Then the agency put up a “guidance letter” on December 18, 2020, that listed many “objective” factors that explained how the agency intended to decide if AR pistols were actually SBRs in the future. ATF posted the “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces’” document on the Federal Register for public comment.
On the day I looked at the Federal Register, there had been 48,354 comments entered. I picked 100 of the latest
comments at random and tabulated them to fit in one of three categories: “pro-regulation,” “anti-regulation,” and “really, really anti-regulation [insert insult to ATF here].” I was a little shocked to find 100% of the comments in my sample were “anti” or “really anti.” I had expected say, 97%, would fit those categories.
ADD Richardson’s withdrawal letter said, “Upon further consultation with the Department of Justice and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, ATF is withdrawing, pending further Department of Justice review, the notice and request for comments entitled “Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces’,” that was published on December 18, 2020. 85 FR 82516. As explained in the notice, the proposed guidance was not
a regulation. The notice informed and invited comment from the industry and public on a proposed guidance prior to issuing a final guidance document.
The withdrawal of the guidance does not change any law, regulation, or other legally binding requirement.”
The way I read Richardson’s letter, ATF did not rule out any of the possible negative outcomes. The withdrawal letter simply expressed ATF’s lack of interest in getting any more negative input. The Honey Badger and other AR pistols aren’t out of the regulatory woods yet.
|