Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08930

U.S. Air Force veteran submitting support for removing stabilizing brace factoring criteria. The 2023 brace rule represented agency overreach that failed textual scrutiny. It relied on subjective measurements such as length of pull, weight, accessory mounting, rather than clear statutory language. Owners were told one thing, then prosecuted for another based on retroactive reinterpretation. My firearms training included precision rifle work with various configurations. What distinguishes an SBR from a pistol? The original ATF guidance acknowledged stabilizing braces serve legitimate purposes for shooters with disabilities or mobility limitations. The later factoring criteria ignored this reality. From a statutory interpretation standpoint, the Second Amendment protects arms in common use, not arms meeting arbitrary dimensional thresholds. Bruen demands history-and-tradition analysis, not agency engineering speculation. This rollback restores clarity after years of moving goalposts. I support finalization and expect the ATF to commit publicly to not resurrecting equivalent restrictions under different terminology.