[House Report 118-69]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress   }                                     {        Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session     }                                     {        118-69

======================================================================

 
  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'''

                                _______
                                

  May 17, 2023.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
             State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                      [To accompany H.J. Res. 44]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred 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''', having considered the 
same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommends that the joint resolution do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     2
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     5
Committee Votes..................................................     5
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     7
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects..........................     7
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................     7
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     7
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     8
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................     8
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................     8
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     8
Dissenting Views.................................................     8

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.J. Res. 44, introduced by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), would 
nullify a final rule of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) titled, ``Factoring Criteria for 
Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces,''' and would 
prevent the ATF from issuing a substantially similar rule in 
the future.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    On January 31, 2023, the ATF issued a final rule titled, 
``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing 
Braces,''' that effectively bans pistol stabilizing braces 
nationwide.\1\ The final rule upsets longstanding reliance 
interests of law-abiding gun owners without the political 
accountability or public debate that would ordinarily accompany 
such a policy change if it were to be imposed by Congress. The 
final rule provides that pistols equipped with stabilizing 
braces meet the definition of a firearm under the National 
Firearms Act, and that ``[a]ny weapons with `stabilizing 
braces'' or similar attachments that constitute rifles under 
the [National Firearms Act] must be registered.''\2\ Under the 
final rule, millions of gun owners will have to remove their 
stabilizing braces from their pistols so that they cannot be 
reattached, install longer gun barrels, register their firearms 
as short-barreled rifles, turn their firearms over to the ATF, 
or destroy their braced firearms--or face felony charges.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ``Stabilizing 
Braces,'' 88 Fed. Reg. 6478 (Jan. 31, 2023).
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A pistol brace or stabilizing brace ``is an accessory that 
attaches to the rear of [a] gun,'' which helps to stabilize it 
while firing and allows the gun to be used with one hand.\4\ 
Pistol braces were invented by Alex Bosco, a U.S. Marine Corps 
and Army veteran, to help a friend and disabled combat veteran 
to better control and safely fire his gun at the shooting 
range.\5\ In November 2012, the ATF advised SB Tactical--
Bosco's company--that its stabilizing brace did not convert a 
pistol into a short-barreled rifle.\6\ In a similar letter 
dated March 5, 2014, in response to an inquiry from the 
Greenwood, Colorado, County Police Department, the ATF 
explained that ``certain firearm accessories such as the SIG 
Stability Brace have not been classified by ATF Firearms 
Technology Branch as shoulder stocks, and, therefore, using the 
brace improperly does not constitute a design change.''\7\ In 
the letter, the ATF also stated that ``using such an accessory 
would not change the classification of the weapon per Federal 
law.''\8\ Because a pistol that was operated using a 
stabilizing brace would remain classified as a pistol, it would 
not be subject to the registration and taxation requirements 
applicable to short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms 
Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Jacki Billings, Pistol Braces & The ATF: What You Need to Know, 
Pew Pew Tactical (Feb. 1, 2023), https://www.pewpewtactical.com/pistol-
braces-and-the-atf/.
    \5\See The Company, SB Tactical, https://www.sb-tactical.com/about/
company/.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\Letter from Earl Griffith, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch, 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, to Sergeant Joe 
Bradley (Mar. 5, 2014), available at https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/
files/2015/02/sb15.pdf.
    \8\Id.
    \9\See 26 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 5811(a) (imposing a $200 transfer tax on 
firearms), 5841 (requiring registration of firearms), 5845 (defining 
``firearm'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Acting in reliance upon the ATF's guidance for nearly a 
decade, Americans have legally purchased and used an estimated 
ten million to forty million pistol braces.\10\ However, in 
December 2020, the ATF published guidance addressing whether 
``firearms with an attached stabilizing brace . . . are 
considered firearms under the National Firearms Act.''\11\ The 
ATF withdrew this guidance less than two weeks later in the 
wake of heavy criticism.\12\ In June 2021, the Biden ATF issued 
a proposed rule that included a scorecard for use in 
determining when pistols with attached stabilizing braces might 
be deemed to be short-barreled rifles subject to the 
registration and taxation requirements of the National Firearms 
Act.\13\ The ATF's proposed rule sustained heavy criticism, 
including from Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.\14\ The 
ATF finalized this rule in January 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\William J. Krouse, IF11763, Cong. Research Serv., Handguns, 
Stabilizing Braces, and Related Components 2 (Apr. 19, 2021).
    \11\Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ``Stabilizing 
Braces,'' 85 Fed. Reg. 82,516, 82,516 (Dec. 18, 2020).
    \12\Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons With ``Stabilizing 
Braces''; Withdrawal of Guidance, 85 Fed. Reg. 86,948, 86,948 (Dec. 31, 
2020).
    \13\Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ``Stabilizing 
Braces,'' 86 Fed. Reg. 30,826 (June 10, 2021).
    \14\Letter from Rep. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary et al. to Marvin Richardson, Acting Director, ATF (July 16, 
2021), https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-
judiciary.house.gov/files/2021-07/2021-07-16-HJC-GOP-to-ATF-re-Pistol-
Brace-Notice31.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ATF's actions illustrate the dangers of an unchecked 
administrative state that is willing to make policy--policy 
that will convert lawful gun owners into felons if they do not 
comply--even when it is not authorized to do so by Congress. 
The pistol brace rule exceeds the ATF's statutory authority. 
Congress has neither criminalized the use of pistol braces 
under the Gun Control Act nor authorized their regulation under 
the National Firearms Act.\15\ The ATF, in this rule, attempts 
to do both. The rule contradicts years of ATF guidance, 
upsetting the long-standing reliance interests of gun owners 
and manufacturers alike.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Id. at 2.
    \16\Id.; cf. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 222 
(2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to going beyond ATF's statutory authority, the 
pistol brace rule will have a detrimental impact on the 
firearms industry. The ATF itself has estimated the costs of 
complying with its rule to be between $242.4 million and $263.6 
million per year.\17\ An independent analysis of the financial 
harm to the firearms industry from a pistol brace ban projected 
losses to exceed $1 billion.\18\ Millions of law-abiding 
Americans will have to cease using their guns, comply with 
onerous registration requirements, or risk felony charges.\19\ 
Disabled persons, including the disabled veterans for whom the 
pistol brace originally was created, will lose the benefit of 
this useful tool, and potentially their ability to safely 
operate certain firearms entirely.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\See 88 Fed. Reg. at 6573.
    \18\See Jeremy S., ATF Pistol Brace Crackdown Would Destroy--Is 
Destroying--Thousands of Jobs and Billions of Dollars, The Truth About 
Guns (Dec. 20, 2020), https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/atf-pistol-
brace-crackdown-would-destroy-thousands-of-jobs-and-
billions-of-dollars/.
    \19\Gun Owners of America, supra note 2.
    \20\The Company, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII, 
the following hearings were used to develop H.J. Res. 44: 
``Reining in the Administrative State: Reclaiming Congress's 
Legislative Power'' a hearing held on March 10, 2023, before 
the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the 
Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from the following witnesses:
           Allyson N. Ho, Partner and Co-Chair of 
        Appellate and Constitutional Law, Gibson, Dunn & 
        Crutcher LLP;
           Jonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and 
        Policy Director, Cicero Institute;
           Ryan Cleckner Co-Founder, Gun University LLC 
        and Owner, Law Office of Ryan M. Cleckner; and
           Emily Hammond, Professor, The George 
        Washington University Law School.
    This hearing focused on the ways in which the modern 
administrative state has usurped Congress's lawmaking 
authority. Ryan Cleckner, one of the Republican witnesses and 
an attorney specializing in federal firearms law and ATF 
compliance, discussed the ATF's overreach with respect to 
rulemaking in the context of the stabilizing brace rule. He 
pointed out that the ATF previously approved of this pistol 
brace and the agency's shifting position on this matter left 
citizens confused about what is lawful.
    The Judiciary Committee also held a hearing titled ``ATF's 
Assault on the Second Amendment: When Is Enough?'' a hearing 
held on March 23, 2023, before the House Committee on Oversight 
and Accountability, Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy 
Policy, and Regulatory Affairs, and the House Committee on the 
Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government 
Surveillance. The Committee heard testimony from the following 
witnesses:
           Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, the 
        Heritage Foundation;
           Alex Bosco, Founder and Inventor of the 
        Stabilizing Brace;
           Matthew Larosiere, Partner, Zermay 
        Larosiere; and
           Rob Wilcox, Federal Legal Director, 
        Everytown for Gun Safety.
    The hearing addressed how President Biden's ATF has abused 
its rulemaking authority by regulating pistol stabilizing 
braces attached to stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles 
under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and by wrongfully 
redefining privately made firearm kits--derisively known as so 
called ``ghost guns''--as traditional firearms. Additionally, 
the hearing addressed President Biden's June 2021 directive to 
the Justice Department to adopt a zero-tolerance policy to 
revoke federal firearms licenses from those who committed 
``willful'' violations of the law.\21\ Alex Bosco, founder of 
the SB Tactical Pistol Brace, testified about the process of 
the getting approval for the pistol brace from the Obama ATF in 
2012, and the devastating financial impact the final rule has 
had on his company, including his employees.\22\ Experts at the 
hearing also pointed out that both the pistol brace rule and 
the frame and receiver rule will not stop criminals from 
accessing firearms, but will only serve to criminalize innocent 
civilians.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Press Release, The White House, Biden-Harris Administration 
Announces Comprehensive Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gun Crime 
and Ensure Public Safety (Jun. 23, 2021), available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/23/
factsheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-comprehensive-strategy-
to-prevent-and-respond-to-gun-crime-and-ensure-public-safety/.
    \22\ATF's Assault on the Second Amendment: When Is Enough?: Joint 
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Accountability, 
Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs, 
and the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and 
Federal Government Surveillance, 118th Con. 24-25 (2023) (statement by 
Alex Bosco).
    \23\Id. at 158-159 (statement by Amy Swearer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Judiciary Committee also held a hearing titled 
``Oversight of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
Explosives'' on April 26, 2023. The Committee heard testimony 
from the following witnesses:
           The Honorable Steve Dettelbach, Director, 
        Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
    The hearing allowed members to ask Director Dettelbach 
about the agency's efforts to regulate pistol stabilizing 
braces and PMFs through the rulemaking process. Additionally, 
members were able to ask Director Dettelbach about the ATF's 
``zero tolerance'' policy towards FFLs.

                        Committee Consideration

    On April 19, 2023, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill, H.J. Res. 44, favorably reported, by a vote 
of 23 to 15, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the 
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.J. Res. 44:
    1. Vote on Favorably Reporting H.J. Res. 44, passed 23-15.
    
    
                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the 
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the 
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) 
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are 
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to eh requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested 
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The Committee has 
requested but not received from the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill 
contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax 
expenditures. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such 
estimate and statement to be printed in the Congressional 
Record upon its receipt by the Committee.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost 
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant 
to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not 
made available to the Committee in time for the filing of this 
report. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such estimate 
to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its receipt by 
the Committee.

                Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(d)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision 
of H.J. Res. 44 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the 
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal 
program.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
House rule XIII, H.J. Res. 44 would nullify a final rule of the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) 
titled, ``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached 
`Stabilizing Braces,''' and would prevent the ATF from issuing 
a substantially similar rule in the future.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.J. Res. 44 
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax 
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses 
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget office pursuant to section 423 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the 
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman 
of the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the 
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
1).

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Title: 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.'''
    Resolving Clause: This joint resolution nullifies the ATF's 
``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing 
Braces''' and would prevent the ATF from issuing a 
substantially similar rule in the future.

                            Dissenting Views

    On March 27, 2023, six people--including three children--
were killed in a mass shooting at a school in Nashville. It was 
the 19th school shooting just this year. The Majority had 
originally scheduled a markup of this legislation--a bill to 
allow continued, unfettered access to stabilizing braces--for 
the following day. When it was reported that the shooter in 
Nashville used a stabilizing brace--like the mass shooters in 
Dayton, Boulder, and Colorado Springs--the Majority postponed 
the markup, only to put it back on the calendar a few weeks 
later.
    It is no coincidence that three recent mass shootings have 
involved stabilizing braces. These braces can be attached to a 
pistol, allowing it to be fired from the shoulder, transforming 
it into a concealable yet deadly short-barreled rifle. In 1934, 
Congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA), 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 conceal 
ability of a smaller gun. In recent years, the gun industry has 
marketed stabilizing braces as a way to circumvent the NFA--a 
way to create a short-barreled rifle without having to go 
through any of the procedures it requires to prevent especially 
dangerous firearms from falling into the wrong hands. Following 
the intent of Congress in 1934, and exercising its valid 
rulemaking authority, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 
and Explosives (ATF) sought to close this loophole and prevent 
circumvention of the NFA by issuing guidance, and later, this 
rule to regulate firearms with stabilizing braces.
    Under ATF's rule, would-be mass shooters will have a harder 
time obtaining a short-barreled rifle since they will no longer 
be able to get one by simply attaching a stabilizing brace to a 
pistol without satisfying the requirements of the NFA. At the 
same time, law-abiding owners of stabilizing braces attached to 
firearms with a barrel under 16 inches have many options for 
complying with the rule, such as replacing the short barrel 
with a longer one, removing the brace, registering the firearm 
as set forth by the NFA (and the $200 fee normally required for 
NFA weapons is waived if they register by May 31, 2023), or 
forfeiting or destroying the firearm.
    Though the Majority has repeatedly stated that this 
resolution is about protecting individuals with disabilities 
who they claim need these braces, the facts are not on their 
side. A firearm with a stabilizing brace that is designed, 
made, and intended to be fired from the forearm--as the brace 
was originally designed, and as might be helpful for certain 
people with disabilities--is not subject to the NFA as a result 
of the rule. This rule only affects stabilizing braces that are 
``designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder'' 
when they are attached to a firearm with a barrel less than 16 
inches because this creates a short-barreled rifle. Thousands 
of firearms and accessories on the market are not subject to 
the NFA and can be used by people with disabilities. If this 
regulation was a real problem for the disabled community, those 
organizations would be backing the Majority on this 
resolution--but none have endorsed it.
    For these reasons and those explained below, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this resolution.

                             I. BACKGROUND

    H.J. Res. 44 is a one-sentence resolution, introduced on 
March 17, 2023, by Rep. Andrew S. Clyde (R-GA), along with 188 
Republican cosponsors. The resolution provides that Congress 
disapproves of the rule submitted by the ATF relating to 
``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing 
Braces''' (ATF final rule 2021R-08F), and that such rule shall 
have no force or effect.
    On January 31, 2023, ATF published final rule 2021R-08F, 
``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing 
Braces.''' ATF's stabilizing brace rule is intended to close a 
loophole by which people can use a stabilizing brace--which its 
inventor claims is primarily meant to be used by people with 
disabilities--to convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle 
and evade the stringent restrictions placed on short-barreled 
rifles under the NFA. Once again, with this bill, which would 
declare the rule to have no force or effect, the Republicans 
continue to prioritize guns over public safety. The device that 
Republicans want gun owners to continue having nearly 
unfettered access to was used in four mass shootings since 2019 
alone.

                              II. CONCERNS

A. This resolution undermines ATF's valid use of its rulemaking 
        authority

    ATF, which has existed in some form since 1886 (initially 
as part of the Department of the Treasury), was established as 
a separate component within the Department of Justice pursuant 
to Title XI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.\1\ As it 
relates to firearms, ATF protects the public from crimes 
involving firearms, particularly violent crime and the illegal 
use and trafficking of firearms; regulates lawful commerce in 
firearms; and provides worldwide support to law enforcement, 
public safety, and industry partners. For the purposes of this 
resolution, the major functions of ATF are to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Public Law 107-296 (January 17, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Reduce the risk to public safety caused by 
        illegal firearms trafficking.
           Reduce the risk to public safety caused by 
        criminal possession and use of firearms.
           Reduce the risk to public safety caused by 
        criminal organizations and gangs.
           Improve public safety by increasing 
        compliance with federal laws and regulations by 
        firearms industry members.
    ATF's regulatory strategy is vital to achieving its core 
mission of protecting the public from violent crime. The agency 
has sole federal regulatory authority over federal firearms 
licensees (FFLs) authorized to engage in the business of 
manufacturing, importing, or selling firearms in the U.S. It 
conducts licensing qualification investigations on those who 
seek to engage in the business of firearm manufacturing and 
dealing; issues FFLs; and administers and, through the 
inspection process, enforces regulations applicable to FFLs, 
including recordkeeping requirements for the acquisition and 
disposition of each firearm. ATF's inspection of firearms 
licensees is focused not only on ensuring regulatory 
compliance, but also identifying criminals who illegally 
purchase firearms and detecting diversion from lawful commerce 
by those who supply guns to criminals through straw purchases.
    Historically, the gun industry has attempted to evade 
national gun laws through the creation of supplemental and 
unregulated devices to augment firing capabilities. Such 
devices can turn a regular sporting firearm into one that is as 
deadly as a military grade weapon. ATF has issued several 
regulations to ban some of these devices (such as bump stocks) 
or to subject them to the regulatory requirements of the NFA.
    Pursuant to statutory authority granted by Congress, ATF, 
like other federal agencies, has the power to issue rules to 
implement and clarify statutory terms and requirements within 
its jurisdiction--including the interpretation of terms within 
the NFA.\2\ Rules, which are regulations created through a 
process known as rulemaking, generally explain how an agency 
intends to carry out a law. Proposed rules drafted by ATF are 
not--contrary to Republican claims--unilateral decisions made 
by a lone wolf actor at ATF, with no oversight. Proposed rules 
are reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) of the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), 
before a notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the 
Federal Register, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA). After a public comment period of at least 30 days, ATF 
reviews the comments and the final rule. If the final rule is 
approved by OIRA, it is published in the Federal Register and 
implemented on its effective date. These agency rules are 
executive branch actions that are subject to alteration or 
rescission by a future Administration (in compliance with the 
APA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\See 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  551-559 (the Administrative Procedure 
Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In recent years, ATF has exercised its authority under the 
APA to interpret the NFA (and the Gun Control Act of 1968) to 
regulate devices, including bump stocks and ghost guns, 
designed to evade its regulatory scheme.\3\ Republicans have 
consistently opposed ATF's actions and have even called for its 
defunding and abolishment. In January 2023, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-
FL) introduced H.R. 374, the Abolish the ATF Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See Bump Stock-Type Devices (Final Rule), 83 Fed. Reg. 66,514-
01, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/26/2022-08026/
definition-of-frame-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms; see 
also Definition of ``Frame or Receiver'' and Identification of 
Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24652, https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2022/04/26/2022-08026/
definition-of-frame-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms. Both of 
these rules are subject to ongoing litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the Majority has repeatedly asserted that ATF has 
gone beyond its authority in promulgating the stabilizing brace 
rule, they have not identified any way in which the ATF failed 
to adhere to the APA or exceeded the authority given to it by 
Congress.

B. This resolution undermines the intent of Congress to regulate short-
        barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act

    Short-barreled rifles have been subject to regulation under 
the NFA codified at 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5801, et seq., since the NFA 
was enacted in 1934. Under the NFA, short-barreled rifles must 
be registered and are subject to a $200 tax stamp, an enhanced 
background check, and the submission of fingerprints, as they 
are considered more dangerous than other firearms.\4\ The NFA 
defines a ``rifle'' as ``a weapon designed or redesigned, made 
or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and 
designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of 
the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single 
projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the 
trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily 
restored to fire affixed cartridge.''\5\ A short-barreled rifle 
is defined as a rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches in 
length, or a weapon made from a rifle if the weapon has an 
overall length of under 26 inches.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\88 Fed. Reg. 6478, 6482 https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2023/01/31/2023-01001/factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-
attached-stabilizing-braces (``Final Rule'').
    \5\18 U.S.C. Sec.  5845(c) (Emphasis added).
    \6\18 U.S.C. Sec.  921(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Short-barreled rifles are effectively portable assault 
weapons that are easily concealable and maneuverable. An 
individual purchasing a pistol or handgun, however, is not 
subject to the NFA's heightened regulations.\7\ An AR-style 
pistol is almost identical in design and functionality to an 
AR-style short-barreled rifle, but it does not include a stock 
to press against the shooter's shoulder. Until recently, ATF 
has classified AR-style pistols as handguns because of their 
lack of a shoulder stock and their ability to be fired with one 
hand, thereby not requiring owners to comply with heightened 
ATF regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Comment Letter on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Factoring 
Criteria for Firearms with Attached ``Stabilizing Braces'' (Docket ID 
ATF-2021-0002-0001), Every town for Gun Safety (Sept. 8, 2021), https:/
/www.regulations.gov/comment/ATF-2021-0002-201512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A pistol stabilizing brace (sometimes referred to as an 
``arm brace'') is a firearm attachment that is often used to 
convert large-format ``pistols,'' including AR-15 and AK-47 
pistols, into short-barreled rifles (SBRs). Some stabilizing 
braces allow large-format pistols to be stabilized and fired 
from the shoulder, like a rifle. Stabilizing braces also can be 
used to strap a gun to the user's forearm, allowing a shooter 
to fire a weapon one-handed.
    Large-format pistols like AR-15 and AK47 pistols, which 
fire rifle-caliber ammunition, are more powerful and lethal 
than traditional handguns or pistols, and with a stabilizing 
brace attached as a shoulder stock, they are more accurate and 
easier to use. They are also easier to maneuver in tight spaces 
(such as in the Club Q mass shooting in Colorado Springs), and 
they are more concealable than full-length rifles, making them 
more dangerous and deadly outside a sport shooting application.
    Although Republicans claim that stabilizing braces do not 
make pistols more dangerous because they do not increase the 
capacity of a pistol's magazine, or the velocity with which a 
bullet travels through the barrel, it is beyond dispute that 
stabilizing braces increase the shooting accuracy of the large-
format pistols with which they are used, as they make it easier 
for the shooter to control the now-stabilized weapon. This 
means that when fired from the shoulder, pistols with 
stabilizing braces combine the high-caliber firepower of a 
rifle with the concealability and maneuverability of a pistol--
a particularly lethal combination in criminal hands. 
Approximately 3-7 million stabilizing braces are currently in 
circulation in the United States.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Large-format pistols equipped with stabilizing braces have 
been used in a recent series of high-profile mass shootings. In 
Dayton, Ohio in 2019, a shooter used an Anderson Manufacturing 
AR-15 pistol equipped with a Shockwave Technologies stabilizing 
brace to kill nine people and injure 17 others. In 2021 in 
Boulder, Colorado, a shooter used a Ruger 556 pistol with an SB 
Tactical SBA3 stabilizing brace to kill 10 people, including a 
police officer, in a King Soopers market. An SB Tactical 
stabilizing brace was also used by the shooter who killed 5 
people and injured 19 others at Club Q in Colorado Springs in 
November 2022. On March 27, 2023--on the day before the 
Committee initially planned to mark up this resolution--a 
shooter used an AR-style pistol equipped with a stabilizing 
brace in the shooting that killed 3 children and 3 adults in a 
school in Nashville, Tennessee. At the eleventh hour, the 
Majority decided to postpone the markup in the wake of the 
Nashville shooting.
    On January 31, 2023, ATF published final rule 2021R-08F, 
``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing 
Braces,''' clarifying that the phrase ``designed, redesigned, 
made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder'' 
under the NFA includes a weapon that is equipped with an 
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a 
``stabilizing brace'') that provides surface area that allows 
the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other 
factors, as listed in the definition, indicated that the weapon 
is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the 
shoulder.\9\ The rule sets forth six ``other factors'' which 
indicate that a weapon is designed, made, or intended to be 
fired from the shoulder, including whether the weapon is 
equipped with sights or an eye scope that require the weapon to 
be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed.\10\ 
A manufacturer's direct and indirect marketing and promotional 
materials indicating the intended use of the weapon, as well as 
information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the 
general community, are also considered.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Final Rule, supra.
    \10\Id.
    \11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This rule went into effect on January 31, 2023, the date it 
was published in the Federal Register. Any weapons with 
stabilizing braces or similar attachments that meet the 
definition of a ``rifle'' under the NFA must be registered no 
later than May 31, 2023. The rule provides five options for 
compliance for owners of brace-equipped firearms that would 
fall within the purview of the rule: (1) remove the short 
barrel (under 16 inches in length) from the firearm and replace 
it with a barrel that is 16 inches or longer; (2) register the 
firearm with ATF (like any other short-barreled rifle);\12\ (3) 
remove the stabilizing brace from the firearm so that it cannot 
be reattached; (4) turn in the brace-equipped firearm to the 
ATF; or (5) destroy the firearm. Moreover, a brace that is not 
designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder is 
not a ``rifle'' as defined in the NFA and therefore is not 
subject to NFA controls.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\The Rule provides a 120-day amnesty period waiving the usual 
$200 tax stamp required for registration.
    \13\Final Rule at 6480.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. In pursuing this resolution, the Majority has inaccurately portrayed 
        ATF's prior actions relating to stabilizing braces, the gun 
        industry's misrepresentation of the ATF's rulings in pursuit of 
        profits from these devices, and Republican efforts to 
        intimidate the Trump ATF when it issued guidance on stabilizing 
        braces

    The first stabilizing brace was submitted to ATF for 
evaluation by SB Tactical in 2012. The brace was developed by 
Alex Bosco, the inventor of the brace and founder of SB 
Tactical, who claims that he developed the brace after he 
witnessed a range officer tell a disabled veteran that he was 
not carefully firing his weapon.\14\ ATF concluded that the 
initial model was not subject to NFA controls as a rifle, 
finding that, based on the information Bosco provided, the 
particular brace ``provided the shooter with additional support 
of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one 
hand,'' and that ``it was not designed or intended to fire a 
weapon from the shoulder''.\15\ The original brace design that 
SB Tactical submitted to ATF never made it to the market. 
However, over the next several years, SB Tactical manufactured 
additional, different models of stabilizing braces, and other 
companies began manufacturing the braces as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\Statement of Alex Bosco before the Committee on Oversight and 
Accountability, Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and 
Regulatory Affairs, and Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on 
Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, March 23, 2023, http://
judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/
files/evo-media-
document/bosco-congressional-statement-final.pdf.
    \15\Final Rule at 6479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the years that followed, many gun manufacturers, 
retailers, and firearms advocates recognized that stabilizing 
braces could be used as shoulder stocks to allow a shooter to 
fire a pistol as a rifle (with two hands) and consistently 
exploited this functionality to allow firearms owners to turn 
pistols into short-barreled rifles while avoiding the NFA 
requirements. SB Tactical posted an article on its website in 
December 2014 in which it stated, ``It's no secret that Bosco's 
brace can also be used as a shoulder stock by people with two 
good arms. With Bosco's brace, all Americans are able to modify 
an AR-15-style pistol into what's effectively [a short-barreled 
rifle]--without additional ATF infringement on their gun 
rights.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Id. at 6503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATF continued to evaluate different brace models, resulting 
in what it now recognizes were ``inconsistent classifications'' 
of certain firearms and inconsistent advice regarding how the 
use of a stabilizing brace affected its classification.\17\ ATF 
has since acknowledged that this was because they were dealing 
with a new and emerging technology, with designs changing all 
the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\Id. at 6484 n. 26; 6555.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But as the ATF saw, gun manufacturers continued to 
advertise stabilizing braces for use as shoulder stocks, with 
increasing frequency. The images below are from SB Tactical's 
marketing materials in 2016:\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Final Rule at 6504-05.

    
    

    Mr. Bosco himself acknowledged in 2017 that ``many who 
bought braces . . . did so to avoid NFA registration.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\The Firearm Blog, TFB Innovators Friday: Alessandro Bosc--CEO 
SB Tactical (Nov. 10, 2017), https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/
11/10/bosco-ceo-sb-tactical/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By July 2018, ATF had observed that SB Tactical had been 
marketing many of its brace models as ``ATF compliant,'' with 
the false statement that ``The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives'' has stated that the SB 
TacticalTM Pistol Stabilizing Brace is ``legal to 
own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol.''\20\ 
ATF also noted that many of the other models sold by SB 
Tactical, which ATF had not evaluated, were being advertised as 
based on shoulder stock designs.\21\ Because SB Tactical had 
submitted only 2 of its approximately 20 brace models to ATF 
for classification, and those were the only two models that ATF 
had concluded were not designed or intended to be used as 
shouldering devices, ATF sent a cease-and-desist letter to SB 
Tactical on July 18, 2018, demanding that SB Tactical cease 
false advertisement of products as ``ATF-approved.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Id. at 6492.
    \21\Id.
    \22\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The manufacture, marketing, and use of stabilizing braces 
as shoulder stocks designed to circumvent NFA controls on 
rifles continued unabated. In addition to promotional materials 
from manufacturers, users posted countless videos and social 
media posts in which they used different models of stabilizing 
braces to convert pistols into rifles, firing them from the 
shoulder.
    The images below, which show shooters firing from the 
shoulder, were posted on social media in 2020 by two different 
gun manufacturers:\23\

    \23\Comment Letter on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ``Stabilizing Braces'' 
(Docket ID ATF-2021-0002-0001), Everytown for Gun Safety (Sept. 8, 
2021), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ATF-2021-0002-201512. 




    In March 2020, during the Trump administration, SB Tactical 
submitted a firearm equipped with brace model SBA3 to ATF for 
classification. ATF determined that it was subject to the NFA 
as a short-barreled rifle, because ``all of the objective 
design features are consistent with weapons designed to be 
fired from the shoulder.''\24\ ATF examined a firearm with a 
different model SB Tactical brace and reached the opposite 
conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Final Rule at 6493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By late 2020, still during the Trump administration, ATF 
concluded that there was a need to provide clarity to the 
firearms industry and the American public on how ATF evaluates 
firearms equipped with stabilizing braces, and that 
manufacturers were adding to the confusion by falsely labeling 
braces as ``ATF compliant'' when ATF had not evaluated them. 
ATF determined that for these reasons, and due to the extensive 
use of these firearms to create short-barreled rifles without 
following NFA requirements, it was necessary to issue public 
guidance. On December 18, 2020, ATF published a notice in the 
Federal Register entitled ``Objective Factors for Classifying 
Weapons with Stabilizing Braces,'' with factors similar to 
those in the Final Rule at issue in this markup.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\85 Fed. Reg. 52516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Four days later, on December 22, 2022, 90 Republican 
members of the House of Representatives wrote a letter to ATF 
complaining that the proposed guidance would ``take away a 
disabled veteran's ability to enjoy his constitutionally 
protected right,'' and that ``the ATF seems committed to 
attacking the constitutionally protected rights of all law-
abiding citizens.''\26\ On December 23, 2020, at the direction 
of Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, ATF issued a notice 
of intent to withdraw the public guidance, and the withdrawal 
was published on December 30, 2020.\27\ Just three months 
later, a shooter in Boulder, Colorado used a Ruger AR 556 
pistol equipped with an SB Tactical SBA3 stabilizing brace to 
kill 10 people, including a police officer, in a supermarket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\December 22, 2020 letter, https://arrington.house.gov/
UploadedFiles/ARRINGTON_ATF.pdf
    \27\85 Fed. Reg. 86948.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 10, 2021, ATF published the proposed rule that 
formed the basis for the January 2023 Final Rule. Although 
Republicans have claimed that the Final Rule was an abrupt 
change in policy and a politically motivated ploy by the Biden 
administration, ATF was simply continuing the work that began 
under the Trump administration when it sought to crack down on 
those who were using stabilizing braces as short-barreled 
rifles to evade the NFA, sometimes by their own admission.

                            III. CONCLUSION

    Gun violence continues to kill more than 100 Americans 
every day. In bringing forth this resolution, the Majority 
seeks to undo the lawful work of the ATF while putting lives at 
risk by pumping more guns and gun accessories on the street 
without commonsense public safety protections. Stabilizing 
braces were used to kill 9 people in a mass shooting outside a 
bar in Dayton, Ohio in 2019; 10 people in a mass shooting at 
the King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, CO in 2021; 5 people 
in an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs, CO in 2022; and 6 
people in a mass shooting at a school in Nashville, TN this 
year. The Majority's resolution seeks to allow continued 
unfettered access to short-barreled rifles made with 
stabilizing braces, without any commonsense safety protections, 
even though Congress identified short-barreled rifles as 
especially dangerous almost 90 years ago when it passed the 
NFA. In promulgating the stabilizing brace rule, ATF simply 
closed a loophole created by the gun industry to subvert the 
will of Congress to strictly regulate short-barreled rifles. 
Invalidating that rule nullifies this important work. For these 
reasons, I oppose this resolution.

                                            Jerrold Nadler,
                                                    Ranking Member.

                                  [all]