Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
During a Monday Rules Committee mark-up hearing for H.J. Res. 44, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) defended the ATF AR-pistol stabilizer brace rule but could not explain what the rule does nor how long a prison sentence could be for breaking the rule.
Nadler was questioned by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who brought up a 2012 letter from ATF wherein the agency told stabilizer brace designer Alex Bosco that his brace “would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm” and “would not be subject to National Firearms Act controls.”
Massie asked how a stabilizer brace, which the ATF okayed in 2012, could be the subject of a rule making it illegal in 2023.
Massie said, “The ATF said it was legal, and here we are a decade later — 40 million gun owners later–and the ATF now says it’s illegal.”
Nadler responded by claiming that first brace was a forearm brace but that latter braces have been made to be fired from the shoulder.
Massie countered him, explaining that braces can look different “cosmetically,” but that the brace Bosco received an approval letter for in 2012 is not fundamentally different from the brace that would be made today.
Nadler then appeared to get tongue tied talking about the difference between what braces were designed to do versus how consumers chose to use them.
Massie asked Nadler about the punishment American gun owners will face for breaking the ATF AR-pistol stabilizer brace rule, saying, “What would be a fair prison term for owning a piece of plastic?”
Nadler said, “I’m not a judge, I’m not going to say what a fair prison term would be.”
He went to say it would be best to look at comparable crimes and regulations to ascertain proper punishment.
Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) explained that the punishment is a $250,000 fine and up to ten years in prison.
Massie then asked rhetorically, “Does it seem a little extreme to get ten years for owning a piece of plastic that the ATF, for ten years, maintained was legal?”
As the exchange continued, Nadler’s answers made clear he did not know the rule he was defending applies to mere possession of an AR-pistol with a stabilizer brace.