ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

Apparently if you’ve ever had a brace on an imported pistol and hadn’t already had an appropriate number of American parts, then you’ve retroactively violated 922(r) and the ATF says you need to destroy the gun or turn it in.

SP5? Destroy it
B&T? Destroy it
Zenith? Destroy it
Imported AK pistols? Yup, destroy
MACs? Destroy those too
Austrian-made Glocks with a flux brace? You guessed it. Destroy.

No other options. Despite the fact that I don’t think any normal person, outside of importers and actual manufacturers, has ever had enforcement actions for 922(r) compliance.

One more example of “free SBR stamp is a trap”.


View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=HX64P4eH7TY
 
Spartan65 said:
Am I the only one looking at all the braces for sale in the classifieds all of the sudden wondering who in their right mind is going to buy a brace right now.
Click to expand...
CCGW was running a 50% off sale for their roni's last time I was there.
Golddiggie said:
Saw this in my uubetube feed...

View: https://youtu.be/v59slk8IghU


Hopefully this will go through and put a stop to the atf BS.
Click to expand...

Dead on arrival.
OMM 0000 said:
I would like to suggest you all throw the Good congressman a donation. This is the type of action we want to see. We can vote with our wallets and reward this type of action.
www.bobgoodforcongress.com

Good for America | Good for America. Better for Us.

Good for America Victory Committee is a joint fundraising committee composed of Good for Congress and the VA Conservative Leadership Fund.
www.bobgoodforcongress.com www.bobgoodforcongress.com
Click to expand...
This was a good idea, I sent a small donation to Lizzie Warren and let her know I expected her to speak out about the problem.
Dennis in MA said:
One has to wonder if they have competent attorneys or complete morons writing this crap for them. Maybe it's that 10,000 monkeys on 10,000 typewriters for 10,000 years thing.
Click to expand...
I've been assured on this forum and others that this was written by the best experts.
 
Drix said:
CCGW was running a 50% off sale for their roni's last time I was there.

Dead on arrival.

This was a good idea, I sent a small donation to Lizzie Warren and let her know I expected her to speak out about the problem.

I've been assured on this forum and others that this was written by the best experts.
Click to expand...
well maybe not experts, but....
 
PappyM3 said:
Apparently if you’ve ever had a brace on an imported pistol and hadn’t already had an appropriate number of American parts, then you’ve retroactively violated 922(r) and the ATF says you need to destroy the gun or turn it in.

SP5? Destroy it
B&T? Destroy it
Zenith? Destroy it
Imported AK pistols? Yup, destroy
MACs? Destroy those too
Austrian-made Glocks with a flux brace? You guessed it. Destroy.

No other options. Despite the fact that I don’t think any normal person, outside of importers and actual manufacturers, has ever had enforcement actions for 922(r) compliance.

One more example of “free SBR stamp is a trap”.


View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=HX64P4eH7TY
Click to expand...

Take a step back and listen to another source. It's long but worth it. Keep in mind he's, (used to be I think) legal counsel for FPC so he might know what he's talking about. Plenty of evil out there without making up our own.

 
42! said:
Take a step back and listen to another source. It's long but worth it. Keep in mind he's, (used to be I think) legal counsel for FPC so he might know what he's talking about. Plenty of evil out there without making up our own.

Click to expand...

Yes… sort of.

“Assembly” is often interpreted to include when you make an SBR from a pistol. Which, is precisely what the ATF is saying people are doing when they put a brace on a pistol.

I realize this attorney disagrees with that. And I realize that I don’t think a single person (non-FFL/non-importer) has been charged for 922(r) violations.
 
Last edited:
But there is a similar issue with this whole brace opinion that isn’t being discussed, from what I’ve seen.

People are talking about just removing braces to get compliant instead of installing 16” barrels. But if the gun was first manufactured with the brace, whether from a factory or a home AR build, it was first built as a rifle in the ATF’s opinion now. Which means it can never become a pistol. So that means millions of people can’t “technically” just remove the brace for compliance.

We all know most people would never have any issues from the ATF for just removing the brace. But it is irresponsible to ignore these huge issues that the ATF has created by claiming retroactive application of their opinion in contravention of their previous 10 year opinion.
 
Ok who sent this letter to the ATF for brace alternative?

qj0KSnnKVc5K_png-2685511.JPG
 
PappyM3 said:
But there is a similar issue with this whole brace opinion that isn’t being discussed, from what I’ve seen.

People are talking about just removing braces to get compliant instead of installing 16” barrels. But if the gun was first manufactured with the brace, whether from a factory or a home AR build, it was first built as a rifle in the ATF’s opinion now. Which means it can never become a pistol. So that means millions of people can’t “technically” just remove the brace for compliance.

We all know most people would never have any issues from the ATF for just removing the brace. But it is irresponsible to ignore these huge issues that the ATF has created by claiming retroactive application of their opinion in contravention of their previous 10 year opinion.
Click to expand...
I hear it all the time and I guess I sort of accepted it, even though I never had a reason where it would matter, but can you point me to the law that says you can't convert a rifle to a pistol? Or even a general ATF rule that says that? I know I've seen some old bolt guns cut down to pistols and no one seems to have an issue with those, other than being ugly and near useless.
 
42! said:
I hear it all the time and I guess I sort of accepted it, even though I never had a reason where it would matter, but can you point me to the law that says you can't convert a rifle to a pistol? Or even a general ATF rule that says that? I know I've seen some old bolt guns cut down to pistols and no one seems to have an issue with those, other than being ugly and near useless.
Click to expand...

Can I lawfully make a rifle into a pistol without registering that firearm? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

No. A firearm that was originally a rifle would be classified as a “weapon made from a rifle” if it has either a barrel less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches. If an individual wishes to make an NFA firearm, they must first submit ATF Form 1 (Application to...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov
 
42! said:
I hear it all the time and I guess I sort of accepted it, even though I never had a reason where it would matter, but can you point me to the law that says you can't convert a rifle to a pistol? Or even a general ATF rule that says that? I know I've seen some old bolt guns cut down to pistols and no one seems to have an issue with those, other than being ugly and near useless.
Click to expand...
MAJoe said:

Can I lawfully make a rifle into a pistol without registering that firearm? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

No. A firearm that was originally a rifle would be classified as a “weapon made from a rifle” if it has either a barrel less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches. If an individual wishes to make an NFA firearm, they must first submit ATF Form 1 (Application to...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov
Click to expand...
And further:

Can I lawfully make a pistol into a rifle without registering that firearm? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Assuming that the firearm was originally a pistol, the resulting firearm, with an attached shoulder stock, is not an NFA firearm if it has a barrel of 16 inches or more in length. Pursuant to ATF Ruling 2011-4, such rifle may later be unassembled and again configured as a pistol. Such...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov

 
Sooooooo. . . . what if I sell a vest that has this little plastic insert in it???

And then I sell. . . no, my stepmom - Morgan Fairchild - sells an AR buffer tube that happens to have the same shape but is 100% compliant with this new stupidity. . . .


THEN what? The vest isn't a firearm part at all. Make them out of fleece and out of light khaki fabric for all seasons. Nice wide back-end to the insert to keep it stable on your shoulder.

Someone's ALWAYS going to figure out a way around their insanity.
 
PappyM3 said:
And further:

Can I lawfully make a pistol into a rifle without registering that firearm? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Assuming that the firearm was originally a pistol, the resulting firearm, with an attached shoulder stock, is not an NFA firearm if it has a barrel of 16 inches or more in length. Pursuant to ATF Ruling 2011-4, such rifle may later be unassembled and again configured as a pistol. Such...
www.atf.gov www.atf.gov

Click to expand...
What it comes down to is another poorly written rule/law where the definition it's based on does not take into account the very real possibilities.
(8)
The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.
Click to expand...
So instead of making a pistol from a rifle, you remove the stock and barrel from the receiver. You now have a firearm, the receiver, that is not a rifle. You, or someone else, then puts the receiver in a pistol style stock/grip and installs a new pistol barrel. You have made a pistol from a receiver that was not a rifle at the time you built it. Maybe you didn't even intend to make a pistol when you disassembled the rifle, reducing it to parts and a receiver. [devil]
 
42! said:
What it comes down to is another poorly written rule/law where the definition it's based on does not take into account the very real possibilities.

So instead of making a pistol from a rifle, you remove the stock and barrel from the receiver. You now have a firearm, the receiver, that is not a rifle. You, or someone else, then puts the receiver in a pistol style stock/grip and installs a new pistol barrel. You have made a pistol from a receiver that was not a rifle at the time you built it. Maybe you didn't even intend to make a pistol when you disassembled the rifle, reducing it to parts and a receiver. [devil]
Click to expand...
I can't wait for someone to follow your advice and then bring it up to court before they get sentenced to jail.
 
42! said:
What it comes down to is another poorly written rule/law where the definition it's based on does not take into account the very real possibilities.

So instead of making a pistol from a rifle, you remove the stock and barrel from the receiver. You now have a firearm, the receiver, that is not a rifle. You, or someone else, then puts the receiver in a pistol style stock/grip and installs a new pistol barrel. You have made a pistol from a receiver that was not a rifle at the time you built it. Maybe you didn't even intend to make a pistol when you disassembled the rifle, reducing it to parts and a receiver. [devil]
Click to expand...

You’re missing the fact that once it’s a rifle, before it was a pistol first, it’s always a rifle. You can’t make it a receiver again and make it a pistol. Maybe if you’re an FFL manufacturer, but that’s way beyond my knowledge.
 
MAJoe said:
You’re missing the fact that once it’s a rifle, before it was a pistol first, it’s always a rifle. You can’t make it a receiver again and make it a pistol. Maybe if you’re an FFL manufacturer, but that’s way beyond my knowledge.
Click to expand...
The ATF has stated that you can unregister your SBR (remove it from the registry) as long as it no longer meets the characteristics of an SBR at the time its removed, and return it to it's pistol status. You cannot however turn a title 1 rifle back into a pistol afterwards. As you stated, once it becomes a title 1 rifle, it can never be returned to a pistol.
 
beaches said:
I can't wait for someone to follow your advice and then bring it up to court before they get sentenced to jail.
Click to expand...

MAJoe said:
You’re missing the fact that once it’s a rifle, before it was a pistol first, it’s always a rifle. You can’t make it a receiver again and make it a pistol. Maybe if you’re an FFL manufacturer, but that’s way beyond my knowledge.
Click to expand...
You do see the little smiling devil right? kind of makes the point it's a joke or at least sarc.

you two need to chill

And why can't you make it a receiver again? if I hand you a receiver how would you know it was anything other than what you hold in your hand. It is what it is when it is perceived by the holder.

And my advice is always worth what you paid for it... [smile] see the smile face, take note of the smile face, be the smile face
 
42! said:
You do see the little smiling devil right? kind of makes the point it's a joke or at least sarc.

you two need to chill

And why can't you make it a receiver again? if I hand you a receiver how would you know it was anything other than what you hold in your hand. It is what it is when it is perceived by the holder.
Click to expand...
I'm chill.

Because if the receiver started its life registered as part of a rifle, it's never legally a pistol.
 
Bonesinium said:
The ATF is probably going to want many samples for “testing”.

I hope people flood them with stuff like this.
Click to expand...
Best thing the ATF could do is start charging for opinion letters. Stupid shit would drop through the floor, but also, stupid shit would drop though the floor. We're our own worst enemy on this.
 
42! said:
What it comes down to is another poorly written rule/law where the definition it's based on does not take into account the very real possibilities.

So instead of making a pistol from a rifle, you remove the stock and barrel from the receiver. You now have a firearm, the receiver, that is not a rifle. You, or someone else, then puts the receiver in a pistol style stock/grip and installs a new pistol barrel. You have made a pistol from a receiver that was not a rifle at the time you built it. Maybe you didn't even intend to make a pistol when you disassembled the rifle, reducing it to parts and a receiver. [devil]
Click to expand...
What has continually screwed over regulators is the modularity of AR type firearms.
They continue to want to regulate the fire control group with the rest of the assembly.
I'm not sure they realize that any moron that can push two pins can reconfigure said assembly from something easily concealable to something 3 feet long and capable of making 500 yard head shots.
For under a $1000.
Add to that the rule writing itself is horrid. No offense to Asians but technical writing translations are not a strong suit, and that's what ATF rules look like.
 
beaches said:
Because if the receiver started its life registered as part of a rifle, it's never legally a pistol.
Click to expand...
If it started its life as a receiver, it was just an "other firearm".

If you put certain parts on it, then removed them and put different parts on it, who's to know?

Also, where did you go in the Seacoast area to "register" anything?
 
MAJoe said:
You’re missing the fact that once it’s a rifle, before it was a pistol first, it’s always a rifle. You can’t make it a receiver again and make it a pistol. Maybe if you’re an FFL manufacturer, but that’s way beyond my knowledge.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. Legal? No. But you can do it, and proving that you did it would be almost impossible.
 
KBCraig said:
If it started its life as a receiver, it was just an "other firearm".

If you put certain parts on it, then removed them and put different parts on it, who's to know?

Also, where did you go in the Seacoast area to "register" anything?
Click to expand...
I have "others" that aren't receivers. I like weird stuff.

And you're right, no one is to know, but if someone bought a factory braced pistol that the ATF now says is a rifle...

I registered my vehicle. It's a family hauler that identifies as a stud mobile
 

Similar threads

Atf
Replies
27
Views
703
paul73
paul73
Atf head
Replies
13
Views
578
In God We Trust
In God We Trust
AR15 pistol build brace + 14.5 barrel.. any maximum length legal limits?
2
Replies
32
Views
564
gas000
G
ATF
Replies
5
Views
460
Mountain
Mountain
Is ATF Using AI-Powered Facial Recognition To ID Gun Owners?
2
Replies
31
Views
572
MGnoob
MGnoob
Back
Top Bottom