Bill Overview
Title: Pistol Brace Protection Act
Description: This bill removes certain brace-equipped firearms from regulation under certain federal firearms laws. Specifically, under the bill, a pistol that that is equipped with an attachable stabilizing brace (or arm brace) that allows the pistol to be fired with one hand is not a rifle or shotgun subject to regulation (e.g., registration requirements) under the National Firearms Act.
Sponsors: Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who own or use firearms with stabilizing braces
Estimated Size: 7000000
- The bill specifically addresses firearms with attachable stabilizing braces, focusing on legislation and definition changes.
- Individuals who own or plan to own pistols with stabilizing braces will be directly impacted as it affects how these firearms are classified and regulated.
- Firearms dealers and manufacturers dealing with such braces will also be affected as their business may change due to altered regulations.
- Gun rights advocacy groups, as well as gun safety and control advocacy groups, would be impacted as the legislation alters federal regulation dynamics they monitor and influence.
- Legal and law enforcement communities will be affected due to changes in classification and enforcement practices.
Reasoning
- The population likely to be impacted includes those who own or plan to own firearms with stabilizing braces, which are subject to new legislative changes.
- Given the high estimated number of existing stabilizing braces, a significant portion of firearm owners in the US may experience changes in regulation compliance requirements, reducing logistical and financial burdens.
- The budget constraints suggest that the immediate administrative costs of implementing such changes are aimed to be managed within the targeted fiscal limits.
- This population might also include dealers, manufacturers, and advocacy groups who interact with the regulatory environment of firearm equipment.
- Considering gun legislation often intersects with public safety concerns, there can be varied responses from individuals based on personal and community perspectives on firearms.
Simulated Interviews
Firearms Dealer (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will help streamline my business operations, reducing paperwork and compliance checks.
- I expect more customers who were hesitant due to current regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Factory Worker (Ohio)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel relieved that this change might eliminate some legal complexities of owning my firearm.
- Streamlining the laws around firearms I own helps me feel more secure and clear legally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Gun Safety Advocate (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned this policy could make it easier for firearms to circulate without proper scrutiny.
- This is a step backwards for gun safety and sensible regulation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Police Officer (Florida)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't significantly impact my day-to-day role but raises concerns around enforcement consistency.
- I appreciate any clarity in law that reduces ambiguity in enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retail Worker (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides some relief in terms of reducing the hassle of compliance when purchasing stabilizing braces.
- It could encourage more people like me to consider buying stabilizing accessories.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Ranch Owner (Montana)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is useful as it eases potential restrictions on equipment I already own.
- Anything that reduces regulatory burdens is positive for my day-to-day security needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Gun Show Organizer (Alabama)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will likely positively affect attendance and exhibitor sign-ups at my shows.
- A simplified regulatory environment makes my job easier in customer relations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Military Officer (Michigan)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a veteran, policies that protect my rights to own firearms as I see fit are important.
- I support any legislation that clarifies or reduces the oversight unless it's clearly needed for safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Firearms Training Instructor (Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.5 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill will likely open up more opportunities for people to train under me with their preferred equipment.
- I prefer clearer laws to better serve my clients' training needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Lawyer (North Carolina)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides new avenues for legal debate and clarity on gun rights for my clients.
- I anticipate an increase in clients looking to challenge or understand these laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The legal implications of altering how certain firearms are classified under federal law may present challenges for enforcement and compliance.
- Existing firearm safety and control laws could require reevaluation considering the altered classification of brace-equipped firearms.
- Stakeholder and public response, particularly from advocacy groups, can influence the political and social climate surrounding this legislative change.