ATF 4999 High Score Challenge!

0
858
Credit to Kalash_lover for the meme

Before we go ANY further, go over to regulations.gov and add your comment to the list. Be polite. Be respectful. But dismantle the rule as the ridiculous NFA expansion that it is for no reason beyond the ATF backing themselves into this corner.

Now, the why (and the fun part) the worksheet!

Worksheet 4999

The new ATF worksheet 4999 gives a ‘score’ for any given pistol manufactured or made to determine if, despite using pistol parts and being made as a pistol by legal definitions, it is actually a rifle or short barreled rifle (SBR) because reasons.

Remember, the ATF put all this in motion. The ATF is the one doubling down on complexity. The ATF is the entity that made the NFA process so unbearably arduis that this became the preferred method to get to SBR’s or get to shorter carbine style firearms because it didn’t take a whole year to complete what should be a simple and nearly instant process. The Digital Age is clashing with the 1960′ and 70’s and the ones who lose are the gun owners.

So let’s break it down and score one of mine.

Section I

Section I is simple. Two go or no go questions

  • Is the weapon (their term) at least 64oz (4lbs)
  • Is the weapon between 12-26 inches overall length

Immediately we have invalidated and felonized anyone with a RONI or FLUX or any of the other other brace kit that braces a “conventional” handgun like a Glock or Sig P-Series. Section I is done without the brace. These firearms will not be considered. Using the kits automatically places them under the NFA as SBR’s, shoulder-fired designs.

Section II: Accessory Characteristics

Section II of Worksheet 4999 is about the brace itself.

How did mine do?

Alright! 7 Points!

But I am only allowed 4. Keep in mind this is a factory brace. Best I can come up with from the language used (which isn’t vague at all [/sarc]), my XCR-L scores 7 from the factory, making it a ‘stock’ and not a ‘brace’ in their eyes (if the rule is implemented).

Let’s break it down.

  • 2 Points: Bases on known shoulder stock design. It uses the FAST2/3 upper assembly so I can’t see ATF saying it isn’t based on a stock
  • 2 Points: Rear Surface useful useful for shouldering the firearm. The tailhook isn’t a blade design, which is specifically mentioned, and it didn’t have material added either. That leaves the 2 point option
  • 2 Points: Adjustable/Telescoping
  • 1 Point: Counterbalance Design that folds. Tailhook use counterbalance to brace and the mechanism folds.

Section III: Configuration of Weapon

I nailed it here.

HIGH SCORE!

Muzzle to ‘stock’ since we scored 7 points there.

  • 1 Point: Rifle-type flip up sights
  • 4 Points: Presence of a Secondary Grip
  • 4 Points: Optic with an eye relief incompatible with one-handed fire (meaning one-handed at arm extension, despite nobody training to shoot anything one handed)
  • 4 Points: (This one is maybe but I suspect the ATF would rule thus) Modified Shoulder Stock since it comes from the FAST2/3
  • 3 Points: Modified shoulder stock replaced replaced by stabilizing brace. Again, FAST2/3 body with a Tailhook
  • 1 Point: Length of Pull between 10-1/2 and 11-1/2 inches.
  • 4 Points: Weight above 120oz (7-1/2 lbs), 7lb base weight plus the optic alone breaks that.