doing. ATF said they were providing notice of "the...factors it considers..." They didn't say *would consider* -- the tense is important here and indicates that is already how they saw/were applying the law.

5) Same re: enforcement as to people with braced firearms. They didn't say as to people who make/sell *after the publication date*. These details matter.

6) Also likely why they were specific as to their purported intent to exercise discretion & not enforce -- *YET* -- NFA against "current possessors" with "stabilizer-equipped firearms" *until* they implement/conclude the registration period for the safe harbor/amnesty program.

7) Again, the context here is key -- they're saying people who possess them *as of that date* (published in the Fed. Register on Dec. 18, 2020; https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/18/2020-27857/objective-factors-for-classifying-weapons-with-stabilizing-braces). IMPORTANT: Those who made/buy/sell brace-equipped firearms DEC. 18+ may not be extended same discretion!

8) More potentially key signals in the "withdrawal" doc: Close reading shows they withdrew only "the notice and request for comments" -- didn't say they were stopping things already in motion. And b/c "the proposed guidance was not a regulation" NOTHING changes **for them**.

9) Thus, what they outlined in the "guidance" may still be HOW they are already interpreting/enforcing the law -- AND what they do/enforce into the future.

10) Note that ATF withdrew "notice and request" AFTER "further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General". There are many possibilities in this -- some good and some bad. ALSO: Guidance is withdrawn "pending further [DOJ] review...”

11) Remember that there are, essentially, [at least] two DOJs & two ATFs at any given time: a) the permanent bureaucracy ("swamp"), b) those appointed by/loyal to current admin, & c) occational others. Very apparent / publicized during Acting AG Whitaker debacle (bumpstock ban).

12) It's possible that one side of DOJ/ATF wanted to use the public guidance/safe harbor to pre-empt a Biden admin DOJ/ATF & provide safety valves for current possessors. Also possible that the "guidance" was a public first shot. Either way, this is NOT OVER AT ALL.

13) Going back to prior points, the DOJ/ATF may or may not go forward with any grace period/amnesty/registration path, but signals suggest they WILL go forward w/ enforcement of NFA against at least some of those possessing/selling brace-equipped firearms they think are SBRs.

14) SUMMARY: ATF "withdrawal" of "guidance" ATF said was not a "rule" = 1) maybe/maybe not safe harbor/registration and/or 2) DOJ/ATF will enforce NFA w/o more notice and/or 3) DOJ/ATF waiting for Biden and/or 4) bumpstock ban-like "rule" coming and/or 5) some combination.

15) That's why we said: "The ATF’s withdrawal of their proposed guidance should be the end of the road for this assault on lawful accessories and law-abiding gun owners, but we know better." STAY PREPARED TO FIGHT THIS. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/atf-to-issue-guidance-stabilizing-braces

16) FPC was able to immediately challenge DOJ/ATF bumpstock ban because we are not a slow, political 1800s/1900s model org. We are principled & fierce -- all work starts w/ philosophy of maximal individual liberty -- but stay small, efficient, distributed, networked, & agile.

17) That's also why we can fight so many new/important battles & already have two #SCOTUS cert petitions filed post-ACB. Our job is to FIGHT for your liberty & freedom -- we use better models to do that & stay True North. http://FPClegal.org 

18) FINALLY: Whenever you encounter law enforcement SHUT UP! You CANNOT talk your way *out* of problems but you *can* talk your way into loss of rights/jail/prison! ALWAYS have YOUR lawyer present when dealing with LE/prosecutors. See https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1337429054731952130?s=20 for more. (/thread)