Why Short Rifles, and Why Does the ATF Hate…

In the wake of a shooting in Boulder, Colorado where the killer used a braced pistol, the Biden administration has zeroed in on banning pistol braces as a response (among other things). This is the second attack against braces in only a few months; in case you missed it, last December the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) recently opened a docket seeking comments on a proposed brace “clarification.” With that clarification, the Bureau intended to set a stronger precedent for administratively determining if a firearm sample received is in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA) when equipped with a “stabilizing arm brace.”

While the ATF didn’t explicitly say they were going to ban braces—they don’t actually have the authority to directly regulate individual accessories and mentioned it directly in their December attempt to “clarify,” which is also why the bump-stock ban was so egregious—they did make a number of perfectly-vague statements about how they intend to determine if a braced firearm is in violation for future investigations. Coincidentally, they opened it for comment over a holiday weekend when fewer people would be paying attention, and only had the comment period open for 14 days. There is question whether or not this short of a period was even lawful under current law, but the ATF hasn’t let the law stand in their way before.

After nearly 80,000 comments, the ATF decided to pull the notice of intent to make clarifying decisions at the time. But one can only assume with the latest “executive action” that it will be reopened, and with David Chipman potentially at the helm of the ATF, we can safely bet it will be pursued aggressively.

What’s with the ATF’s Recent Fixation on Braces?

Beyond the Boulder shooting, anyone who is the least bit familiar with the ATF knows that hey have a long history of being very angry when someone tries to, with full adherence to the text of the law, “work around” something that either the NFA or GCA grants them power to regulate. Some notable examples are the Akins Accelerator and the shoestring that was considered a “machine gun” in the same way that a Lightning Link—a small device that sits in the fire control group of an AR-15 and makes it full-auto—was considered an “automatic” in-and-of-itself.

In this context, the brace can be perceived as “working around” short-barrel-rifle regulations (SBR). If you’re unaware, a rifle configured with a barrel length shorter than 16″ is considered an “SBR.” Today, a citizen may not own a rifle with a barrel under 16″ unless they pay a $200 tax to the ATF with the appropriate Form 1 or 4. However, pistols can obviously have barrels under 16″, do not require ATF permission, and it so happens that most rifles can be configured legally as pistols.

Pistols and rifles have a very specific definition in federal code. When affixed to a firearm, the stabilizing brace―a device not designed or intended to be used against the shoulder like a stock―does not cause that firearm to meet the definition of a rifle under current law.

Therefore, like in the example shown above, the brace allows citizens to lawfully own something like an AR-15 with a barrel under 16″. Nice!

A Brief History of the (Really Stupid) National Firearms Act (NFA)

But why does this regulation exist in the first place? Because when the NFA was first drafted, it aimed to ban pistols—the kind of firearms used in the most killings at the time in the 30’s when it was proposed. In an effort to prevent having citizens cut down their rifles to pistol-sizes and thereby circumventing the desired handgun ban, the drafters of the NFA created the onerous “SBR” (and short-barreled shotgun, aka “SBS”) classifications, which made illegal cutting a rifle barrel down below 16″ without first seeking permission from the feds. As it turned out, the sponsors couldn’t get support for the wholesale ban of handguns, and that part was tossed out—but not the SBR and SBS provisions. The NFA passed, and we’re living with it nearly 100 years later in all it’s asinine and capricious infamy.

Fast-forward to 2008, where the Supreme Court states that, in a cruel (and deserved) twist of irony for the champions of the NFA, the handgun is recognized as the core class of protected firearms within DC v. Heller. In just a little over 70 years after it’s creation and enactment, the NFA—which existed primarily to ban handguns—has been directly undermined by that single Court decision.

Unfortunately 12 years later we’re still left with a patchwork of pointless federal regulations that could fine and imprison you for $250,000 and 10 years for owning an unregistered AR-15 with a conventional stock and popular 11.5″ barrel. But a Tavor X95, which when configured with a NFA-compliant 16″ barrel, is still physically shorter than a non-compliant AR-15—yet is perfectly OK to own without first registering it via a Form 1 or 4. Nevermind that owning a pistol with a 5″ barrel is considered the core of a Constitutional right, dramatically shorter than both aforementioned.

A Case for the Brace (and All Short Rifles)

So why is the market exploding with AR-pattered (and others) pistols, equipped with braces? I believe the answer is simple: shorter barrels makes the firearm lighter, handier, and easier to wield in tight areas—like your home—compared to an NFA-compliant version of the same firearm. They especially benefit shooters of smaller stature, who might otherwise have difficulty using something large and unwieldy like a classic A2-configured rifle, therefore opening the door for effective self-defense options for people of any size. Coupled with the explosive growth of suppressors, the shorter configurations confer a lot of benefits with comparatively few negatives—once the ATF is out of the way. As an added bonus, many states don’t regulate these specific pistol configurations differently, so it makes doing things such as transporting it across state lines to hunt or shoot potentially less complicated.

Despite the the widespread proliferation of “stabilizing braces” that has been ongoing and growing for the last decade, we’ve (obviously minus one example) have not seen a notable uptick in violent crimes committed with these pistol-configured firearms. We have however seen many people adopt firearms that offer significant improvements over their longer counterparts. This is a major win as it has transformed unwieldy rifles into nimble not-rifles, broadening their appeal and adoption. It’s also enabled shooters with physical disabilities to own and use pistols in common rifle-calibers that were otherwise inaccessible to them prior to the invention of the stabilizing brace. Everyone of all shapes and sizes and abilities has the right to effective and modern arms, and nobody should be limited in selecting the right configuration because some dead folks 70 years ago missed the intended mark on their handgun ban.

Embracing It

Tactics and equipment changed over time as collective experience shined a light on the shortcomings of long-barreled rifles in certain settings. The buyer wanted shorter configurations and market responded. The trend will only continue. It’s impact on the market has been significant and has likely been a net-positive in arming the common man. Because of this the brace―silly as some might see it―is worth owning, saving, and fighting for.

Without Fresh Voters, the 2A Has No Future

As we enter into the home stretch for 2020, with record voter turnout and record gun sales, there’s a lot to hope for in the near future. First, despite potentially losing the White House, a number of state-legislatures flipped from Democrat to Republican. This provides a more stable footing for us; for example, few states with a strong Republican makeup have passed “Red Flag” laws, and no state with a strong Democrat makeup has passed permitless concealed carry. Second, we’re seeing a rejection of the anti-gun agenda; for example, Montanans just narrowly approved a ballot measure that would adjust existing preemption language around the carrying of guns, removing the ability for local governments to create additional regulations. Given America’s renewed appetite for guns and lack thereof for regulation, we can hope that these are signs of positive things to come—and a greater importance being placed on “the gun vote” going forward.

But who specifically is casting these votes?

First, a map put together in 2017 by SurveyMonkey shows the 2016 Presidential vote if only gun owning households voted. This would result in a 49-state sweep, with (ironically) Vermont being the only state to remain blue:

This second map, also provided by SurveyMonkey, shows what the results would be if only Millennials—those between 24 and 39—voted in the 2016 Presidential Election. The difference is staggering, and as pro-firearms advocates, should be extremely concerning to us. With few exceptions, the United States would be solidly blue—including our own state, and the often-celebrated GOP “firewall” of Texas. While we readily agree there is the occasional defender of the right to bear arms among Democrats, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find them. Improving the condition of the right to keep and bear arms in a country that voted like the example below would become exponentially more difficult—if not impossibly so.

Boomers: A Vanguard Generation

Thankfully, that outcome isn’t a likely reality yet. Although Millennials have overtaken Baby Boomers in population, they’re still individually a smaller voting bloc with less engagement overall. You would need to aggregate votes cast from generations X, Y, and Z to overpower the Baby Boomer vote. Boomers make up about 56% of the Republican party. Today, when it comes to voting for candidates that are more likely to advance the cause of the right to keep and bear arms, Republicans are the only major party interested, and Baby Boomers are casting the greatest number of those critical votes.

This is a problem, because simply put: Baby Boomers are getting old and can’t vote forever. According to the US Census Bureau, all Baby Boomers will be 65 by 2030; with the average lifespan in the United States around 78 years old, that leaves precious little runway for everyday pro-gun advocates to enact enough cultural change among X, Y and Z to accommodate for the natural progress of generations.

Salvaging Millennials

With Boomers rapidly approaching their sunset years, and Generation X being inconsequentially small (Sorry X’ers), the responsibility falls to the Millennials. While some suggest that they’re not any more anti-gun than their predecessors, it’s clear that they’re not thinking about guns in the polling booth. And the Democrats, who have about 54% of the Millennial vote to the Republican’s 38%, are not looking to add a pro-firearms agenda into their platform. Millennials also seem to be avoiding the “reddening” as you age, with the gap widening in favor of Democrats as time goes on. Without bringing this generation around, the example map above will become a reality.

Bleak as it may look, it’s not without hope; as Millennials mature, they are now at an age where discussions about protecting their homes and families becomes more relevant. We have witnessed as a nation just this year how the moment a community’s safety is credibly threatened, Americans still reach for a gun. Firearms provide an excellent “wedge” issue that can divorce person from party, as long as it’s driven with alacrity and purpose. Decoupling the Second Amendment from Republicans, and making it an American versus a partisan plank, is the key to success.

Engaging Generation Z

Others are putting faith in Generation Z being potentially less progressive than their Millennial predecessors. Whether this will translate into pro-gun votes is currently impossible to say, since progressivism is more than just being pro-or-anti-gun. We also can’t ignore the 2017-2018 “March for our Lives” movement, with chapters popping up within schools in conservative states like Idaho and Utah, is almost entirely made-up of school-aged Generation Z. Even if we dismiss them as a vocal minority, there is no doubt that there is a heavy anti-gun influence from Millennial parents and Generation Z peers. Expecting them to simply weather the bombardment of anti-gun rhetoric is unrealistic, and early data regarding potential voting habits (of which there is little) don’t paint a picture that different from Millennials.

That is not to say that Z doesn’t show some promise; youth shotgun sports, for example, are growing steadily across the country, including our own state of Utah. In response to March activists, other young pro-gun figures have appeared. Still mostly being minors, the window opportunity for our community to make lasting inroads is still wide open, and unlike the Millennial generation, are growing up in a climate far more favorable to firearms; crime has been at historic lows, and there have never been more concealed carry permits, privately owned AR-15’s, or mega-popular video games featuring realistic guns than today. Unlike the 90’s, there is no overwhelming push to censor guns from video games and music.

The Fight to Survive

It’s reasonable to suggest that without a major change, all the ground gained in the last decade-and-a-half will be erased within a generation. It is now more crucial than any time before to do more than idly wish for the situation to improve; wallets and calendars need to be opened to build bridges, establish relationships, and create networks to defend the very precious and always attacked right to bear arms. If you are not donating time or money to broaden the number of shooters, the time to start is right now; because if we lose here in the United States, there will be nowhere left to go.

As America Descends into Turmoil, Utah’s Need for Permitless…

This year has, if nothing else, been effective in demonstrating the necessity of being able to provide for one’s own defense. As local and state governments wield heavy-handed tactics in an effort to save both political face and blunt the furor of the ongoing protests, the citizenry is grappling with increased lawlessness in their communities; mob violence, destruction of businesses and livelihoods, ideologically-targeted harassment, and even murders are becoming increasingly common in places where they rarely happened before—prior to 2020 places like Provo, Kenosha, Salt Lake City, and Denver were not hotbeds of violence or civil unrest. Combined with police forces spread thin and many departments facing deep budget cuts or even being told to stand down, the potential for dialing 9-1-1 and having no officers respond is becoming a stark reality for many Americans. The message being sent is clear: when there are legitimate threats to your life, liberty or property, you’re probably on your own.

That might serve as vindication for the many millions of gun owners in the United States prior to this year, but it’s a shocking revelation for the millions of new first-time gun buyers in America. What’s even more confusing is how difficult it is to actually bring that gun with you in public for the purpose of defense, especially given the current climate.

If you’re fortunate enough to live in one of the nearly 20 states that recognizes that the individual right to self-defense extends outside the home, you would simply holster your pistol and walk out the door. However in states like ours, you must first apply and receive permission to lawfully carry a concealed or loaded firearm on your person outside your home or car. Our BCI can take up to 60 days per state law before issuing a permit, and there are few circumstances where it can be expedited. Some legislators might say the two-month wait time is trivial, suggesting that the risk of allowing anyone to carry a pistol in public is of greater risk than not. However, in 2019 the same legislative body believed that it was necessary for some to have the immediate capacity to defend themselves with a concealed and loaded handgun by example of HB243; this bill allowed victims of domestic violence to carry a handgun concealed without a permit—if they had an active protective order against their abusers. While that was a fantastic incremental adjustment to existing law, violence can happen fast and with little to no warning; waiting until after you’ve been a victim oftentimes isn’t an option. Today, the risk of becoming a victim when you’re living your day-to-day life is heightened. It’s more urgent than ever to enable lawful adults to defend themselves; being in the wrong time in the wrong place shouldn’t leave you defenseless and at the mercy of a mob.

Our legislature is no stranger to permitless concealed carry measures; in 2013, a watered-down bill even passed through the legislature, only to be vetoed by Governor Herbert. Several efforts have been attempted since then, but with no appetite for veto override, the issue has remained unaddressed and dies before seeing a committee.

However, Governor Herbert is leaving office, and since 2013 over a dozen states have taken the plunge. In doing so, they are living examples of how enacting such a measure doesn’t result in lawlessness or wanton bloodshed. Lt. Gov. Cox, who is likely to be the next Governor, is on record supporting the 2013 permitless CCW bill when he was a House Representative, and we have some reason to believe that he would sign it if elected and presented a permitless CCW measure. Should this transpire, we fully expect to see Rep. Walt Brooks run his permitless CCW bill again for 2021; when he does, Utahns have stronger justification than ever to hammer home to the legislature and Governor just how important this is.

Image used with permission from freedom.concealed, https://instagram.com/freedom.concealed

Guns Worldwide: The Czechs Are Fighting to Constitutionally Recognize…

On the worldwide stage it appears that the fight to keep guns in the hands of private citizens is tilted towards firearm prohibitionists. In just the last year both New Zealand and Canada significantly tightened firearms ownership, both in response to separate mass-shootings, and have demanded their citizens hand over just about any effective modern firearm. The former enacted gun control via Parliamentary decision, and the latter used executive power; efforts exist against these corresponding decisions in both countries, with the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners mounting a campaign to resist and reform the decision, and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association challenging the legality of the executive action respectively. While it’s great to see gun owners in both nations work to overturn or revise those decisions, neither country recognizes the right to bear arms in their constitutions. In fact, there are only only three nations in the world that do: Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States.

There may soon be a fourth, however.

Recently a bill was introduced in Czechia’s senate to amend their constitution and formally codify the long-standing tradition of keeping arms for self-defense. The small Central European country has a rich history of producing quality firearms that dates back hundreds of years, and is one of the few nations in the world that permits the carrying of concealed firearms in public. The amendment states (translated courtesy of Google):

The right to defend one’s life or the life of another person even with a weapon is guaranteed under the conditions stipulated by law.

This is building on the nation’s recent commitments to protecting their citizen’s privilege to remain armed in light of the European Union’s recent crack-down on member nations whose gun laws are “too lax,” in the opinion of Brussels. You may remember the May 2019 referendum in Switzerland, another gun-friendly European nation, was pressured by the European Union to enact additional restrictions. Although not a member of the European Union, Switzerland voted to tighten it’s nation’s gun laws to avoid losing membership to the Schengen zone—the agreement that allows citizens travel freely for all lawful purposes without border checks—by nearly a 2:1 ratio. While anti-gun advocates around the world like to use the admittedly disappointing vote as proof that the support for private gun ownership is dropping in Switzerland—a nation known for it’s lax private ownership laws and it’s strong tradition of maintaining a well-regulated militia of Swiss citizens—it was likely instead considered a pragmatic move viewed as necessary to Switzerland’s economic survival. Indeed, one comment from a Swiss citizen in a May 2019 article in The Guardian suggests as much: “It has nothing to do with blackmail, it is just that Switzerland has to align itself with a system in which it participates.”

Unlike Switzerland however, Czechs appears to be pushing back. As reported by Ammoland last month, the measure received as many as 100,000 signatures in support. This is significant considering the total population is just a hair over 10 million; it is even more significant considering this also appears to be several years in the making and the pro-gun efforts are gaining momentum, instead of losing it. This follows some other notable developments, like a 2017 challenge to the EU directive (in which Luxembourg and Poland joined) and a lower-House pro-firearms vote in the same year.

The fate of this bill notwithstanding, it’s introduction is a net-positive; as mentioned in a recent Open Source Defense article, the pro-gun movement is anti-fragile. Threats tend to result in a stronger response, instead of weaker ones. If there is any lesson to be learned by the Czech efforts here, it’s that momentum can beget momentum. By maintaining our efforts both inside and outside the legislature and engaging in fellowship with potential gun owners, we can collectively rebuild the culture of firearms ownership and the attitude and spirit of self-determination to which firearms lend themselves, and solidify the right to bear effective arms for our posterity—no matter where they live.

2020 Candidate Quiz Results: Travis Campbell, State House 10

We thank Travis Campbell for completing our survey. His responses are available via PDF format below.

Candidate Travis Campbell is running for State House 10. His campaign website can be found at: www.vote4samwinkler.com

2020 Candidate Quiz Results: Samuel Winkler, State House 42

We thank Samuel Winkler for completing our survey. His responses are available via PDF format below.

Candidate Samuel Winkler is running for State House 42. His campaign website can be found at: www.vote4samwinkler.com

2020 Candidate Quiz Results: Oscar Mata, State House 8

We thankOscar Mata for completing our survey. His responses are available via PDF format below.

Candidate Oscar Mata is running for State House 8.

2020 Candidate Quiz Results: Kate Walters, State House 56

We thank Kate Walters for completing our survey. Her responses are available via PDF format below.

Candidate Kate Walters is running for State House 56.