[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2835-H2842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
   BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES RELATING TO 
``FACTORING CRITERIA FOR FIREARMS WITH ATTACHED `STABILIZING BRACES' ''

  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 495, I call up 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 
relating to ``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached 
`Stabilizing Braces' '', and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lamborn). Pursuant to House Resolution 
495, the joint resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 44

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to ``Factoring 
     Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces' '' 
     (ATF final rule 2021R-08F), and such rule shall have no force 
     or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hunt) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hunt).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 44.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 44 provides for congressional disapproval for 
the rule submitted by the Biden ATF relating to factoring criteria for 
firearms with attached stabilizing braces.
  On January 31, 2023, the ATF issued a final rule that effectively 
bans pistol stabilizing braces nationwide. The ATF's rule redefined a 
firearm with an attached stabilizing brace as a short-barreled rifle 
subject to regulation under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the 
National Firearms Act of 1934.
  Let's be clear about what is happening here today. With one stroke of 
a pen, unelected bureaucrats in Biden's ATF changed regulatory 
definitions that will turn millions of law-abiding citizens into felons 
overnight. That is a fact.
  If the owners of the roughly 40 million stabilizing braces in 
circulation today do not obtain a special registration, surrender, 
destroy their brace, or turn their brace in to the ATF by May 31, 2023, 
they could now face criminal penalties up to 10 years in Federal 
prison, with fines of up to $250,000.
  This isn't happening because Congress passed a law or because a judge 
issued a ruling. This is an example of the executive branch making law. 
This is a Federal agency usurping the legislative authority that 
Congress has under the Constitution.
  Congressional Democrats couldn't pass a bill that outlawed pistol 
stabilizing braces, so the Biden administration has utilized executive 
fiat to achieve the desired outcome.
  To make matters worse, the rule directly contradicts a prior 2012 
determination made by the Obama ATF. President Obama's ATF said that a 
firearm equipped with a stabilizing brace would not be subject to the 
National Firearms Act controls. The ATF says one thing for a decade and 
then does another which will then turn millions of law-abiding citizens 
into felons literally overnight.
  Now, American citizens who own these pistol stabilizing braces and 
relied on the statements made by the ATF are in violation of Federal 
law and are subject to serious criminal penalties.
  The Second Amendment is imbued in the Bill of Rights for a reason. It 
preserves the First Amendment and all other unalienable rights afforded 
to the American people. We don't need to reimagine the Second 
Amendment. We don't need to curtail it. We most certainly won't be 
repealing it with a 28th amendment.
  This ATF rule is an affront against the rights of the American 
citizen and an assault on the Second Amendment, and it must be 
defeated.

[[Page H2836]]

  This resolution will nullify the ATF rule and further protect one of 
our most basic rights and reclaim Congress' lawmaking authority given 
to us by our Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution, which 
would ignore the considered judgment of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives and make stabilizing braces, a favorite tool 
of mass shooters, widely available without a background check.
  Today is one of those clarifying moments when the priorities of the 
Republican majority are on clear display. Instead of taking up 
legislation to reduce gun violence in America, we are advancing a bill 
to ensure that more deadly weapons are in the hands of mass shooters in 
this country. What a disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, gun violence continues to take the lives of more than 
100 Americans every day. It changes how safe we feel in our schools and 
in our houses of worship. It reduces vibrant cities to somber 
headlines. It takes our loved ones, old and young, and leaves us with 
another anniversary of lives cut short and a community forever changed.
  Today, rather than stand up against gun violence, the majority plans 
to pass this bill so that they can yet again stand with the gun 
industry.
  Rather than support the law enforcement officers who are on the front 
lines of protecting our communities, the majority is attempting to 
weaken law enforcement by rolling back a rule created by the ATF meant 
to protect us from dangerous weapons. The ATF is the law enforcement 
agency tasked with keeping guns out of the wrong hands and keeping our 
gun laws in line with congressional intent through rulemaking.
  In 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, creating 
additional requirements to own certain especially dangerous firearms, 
like short-barreled rifles, which were widely used by violent 
criminals. Congress included short-barreled rifles because they combine 
the firepower of a rifle with the concealability of a smaller gun.
  In recent years, the gun industry discovered a way to circumvent the 
restrictions of the National Firearms Act by selling stabilizing 
braces, an accessory that allows a pistol to be fired from the 
shoulder, turning it into a deadly yet concealable short-barreled 
rifle.
  In 2020, under the Trump administration, the ATF concluded that 
stabilizing braces were being widely used to create short-barreled 
rifles and published guidance regarding their use. House Republicans 
cried foul. Just 4 days after the guidance was published, 90 House 
Republicans sent a letter to the ATF and the DOJ expressing their 
opposition, and just a few days later, the guidance was withdrawn.

  A few months later, under the Biden administration, the ATF revived 
its efforts to regulate stabilizing braces and published the final rule 
in January to ensure that our laws stay in line with the intent of 
Congress, dating all the way back to 1934, when Congress decided that 
deadly, concealable short-barreled rifles should be subject to 
heightened regulation.
  Republicans will stop at nothing to block the ATF from taking this 
simple lifesaving measure, even though they know that blocking this 
rule could have deadly consequences.
  Mass shooters used guns with stabilizing braces to kill 9 people 
outside a bar in Dayton in 2019; to kill 10 people, including a 
responding officer, in a grocery store in Boulder in 2021; to kill 5 
people in an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs last year; and just 
this past March, to kill 6 people, including 3 children, in a school in 
Nashville, the nineteenth school shooting this year.
  The Nashville shooting occurred the day before the Judiciary 
Committee initially planned to mark up this resolution, so the 
majority, apparently sensitive to the optics, if not the substance, of 
marking up this resolution, postponed the markup.
  Three weeks later, they decided that enough time had passed since 
three more families woke up without the child they had taken to school, 
and they were ready to advance a bill to enable more mass shooters to 
inflict death and destruction in our communities. I guess they thought 
that we had forgotten the lives lost in that terrible tragedy. We will 
never forget them or the countless others who lose their lives to gun 
violence every day.
  Now, today, the majority seeks to pass this bill on the House floor, 
despite the deadly consequences. How many more lives will be lost 
because Republicans refuse to acknowledge that these weapons are a 
favorite of mass shooters for their ability to make a gun both deadly 
and concealable? How many more people have to die before Republicans 
will value the lives of our children over the profits of the gun 
industry?
  During the last Congress, Democrats put forth a range of solutions to 
prevent gun violence, to support law enforcement, and to solve violent 
crimes, but our colleagues across the aisle continue to push for 
unfettered access to every firearm and accessory imaginable.

                              {time}  1445

  As Republicans continue to seek freedom from gun regulation, we will 
continue to seek communities free from gun violence.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a cost estimate for 
H.J. Res. 44 prepared by the Congressional Budget Office.

H.J. RES. 44, A JOINT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL
UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY
  THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES RELATING TO
``FACTORING CRITERIA FOR FIREARMS WITH ATTACHED `STABILIZING BRACES' '',
   AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON MAY 17, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           By fiscal year,  millions of
                                                    dollars--
                                        --------------------------------
                                            2023    2023-2028  2023-2033
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending (Outlays)..............          0          0          0
Revenues...............................        -14       -243       -506
Increase or Decrease (-) in the Deficit         14        243        506
Spending Subject to Appropriation                *          *         **
 (Outlays).............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* = between zero and $500,000.
** = not estimated.

       Increases net direct spending in any of the four 
     consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034? No. Statutory 
     pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes.
       Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 
     10-year periods beginning in 2034? <$5 billion.
       Mandate Effects:
       Contains intergovernmental mandate? No.
       Contains private-sector mandate? No.
       H.J. Res. 44 would disapprove the final rule ``Factoring 
     Criteria for Firearms With Attached `Stabilizing Braces,' '' 
     which was submitted by the Department of Justice and took 
     effect on January 31, 2023, the day it was published in the 
     Federal Register. The resolution would invoke a legislative 
     process established by the Congressional Review Act to repeal 
     the final rule and prohibit the department from issuing the 
     same or a similar rule in the future.
       The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 
     (ATF) regulates firearms under the National Firearms Act of 
     1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The NFA 
     requires certain guns, including short-barreled rifles, to be 
     licensed and registered with the ATF and subjects them to 
     various taxes, including a $200 tax on the transfer of those 
     weapons and on the production by anyone other than a 
     qualified manufacturer. The final rule reclassifies certain 
     firearms equipped with a stabilizing brace that allows the 
     user to fire from their shoulder as short-barreled rifles. 
     Thus, the owners and manufacturers of those weapons are 
     subject to taxation under the NFA. Disapproval of the final 
     rule would return those firearms to regulation under the GCA, 
     which does not require registration or transfer and 
     production taxes.
       The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that 
     by disapproving the rule, H.J. Res. 44 would reduce revenues 
     by $506 million over the 2023-2033 period (see Table 1).

[[Page H2837]]



                                                                       TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECTS OF H.J. RES. 44
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     By fiscal year,  millions of dollars--
                                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2023       2024       2025       2026       2027       2028       2029       2030       2031       2032       2033     2023- 2028   2023- 2033
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Decreases in revenues
 
Estimated Revenues...........................        -14        -44        -45        -45        -46        -48        -49        -51        -53        -54        -56         -243         -506
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding.

       The Department of Justice would incur administrative costs 
     to undo the rule and revert to the previous regulations. 
     Based on the costs of similar activities, CBO estimates that 
     it would cost less than $500,000 over the 2023-2028 period to 
     implement H.J. Res. 44; any spending would be subject to the 
     availability of appropriated funds.
       The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Jeremy Crimm 
     and Margot Berman. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel 
     Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis.

                                                Phillip L. Swagel,
                            Director, Congressional Budget Office.

  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
  Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that today we are considering 
my Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 
44, co-led with Congressman Richard Hudson, which would strike down the 
ATF's unconstitutional pistol stabilizing brace rule.
  Back in January, the ATF finalized this unlawful measure pertaining 
to firearms with stabilizing braces. Under the ATF's new rule, any 
pistol braced firearm would be considered an unregistered short-
barreled rifle, subjecting these firearms to the draconian regulations 
of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
  The ATF informed law-abiding gun owners possessing pistols housing 
these stabilizing braces that they would have only 120 days to register 
these firearms or risk harsh NFA violations, including hefty fines of 
up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison. This 120-day amnesty 
registration window recently ended at midnight on May 31.
  We all know the end result of gun registration. It will inevitably 
lead to gun confiscation.
  For the stabilizer brace owners who do not wish to register their 
firearms, the ATF provides a few very heavyhanded alternatives. Gun 
owners can turn in, destroy, convert, or dismantle their pistol braced 
firearms. That means, basically, that ATF says you can't have it 
anymore.
  Again, if law-abiding owners refuse to comply with these ridiculous 
regulations, they face severe punishment. They face 10 years in prison 
and up to a $250,000 fine for simply attaching a piece of plastic to 
their firearm. They then become a felon for life.
  The regulatory saga surrounding the pistol brace is enough to make 
even the most seasoned lawmaker's head spin. It is so ridiculously Big 
Government that no American can be expected to keep up with this 
irrational rulemaking.
  Back in 2012, under the Obama administration, pistol braces were 
determined to be legal and fully unrestricted. This decision was then 
reversed 3 years later in 2015, claiming stabilizing braces were 
illegal to shoulder, turning pistol braced firearms into unregistered 
short-barreled rifles. This changed again in 2017 when stabilizing 
braces were once more determined to be legal to shoulder as long as 
they were designed as a pistol brace.
  Now here we are in 2023, as the ATF is yet again vilifying pistol 
stabilizing braces and turning their owners into felons. Americans, 
including disabled veterans, are at risk of losing their right to keep 
and bear arms because of this ATF rule that many Americans likely do 
not even know exists.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard many fear-inducing lies from my Democrat 
colleagues that these braces make firearms more dangerous and deadly. 
That is simply not true. Stabilizing braces were originally designed to 
help service-disabled veterans to not just enjoy the sport of shooting 
but to assist these wounded heroes in practicing their constitutional 
right to keep and bear arms.
  The brace attaches to the rear of a firearm in order to anchor the 
gun to the shooter's arm, allowing them to shoot one-handed. That is 
exactly what you are supposed to be able to do with a pistol, shoot 
one-handed. That is the definition.
  Millions of veterans, including service-disabled veterans, rely on 
these braces every day to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms and 
right to self-defense. Yet, the Biden ATF rule criminalizes these 
beneficial stabilizing braces--again, turning millions of these law-
abiding gun owners into criminals overnight.
  It is no secret that with this measure, and many other forms of 
backdoor gun control, the left's ultimate goal is an unarmed America. 
That is what this is all about, slowly chipping away at Americans' 
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Not on my watch.
  This rule doesn't just infringe upon Americans' Second Amendment 
liberties. It represents a dangerous government overreach by the Biden 
administration. Congress maintains sole legislative authority, not 
government agencies and not the executive branch. Congress writes laws, 
not unelected, anti-gun bureaucrats at the ATF.
  This is nothing more than governing by executive fiat to advance the 
left's desire to disarm our Nation and destroy Americans' Second 
Amendment rights.
  Today, the people's House can take a stand against this unlawful 
overreach. I am proud to lead the fight against this unconstitutional 
pistol brace rule with this critical legislation, H.J. Res. 44. I am 
proud to have my friend, Congressman Hudson, join me in co-leading this 
vital effort, as well as over 180 original House Republican cosponsors.
  The House must act now to save law-abiding gun owners from being 
unwittingly criminalized by the ATF. We must act now to defend service-
disabled veterans' and all Americans' Second Amendment freedoms. We 
must act now to stop the Biden administration's executive overreach and 
tyranny in its tracks.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to 
support H.J. Res. 44. If they fail to do so, I hope they are prepared 
to go home and explain to their constituents that they support the 
ATF's unconstitutional rule to strip service-disabled veterans of their 
Second Amendment rights.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I hope they are prepared to go home and 
explain why they refused to take a stand against this brazen government 
overreach.
  Mr. Speaker, I trust that they will instead choose to join me in 
voting ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 44. I implore my colleagues to join me 
because, by passing this legislation, we will send a resounding message 
to both the judicial system and the Nation that we firmly reject the 
ATF's unconstitutional rule and executive overreach, that we 
unapologetically defend service-disabled veterans' unalienable right to 
keep and bear arms, and that we will never back down in the fight to 
protect all Americans' Second Amendment liberties.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, we will certainly go home and explain to the 
people why we support the ATF's absolutely necessary actions to defend 
the safety of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this bill. Armed braces are used to convert assault pistols into 
short-barreled assault rifles that are more accurate, easier to 
conceal, and can fire rounds capable of penetrating body armor.
  Unregistered arm-brace-equipped firearms have been used in a number 
of high-profile mass shootings: Dayton, Ohio, 9 killed and 17 injured 
outside of a bar; Boulder, Colorado, 10 killed at a

[[Page H2838]]

grocery store; Colorado Springs, 5 killed, 19 injured at a club; 
Nashville, Tennessee, 6 killed, including 3 9-year-old children at an 
elementary school.
  The ATF final rule closes the loophole that helps arm-brace-equipped 
pistols circumvent firearm regulations, including the National Firearms 
Act, which has regulated short-barreled rifles under heightened 
scrutiny since 1934.
  The resolution before us today will take an already menacing and 
lethal weapon and turn it into a more accurate killing machine. This is 
misguided and callous, and it will only lead to more death.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution.
  Our Nation's veterans have served our Nation honorably. They and 
their families have sacrificed for our freedoms. Today, they are 
calling on us to support their Second Amendment right to keep and bear 
arms and to ensure that they can protect themselves and their families. 
Will you answer the call?
  Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Chamber, both Republicans and 
Democrats, say that we support our Nation's veterans. Now is the chance 
to prove it.
  Today, we can block an overreaching regulation by ATF on pistol 
braces. We can defend the rights of our veterans. We can defend the 
rights of all law-abiding gun owners.
  A new regulation by President Biden's ATF on pistol braces has turned 
millions of combat-wounded veterans and law-abiding citizens into 
felons overnight. Before my colleagues cast a vote today, I want you to 
know the story of how the pistol brace was developed.
  Several years ago, a combat-wounded veteran went to a local gun range 
with his buddy. However, he was asked to leave due to his lack of 
control over the pistol because of his combat wounds.
  After leaving the range, his buddy went home and created the first 
pistol brace concept so that his friend and other combat-wounded 
veterans could exercise their constitutional right to protect 
themselves, their families, and their homes and could participate in 
shooting sports again, even on pistol platforms that were otherwise too 
cumbersome for a disabled shooter to use.
  Two years ago, I held a press conference outside of this U.S. Capitol 
with a group of combat-wounded veterans from around the country, 
including Army veteran Rick Cicero. They came to share how devastating 
a new regulation from President Joe Biden's ATF would be on veterans.
  Cicero lost his right leg and right arm due to an IED explosion while 
serving our country in Afghanistan. As a son of a firearms instructor 
and longtime shooter, he didn't want to give up his Second Amendment 
rights.
  In Rick's own words that day: ``The most important thing to me about 
this brace [is it] is another avenue of getting injured veterans out of 
the house. . . . And it helps to maintain a bit of confidence that you 
are still able to do something.''
  Veterans like Rick Cicero served our country and put their bodies 
literally on the line for us and for our families. Starting this month, 
the ATF has taken away their God-given rights protected by our 
Constitution. It is outrageous.
  Since the creation of the brace, the ATF has repeatedly approved 
stabilizing brace designs. As recently as July 2018, the ATF said a 
brace used ``to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting 
with a single hand . . . is not considered a shoulder stock and 
therefore may be attached to a handgun without making an NFA firearm.''
  As a result of those former decisions, tens of millions of Americans 
already legally owned pistols with stabilizing braces.
  Yet, the ATF's new rule requires owners of the device to either 
remove or destroy them or register the braced firearms with the ATF as 
short-barreled rifles.
  For those combat-wounded veterans in New York and Connecticut, which 
don't allow short-barreled rifles, you have no option. You can't 
register that brace.
  This registration process involves submitting fingerprints and 
identifying information as well as photographs of the owner and the 
firearm. Additionally, the registration will require a $200 tax stamp.
  The 120-day grace period is well short of previous grace periods 
where a gun was reclassified under the NFA. In fact, back in 1994, the 
last time a weapon was reclassified, they had over 6 years to 
reregister that weapon.
  This has led to less compliance and leads me to speculate whether the 
ATF instituted a short timeline by design. Either way, these 
regulations are especially difficult for servicemembers deployed 
overseas, like so many in my district. If they are overseas when the 
deadline hit the end of last month, they are unable to register their 
firearms. They are now felons. Think about that. They are serving us 
overseas, and we have now labeled them a felon.
  This travesty illustrates the dangers of an unchecked Federal agency 
that is willing to go around Congress and the millions of constituents 
we represent.
  Our constituents are fed up. They are sick and tired of unelected 
bureaucrats making up new laws and calling them regulations. I say 
enough is enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Clyde), for partnering with me on this important resolution, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

                              {time}  1500

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking 
member and certainly the distinguished Member who is managing, my 
friend from Texas.
  Let me be very clear. I support a stabilizing brace for disabled 
Americans and veterans.
  Could anybody stand here and disagree with that?
  They were wounded in combat, and they are fighters for our freedom. 
It is my honor to have represented the Houston National Cemetery in 
Texas over a number of years.
  Let me be very clear on what we are debating here today. Might I say 
that there are veterans in the ATF, men and women who served in the 
United States military who have come home to serve again. Their desire 
is not to violate the Second Amendment, neither is their desire to take 
innocent Americans in.
  You can get a brace for those disabled veterans, and it is a legal 
process. This provision specifically is to deal with when you make it a 
lethal weapon to be used like an assault weapon to kill people.
  I don't know why we can't be clear. Let me tell you why it is very 
clear. It is because we started out with this bill so many days and 
weeks ago, but in the midst of it, someone used the exact same brace to 
go into the Covenant School in Nashville and murder three 9-year-olds 
and three staff members. That is what the ATF is against. Eight 
children are dying every day and 40,000 Americans are dying throughout 
the year through gun violence, not your Second Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, who would even think that you could tamper with the 
Second Amendment?
  It is in the Bill of Rights.
  However, we do believe that when you have this weapon being created 
to be the kind of dangerous and lethal weapon to kill, Americans will 
stand up and say: It is not about the Second Amendment, it is about 
saving lives.
  In Dayton 2019, 9 killed, 17 injured; Boulder 2021, 10 killed; 
Colorado Springs 2022, 5 killed and 19 injured; Nashville 2023, 6 
killed, and children are amongst them.
  This is the procedure that is used, not at a shooting range where our 
veterans may go, but for criminal acts that kill people.
  Mr. Speaker, let's hear from the person who actually designed it. It 
was the creator of the SB tactical stabilizing brace who acknowledged 
in a 2017 interview with the editor of The Firearm Blog that many who 
bought the braces did so to avoid National Firearms Registration. They 
were going to do bad, not those good veterans.
  He also said during our joint hearing last month--in answer to a 
question where I asked him to discuss the ATF

[[Page H2839]]

order--that the stabilizing brace was originally designed to allow a 
disabled veteran to shoot a pistol more accurately and safely.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Valadao). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Under this regulation, they will still be allowed to 
do so.
  Let me be very clear. It is for veterans, and under the regulation of 
ATF, who is full of combat veterans themselves doing their duty to this 
Nation, who looked at this and said they cannot stand for more children 
being murdered by someone taking a brace--not disabled at all--but to 
make a steady aim to kill and take innocent lives.
  I commend the ATF for its fortitude. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, 
that the work we need to be doing right now, passing the Kimberly 
Vaughn Firearm Safe Storage Act, extreme risk protection laws, and an 
assault weapons ban that more than 200 persons voted against but the 
right people voted for, this is not an injury to our veterans. It is 
saving lives.
  Who would stand up here against a veteran?
  Nobody. However, I am going to stand up here against the killing of 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in Opposition to H.J. Res. 44, which opposes 
regulation of stabilizing braces--one of the modifications the shooter 
used to blast their way into Covenant School in Nashville and murder 
three nine-year olds and three staff members.
  After this shooting occurred, the Judiciary Committee postponed the 
markup of this resolution of disapproval, which was originally 
scheduled to take place the day after the shooting.
  For some reason, which I do not claim to know, Republicans didn't 
want to talk about stabilizing braces then. But less than a month after 
more Americans learned that children would never again come home or go 
to school, Republicans decided that the time was right to hold a markup 
of this resolution.
  It took just twenty-two days for Republicans to move on from the 
tragic loss of life--of children--and get back to the business of 
supporting and protecting the gun lobby.
  Now here we are today--while the wounds of that tragic day are still 
fresh--not to vote on a bill to make sure this deadly modification 
never ends up in the wrong hands again but to make it easier to 
purchase and possess them.
  Instead of offering legislation to address the problem of gun 
violence or to tackle public safety issues, Republicans are here today 
to shake their disapproving fingers at the ATF for doing its job and to 
uplift the very modification used to slaughter nine people and injure 
17 in downtown Dayton, Ohio; to massacre ten people, including a police 
officer, at a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado; to murder five people 
and injure 19 at a club in Colorado Springs; and as I said--most 
recently--in Nashville, to kill children and the people who cared for 
them.
  Had the rule on stabilizing braces been in place at the time, these 
murderers might have been deterred--and lives saved--by the National 
Firearms Act registration requirements, which include an enhanced 
background check.
  Although my Republican colleagues see fit to abolish or defund ATF or 
``zero out their salaries''--when it became obvious that stabilizing 
braces had become a workaround against the short barreled rifle rules, 
the subject-matter experts at ATF exercised their statutory authority--
granted by Congress--as a regulatory agency--to implement, clarify, and 
interpret the terms and requirements within its jurisdiction, including 
application of the National Firearms Act.
  I should point out that it was under the previous administration that 
ATF first concluded that stabilizing braces were being designed to 
avoid NFA requirements.
  And it was the creator of the SB Tactical stabilizing brace who 
acknowledged in a 2017 interview with the editor of The Firearm Blog, 
that many who bought the braces did so to avoid NFA registration. He 
also said during our joint hearing last month to discuss the ATF--that 
the stabilizing brace was ``originally designed to allow a disabled 
veteran'' shoot a pistol more accurately and safely. Under this 
regulation, they will still be allowed to do so.
  I commend the ATF for having the fortitude to press forward despite 
the unfair attacks and bullying by House Republicans--including their 
December 2020 letter to then Attorney General Barr and ATF Acting 
Director Lombardo--to provide guidance to prevent the harm created by 
certain stabilizing braces that convert firearms into concealable, 
killing machines.
  And let me be clear. We all know that this resolution is not 
particularly about the ATF, disabled veterans, or even stabilizing 
braces. This resolution is about allowing more guns on the street and 
in our communities.
  Our divisions could not be clearer--as Republicans continue to put 
more guns, that are more dangerous, in more hands.
  They want unfettered access to more guns--to be used against women; 
more guns to be used against children in their homes and in their 
schools; more guns to be used against law enforcement--against people 
shopping in grocery stores--and against people enjoying a night out 
with friends.
  Democrats, on the other hand, will continue to support the ATF in its 
efforts to address gun violence and to promote commonsense laws that 
keep Americans safe--like the Kimberly Vaughan Firearm Safe Storage 
Act, Extreme Risk Protection laws, and an Assault Weapons ban that more 
than 200 Republicans voted against and could have yielded a much 
different result in mass shootings that have become an American way of 
life.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to vote no to this dangerous 
resolution.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Second Amendment, which undergirds all the other 
amendments, is the only amendment in the U.S. Constitution to include 
the following four words: ``shall not be infringed.''
  As a lifetime law enforcement officer and former sheriff, I have seen 
firsthand how law-abiding citizens using legal firearms protect 
themselves, their families, their neighbors, and other innocent persons 
from those who would do them harm. Mr. Speaker, any crime I have ever 
seen, I have never seen a stabilizing brace used.
  While we are prioritizing safe gun ownership and work to keep 
firearms out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness, 
the Federal Government shall not infringe on the rights of legal gun 
owners.
  That means that the executive branch must not use this administrative 
rulemaking to rewrite the bounds of the Second Amendment--all without 
even a vote from Congress.
  That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what the Biden administration is trying 
to do. They legislate by fiat, through rulemaking.
  Earlier this year, the ATF finalized a rule that redefines these 
pistols with attached stabilizing braces as a short-barreled rifle. 
After decades, they changed the interpretation.
  Mr. Speaker, this insidious rule would turn millions of law-abiding 
gun owners--including many disabled veterans, as we have heard--who 
rely on these stabilizing braces into criminals simply for possessing 
firearms with a legal accessory.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor this important resolution, and I 
urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle are 
shamelessly trying to make this into a veterans' issue. It is an NRA 
bill plain and simple, and they are just trying to put lipstick on a 
pig. If they cared so much about veterans, then they would have voted 
for the PACT Act, but they didn't seem to worry that much at that 
point.
  Over the years we have seen the gun industry circumvent existing laws 
by developing new and advanced accessories to increase the power and 
lethal capabilities of certain firearms.
  From bump stocks to auto sears to pistol braces, these unnecessary 
accessories serve the primary purpose of making guns more deadly.
  Unfortunately, we have seen this play out in events so tragic that we 
just have to refer to them by their first name and people know what we 
mean: Pulse nightclub, Sandy Hook, Nashville, the October 1 shooting in 
my district, and others; every time every precious life was taken with 
the help of one of these accessories.
  Time and time again, we have reminded our Republican colleagues of 
these facts, yet they offer nothing but thoughts and prayers and then 
proceed to try and expand access to guns and conversion devices.
  Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on this.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Burlison).

[[Page H2840]]

  

  Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 44, which will 
nullify the ATF's overreaching and unconstitutional rule to regulate 
firearms that happen to have stabilizing braces such as short-barreled 
rifles.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the ATF's rule is nothing short of an 
assault on our Second Amendment rights. Our Constitution does not grant 
the ATF the authority to unilaterally redefine what laws constitute a 
firearm because lawmaking power rests with the elected Representatives 
of the American people.
  If pistol brace owners fail to register their firearms with the ATF, 
then they will be deemed felons, face up to 10 years of prison, and be 
fined thousands. This reclassification is arbitrary, it bucks a decade 
of the ATF's own precedent, it is an assault on our Second Amendment, 
and it threatens to turn millions--tens of millions--of law-abiding 
Americans into criminals overnight.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote in favor of H.J. Res. 44 to reassert the 
power of the American people, protect the rights of law-abiding gun 
owners, and stop this retroactive gun grab.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I don't think my colleagues on the other side 
are aware that it is Gun Violence Awareness Month, which should 
actually be every month.
  We have already had over 290 mass shootings this year. That is more 
mass shootings than days in the year.
  It is time for us to come together to try to address the horrific gun 
crisis. It is tearing our communities apart, Mr. Speaker, by our 
legislative inaction every single day.
  So how do we start Gun Violence Awareness Month?
  They are pushing a bill that would make mass shootings even more 
deadly. You heard that right, Mr. Speaker. The plan is for them to 
raise awareness around gun violence in our country, to make it more 
horrific and more deadly, and to ensure it impacts more American 
families than ever before by making it easier to access stabilizing 
braces that have been misused and that have been used for mass 
shootings.
  It is not just mass shootings, Mr. Speaker. It is everyday violence 
that doesn't even make the news anymore.
  It is a travesty that campaign cash from the NRA, gun manufacturers, 
and the pro-death lobby have blocked the major reforms we need to keep 
our communities safe.
  Our communities need an assault weapons ban. We need reforms on 
handguns and bold initiatives to reduce the number of firearms in our 
communities. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, we need accountability for the 
people who are causing this violence because the gun violence crisis is 
enabling more people in power unwilling to do anything to stop the mass 
murder of countless Americans, especially our children.

  I look forward to supporting future legislation that truly does fight 
the crisis with the urgency it deserves instead of pouring more fuel on 
the fire like this disgusting Republican bill.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am a Texan, I am a veteran, and I am a gun 
owner. I am a gun owner of multiple AR-15s, primarily for hunting, and, 
of course, to protect my three little kids at home, a 4-year-old, a 2-
year-old, and a 5-month-old. No one is going to walk into my house and 
harm my children or my wife--my family. That, I can assure you.
  Mr. Speaker, 6 percent of all gun homicides are at the hands of an 
AR-15 and weapons that are outfitted with a pistol brace--6 percent, 
and 60 percent are at the hands of a handgun, and the rest are weapons 
designated not as the two that I just mentioned--6 percent.
  This is clearly an attempt to diminish our Second Amendment rights 
because if you just take away 6 percent of the gun homicides, it leaves 
you with 94, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that a homicidal maniac 
who wants to arbitrarily murder people will find another weapon of 
choice.
  I hear the words weapon of war oftentimes, as well. I am an A-64 
Delta Apache pilot. I flew 55 combat air missions in Baghdad. That is a 
weapon of war. A civilian-made AR-15 is nothing that I would ever take 
to battle.
  Now, I also recognize that we do have a mass shooting problem in this 
country, and my colleagues on the left want to, of course, blame the 
AR-15. However, Mr. Speaker, I stand before you to blame the homicidal 
maniac.
  I walk in these Halls every single day, and I am surrounded by brave 
men and women who carry AR-15s and weapons every single day. I have to 
walk through a metal detector just to get in this building every single 
day. Just because I wear this pin does not make me more important than 
my children.
  So what I offer is that instead of trying to erode our Second 
Amendment rights, I would offer let's protect our kids. Let's ensure 
that they have the same protection that we have in the Halls of 
Congress.
  There are over 400 million guns currently in circulation. By the way, 
the overwhelming majority of the people who don't use weapons are law-
abiding citizens like myself. I refuse to allow the erosion of our 
Second Amendment rights to further disarm our population, making us 
less safe as a further push toward communism, because that is what 
happens.
  When you disarm your population, then the government runs amok. We, 
especially down in Texas, are not going to allow that to happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly encourage my colleagues to support this 
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman says that the cause of gun violence in 
this country is homicidal maniacs. We have 78 times as much gun 
violence per unit of population than any other country in the world.
  Does the gentleman think that we are 78 times as mentally ill and 
that we have 78 times as many gun maniacs in this country as anywhere 
else per unit of population?
  That is a slander on the American people.
  The obvious cause is we have guns run amok.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, Republicans have claimed this rule affects forearm 
braces. It does not. If a disabled veteran needs a forearm brace to 
shoot a pistol, he or she can still get one without registering it.
  The only firearms affected by this rule are those that have a brace 
that is ``designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.'' 
If a veteran or anyone else wants a covered brace, all they have to do 
is register it. It was even free to do so until June 1. The ATF waived 
the fee to encourage compliance.
  All this rule does is close a loophole so that all short-barreled 
rifles are subjected to the commonsense requirements of the National 
Firearms Act: Registration and a background check.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman kindly for his courtesy 
in granting me this time.
  Today is June 13. We have had 164 days in the year 2023, and we have 
had 291 mass shootings. We are having, on average, 1\1/2\ mass 
shootings every single day in America.
  Of course, our colleagues would prefer not to talk about it because 
they say it is impolite to talk about a mass shooting on the day it 
happens. With that theory, we would never talk about it, and we would 
continue ad infinitum into the carnage and the bloodshed that this 
unlimited, open-arms policy is giving America today.
  A number of my colleagues have invoked the Second Amendment. They 
only quote half of it. They say: `` . . . the right of the people to 
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''
  What about the first half of it? ``A well regulated militia, being 
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to 
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''
  They say we want to repeal the Second Amendment. Mr. Speaker, we 
don't want them to repeal the Second Amendment. We want them to read 
the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment would ask us why we

[[Page H2841]]

are allowing people to go into elementary schools, Walmarts, 
supermarkets, churches, and synagogues all over America with AR-15s 
enabled sometimes with a stabilizing brace--as in Dayton, Ohio; 
Boulder, Colorado; Colorado Springs; Nashville, Tennessee--and 
assassinate our people.
  If a foreign government were doing it, we would declare war on them, 
but since we are just allowing the gun industry to spread these weapons 
of mass destruction around the country, they want to allow it.
  They say that the Second Amendment must be respected in this strange 
and distorted way because they believe the Second Amendment gives 
people the right to overthrow the government. This insurrectionist 
theory of the Second Amendment means that the people must have an 
arsenal equal to that of the government.
  Well, it is very hard to explain the rest of the Constitution, then. 
The Second Amendment doesn't mention anything about rebellion or 
insurrection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. RASKIN. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 says Congress has the 
power to call forth the militias from the States in order to ``suppress 
insurrections.''
  Does that sound like a pro-insurrection document to you?
  How about the Republican Guarantee Clause?
  Congress shall guarantee to the people of the States a republican 
form of government and assist them in putting down domestic violence.
  How about the treason clause, which says that treason shall consist 
of levying arms against the Union?
  I could give you six more examples like that, but why don't we pause 
on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which says that anybody who has 
sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United 
States and violates that oath by engaging in insurrection or rebellion 
shall never be allowed to hold Federal or State office again.
  That is not the meaning of our Constitution.
  The regulation the administration has adopted is perfectly 
constitutional, so if you want more bloodshed, just stand for that. It 
has got nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It is perfectly 
constitutional for us to engage in reasonable gun safety regulation. 
Check out Heller v. The District of Columbia. Justice Scalia wrote that 
opinion.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Donalds).
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I actually want to welcome the people who 
are here in the gallery. I am glad they are here to see this. What they 
are witnessing is actually something functional that Congress should be 
doing.
  We have a Federal agency called the ATF that has unilaterally decided 
that they want to make illegal a piece of equipment that they legalized 
more than a decade ago. The ATF said that the pistol brace is a 
functional and legal piece that can be added to--and I stress ``added 
to''--a firearm, and they allowed it to be sold in the United States 
for more than a decade.
  Now, why do I say, ``added to''? The question for the people in the 
gallery and the people watching on C-SPAN across the country is: Have 
you ever seen a pistol brace? It is mostly plastic and/or carbon fiber. 
It wraps around your forearm, and it has a little pole that sticks out 
to the midpoint of your hand. The purpose of said brace is for people 
who actually had an arm injury but still wanted to take advantage of 
their Second Amendment rights, and the ATF more than a decade ago 
allowed that brace to be sold in the United States.
  We now have the same ATF who is deciding unilaterally to go back and 
say that that brace now needs to be registered, and if you don't 
register it, you are a felon in the United States. If that is not a 
gross violation of separation of powers, I don't know what is. Congress 
never gave the ATF that authority to criminalize American citizens 
after they were allowed to buy a piece of equipment.

  If an agency says that they think a piece of equipment is a detriment 
to public safety, then it is the requirement of the agency and the 
executive branch to come to this body and ask for legal permission to 
say so. They did not.
  They don't just get to act on their own accord. They don't just get 
to define terms for themselves unless Congress gives them that ability.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental problems we are having here at 
the national level is that we have too many agencies who are taking too 
much latitude with the liberties of the American people. Instead of 
going to their Representatives for clarification, they decide that they 
want to make them felons through the back door. That is abhorrent.
  That is a violation of separation of powers. It is a violation of the 
very Constitution, and it is a violation of the liberties of the 
American people that we are all here to represent.
  Regardless of how you feel about guns, and regardless of how you may 
feel about a pistol brace, none of us should be supportive of an agency 
using their authorities or not using any of their authorities to 
criminalize the American people.
  This is a good CRA. We should be voting up on this CRA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DONALDS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Texas 
yielding me additional time, but I don't think I will need another 
minute.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be voting for this measure. This is a measure 
to stop a Federal agency from stepping over its bounds and turning law-
abiding American citizens into felons. A ``no'' vote on this measure is 
a vote to allow the Federal agencies to run amok, unobstructed over the 
will of the people. Our Members should be supporting it. Frankly, every 
Member in this Chamber should be supporting this resolution today.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the 
millions of victims of gun violence whose voices have been silenced.
  We need to acknowledge what it means to be an American today. It 
means checking where the exits are in a grocery store or being afraid 
to drop your child off at an elementary school or always wondering when 
and where the next shooting will happen.
  What are we doing?
  This bill is a slap in the face to the victims of mass shootings. It 
ignores the realities of gun violence in our country, and it 
demonstrates how Republicans choose the gun lobby over children and 
families over and over again.
  In fact, they planned to mark up this bill on March 28. They 
postponed it after a shooter used a stabilizing brace to murder six 
people at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.
  Instead, they choose the seventh anniversary of the Pulse nightclub 
shooting.
  All the while, in my district, the Tree of Life families are in court 
fighting for justice, facing the gunman who killed their loved ones. 
Mass shootings have become so commonplace that it would be hard to 
schedule this on a day that is not a terrible anniversary.
  This bill today is shameful. To my Republican colleagues, if you are 
not with us, at least get out of the way. You owe it to the American 
people.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared 
to close.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  We have heard the majority claim over and over that this rule is 
going to come as a surprise to the gun industry and to those who have 
purchased stabilizing braces. This is simply not true.
  There are dozens of videos online of people promoting the use of 
braces to create short-barreled rifles that circumvent the National 
Firearms Act. One brace promoter even said the resulting short-barreled 
rifle could easily fit into a briefcase or a backpack.
  Let's be clear. The majority is defending the widespread availability 
without a background check of a brace that allows more rifles to easily 
fit into a backpack. The majority has seen these promotional videos. We 
watched

[[Page H2842]]

them in our hearing and in our markup, yet they continue to seek to 
invalidate this rule and claim it will come as a surprise.
  The fact is that those who profit from the sale of these braces have 
long known that they were circumventing the law. The ATF wrote to one 
brace manufacturer multiple times over the last 10 years. In 2018, 5 
years ago, the ATF, under President Trump, told the brace manufacturer 
that it was engaging in false advertising by claiming devices were ATF 
approved, when in fact the ATF had not even evaluated those devices.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 18, 2018, letter from the 
ATF to SB Tactical, a brace manufacturer, stating that they must cease 
the false advertisement of products as ATF approved when they had not 
even been evaluated, much less approved by ATF.

         U.S. Department of Justice, 


         Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,

                                                  Martinsburg, WV.
     SB Tactical,
      Saint Petersburg, FL.
       Dear SB Tactical: This letter is to inform SB Tactical that 
     certain products currently marketed and sold by SB Tactical 
     have not been evaluated nor approved by the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Firearms 
     Technology Industry Services Branch (FTISB). It has come to 
     the attention of FTISB that all of SB Tactical ``braces'' are 
     being marketed as evaluated and approved by ATF as ``pistol 
     stabilizing braces,'' although, in most cases no evaluations 
     or classification have ever occurred.
       FTISB has found the following statement on the boxes of 
     unevaluated SB Tactical models:
       ATF Compliant--ATF has reviewed this product and determined 
     that attaching a Pistol Stabilizing Brace to a firearm does 
     not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the 
     firearm to NFA control.
       To date, FTISB has evaluated only two SB15 Tactical 
     submissions: the SB15 brace and the MPX PSB brace. FTISB 
     approved both of these models for use as ``stabilizing 
     braces,'' and classified them as not designed or intended to 
     be used as shouldering devices. However, these 
     classifications were based on the samples as submitted. Any 
     change in the submitted design could change FTISB's 
     classification.
       Currently, SB Tactical markets more than 20 different 
     designs of ``pistol stabilizing braces.'' While some of these 
     new models are similar to the original evaluated models, 
     several are advertised as being based off shoulder stock 
     designs. FTISB does not approve ``stabilizing braces'' which 
     are similar or based off shoulder stock designs.
       These are the submitted SB Tactical braces approved by ATF:
       SB15 (Original submission)
       MPX PSB
       SB Tactical braces not submitted nor approved by ATF:
       SBA3, SBPDW, SB-MINI, SBL, SBM4, SOB, SBX-K, SBV, SBM47, 
     SOB47, SBT5, SBT5A.
       SBT5KA, SBTEVO, SBT805, SBT, SBTI, VECTOR PSB, UZI PSB, 
     TAC14-SBM4, 590-SBM4, TAC14-SBL, 590-SBL.
       SB Tactical must cease false advertisement of products as 
     ATF approved which have not been evaluated nor approved. If 
     SB Tactical would like to get an official determination for 
     these products, they may be submitted to FTISB for evaluation 
     and classification.
       In order for FTISB to evaluate these products and make an 
     official determination, please submit the samples to: Chief, 
     FTISB.
       In order for FTISB to perform an evaluation, any submission 
     must be on a complete firearm, with the ``stabilizing brace'' 
     installed.
       Please contact us if you have any additional questions 
     regarding this matter.
           Sincerely yours,

                                            Michael R. Curtis,

                               Chief, Firearms Technology Industry
                                                  Services Branch.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the ATF, the agency specifically tasked with 
regulating dangerous weapons and keeping them out of the wrong hands, 
underwent a careful review process that began under the Trump 
administration.
  The agency determined that gun owners were exploiting a loophole that 
allowed stabilizing braces to be used to assemble a short-barreled 
rifle without being subjected to the existing regulations for such 
highly dangerous weapons. The ATF then issued a rule, using the 
standard administrative process, to close this loophole and to protect 
our communities.
  There should be nothing controversial about this rule, but 
Republicans want to overturn this sensible regulation and put more 
stabilizing braces on the streets and in the hands of more mass 
shooters.
  I remind Members that mass shooters have already used stabilizing 
braces to kill 9 people outside a bar in Dayton in 2019; to kill 10 
people, including a responding police officer, at a grocery store in 
Boulder in 2021; to kill 5 people in an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado 
Springs last year; and just a few months ago to kill 6 people, 
including 3 children, at a school in Nashville.
  Once again, Republicans are putting the interests of the gun industry 
over the safety of their communities.
  I urge all Members to oppose this dangerous legislation, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNT. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this resolution, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 44.
  This resolution seeks to repeal reasonable restrictions on deadly 
weapons, at a time when gun violence is the leading cause of death for 
children and youth in the United States.
  H.J. Res. 44 would nullify the Biden-Harris administration's 
stabilizing arm brace rule, which keeps dangerous firearms out of 
dangerous hands by requiring that guns equipped with stabilizing arm 
braces are subject to the same requirements as weapons with the same 
fire power. This rule makes it harder for individuals intending to 
inflict carnage and take lives to obtain these weapons, and it should 
remain in place in order to save more lives.
  With this resolution, extreme Republicans continue their unpopular 
and unconscionable quest to oppose any and all restrictions on 
firearms, abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives (ATF), and prioritize the gun industry over the safety of 
our communities and the law enforcement officers who serve them.
  House Democrats are determined to defend the sensible and effective 
policies in place to protect Americans, and we will continue to work to 
pass additional safeguards to end America's gun violence.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the previous question is ordered on 
the joint resolution.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________