ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

[allen-1]

What To Do About The ATF’s Pistol Brace “Interpretation”

Michael Z Williamson's blog

www.michaelzwilliamson.com

The crux of the article:
A: Register it as a Short Barreled Rifle, under amnesty, for free, and get an NFA stamped form. DOWNSIDE: You must file a Form 20 for permission every time you want to take it out of state. NOTE: No, sticking a rifle barrel on doesn’t make it not an NFA weapon. Once it is on the Registry, it remains an SBR, no matter what barrel you put on it, unless you ask them to remove it from the Registry, and either destroy it or make it not an SBR.
2) You can remove the brace. The brace is perfectly legal on any rifle it fits. If you own such a rifle, you now have a rifle accessory, and a pistol with no brace. You may eventually be able to put it back on, if the courts do their job and tell ATF to cut the crap. Or, you can apply for a stamp later if you wish. It will cost $200. It might be worth the wait.
c] You can leave it in illegal format. I recommend against this. I especially recommend against beating your, um, chest on social media that “I WILL NOT COMPLY!” Unless you really hate your dog and want ATF to shoot him when they come to arrest you.
IV} You can destroy the brace (if you’re an idiot) or surrender it to ATF (if you’re a bigger idiot).
E. You can destroy the weapon (if you’re a moron) or surrender it to ATF (if you’re a complete retard).

There was a claim they’ve decided any imported braced pistol was retroactively illegally imported (because rifles, have to meet “sporting purposes”). 922R only applies to manufacture, not possession, and an imported pistol remains a pistol. Once stamped as an SBR, 922R doesn’t matter. This appears to be another possibly deliberate obfuscation for clickbait. An attorney dismantles both that claim and the below “88 day” claim here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGdjQ4Iylzo

 

[MGnoob]

This is one confusing cluster f***..

I definitely forgotten more about NFA than most people ever knew… But it’s pretty goddamn hard when they keep moving the goal posts..

But I bought all my shit at the store with a background check..

Thankfully, all the shit they keep reinterpreting, and making up, doesn’t even reply to me because my shit that even comes close to any of these Reinterpretations is fully automatic anyway.

I really feel for these young people trying to figure out what they can and can’t do (legally)

I’m gonna get one of these bump, stocks and pistol braces just because… When are you guys give your shit away(lol) Let me know. I’ll take a pistol bracelet.

 

[Dench]

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.

Sounds 100% reasonable. Nothing weird, confusing or arbitrary about any of that! Thank you AFT!

 

[Tartakovsky]

What To Do About The ATF’s Pistol Brace “Interpretation”

Michael Z Williamson's blog

www.michaelzwilliamson.com

The crux of the article:
A: Register it as a Short Barreled Rifle, under amnesty, for free, and get an NFA stamped form. DOWNSIDE: You must file a Form 20 for permission every time you want to take it out of state. NOTE: No, sticking a rifle barrel on doesn’t make it not an NFA weapon. Once it is on the Registry, it remains an SBR, no matter what barrel you put on it, unless you ask them to remove it from the Registry, and either destroy it or make it not an SBR.
2) You can remove the brace. The brace is perfectly legal on any rifle it fits. If you own such a rifle, you now have a rifle accessory, and a pistol with no brace. You may eventually be able to put it back on, if the courts do their job and tell ATF to cut the crap. Or, you can apply for a stamp later if you wish. It will cost $200. It might be worth the wait.
c] You can leave it in illegal format. I recommend against this. I especially recommend against beating your, um, chest on social media that “I WILL NOT COMPLY!” Unless you really hate your dog and want ATF to shoot him when they come to arrest you.
IV} You can destroy the brace (if you’re an idiot) or surrender it to ATF (if you’re a bigger idiot).
E. You can destroy the weapon (if you’re a moron) or surrender it to ATF (if you’re a complete retard).

There was a claim they’ve decided any imported braced pistol was retroactively illegally imported (because rifles, have to meet “sporting purposes”). 922R only applies to manufacture, not possession, and an imported pistol remains a pistol. Once stamped as an SBR, 922R doesn’t matter. This appears to be another possibly deliberate obfuscation for clickbait. An attorney dismantles both that claim and the below “88 day” claim here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGdjQ4Iylzo

The ATF is on record as saying a registered SBR can be transported across state lines if returned to title 1 configuration. If the firearm is no longer, by definition, presently an SBR, (for example remove the barrel/upper, or install a 16” or longer barrel or upper with 16” barrel), it no longer, by definition, is an SBR. Removing the characteristics making it an SBR, ie, the barrel, means its not presently an SBR. You can then transport it across state lines. That said, just do the 5320.20 and get approval for transport. They’re generally quick. Mine took 2-3 weeks turnaround.

 

[Tartakovsky]

Sounds 100% reasonable. Nothing weird, confusing or arbitrary about any of that! Thank you AFT!

Firearms laws were written by people with little to no common sense, that know little to nothing about firearms.

 

[Tartakovsky]

For those asking about transporting SBRs across state lines. Here is a good discussion from last year with awesome resources….

Submitting NFA 5320.20 Applications - Transporting SBRs Interstate

I submitted a few scanned Form 5320.20s a few weeks ago via NFAFax@ATF to transport (registered obviously) SBRs between my primary residence in MA and my secondary residence in NH. Anyone here familiar with the process? Do you typically get an email response notifying you of approval, or just...

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[AJK129]

 

[Dench]

For those asking about transporting SBRs across state lines. Here is a good discussion from last year with awesome resources….

Submitting NFA 5320.20 Applications - Transporting SBRs Interstate

I submitted a few scanned Form 5320.20s a few weeks ago via NFAFax@ATF to transport (registered obviously) SBRs between my primary residence in MA and my secondary residence in NH. Anyone here familiar with the process? Do you typically get an email response notifying you of approval, or just...

www.northeastshooters.com

Unfortunately for all that these problems go across all areas. No shortage of laws on all sorts of crap written by people with no clue.

edit:engirsh

 

[Tartakovsky]

View attachment 714239

Glock stock is ILLEGAL. Say goodbye to your pupper.

 

[MGnoob]

View attachment 714239

I definitely need one of those.. Pretty much the only reason to buy a Glock

 

[MGnoob]

That just needs to be the pin for a grenade. It’s the perfect weapon.

 

[MGnoob]

It’s like you need simple directions like pull pin, throw grenade.. Front towards enemy…

 

[MGnoob]

View: https://youtu.be/LyhR1THflUU

 

[42!]

View: https://youtu.be/LyhR1THflUU

group buy?

 

[MGnoob]

group buy?

That clip missed the auto destruct button which everything should have..

 

[MGnoob]

I can honestly say I don’t own a flamethrower. One time I took a safety course and almost burned my face off…

 

[240Geezer]

I remember lighting up a brush pile with gas. I waited just a tad too long and the fumes had pooled and spread out. Watching the flame front spread across the ground was awesome.
Except of course for the part where my feet were.

 

[Caveman]

My Random Sunday Though of the moment. This might have been asked already and I missed it. If braces make a SBR. And braces are determined to be in Common Use. Doesn’t that mean that SBR’s are now in Common Use and can now be pursued as such by the courts?

 

[42!]

My Random Sunday Though of the moment. This might have been asked already and I missed it. If braces make a SBR. And braces are determined to be in Common Use. Doesn’t that mean that SBR’s are now in Common Use and can now be pursued as such by the courts?

The argument would be that SBRs are taxed, not banned

 

[heck ya beaches]

The argument would be that SBRs are taxed, not banned

step 1)

 

[Hoover]

This mess is destined for court and I highly doubt it survives. Among other things, the ATF cannot wave the tax stamp. The $200 is a law, the ATF can’t write a regulation that is not within a law.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

The argument would be that SBRs are taxed, not banned

Retort - “Can a constitutionally enumerated right be be taxed, and if so which others?”

 

[42!]

This mess is destined for court and I highly doubt it survives. Among other things, the ATF cannot wave the tax stamp. The $200 is a law, the ATF can’t write a regulation that is not within a law.

But that argument only gets them to not wave the tax, it doesn't argue against the action. Seems a waste of time to argue about the 200 when a win won't do what you want anyway. Focus on what matters.

 

[42!]

Retort - “Can a constitutionally enumerated right be be taxed, and if so which others?”

Good question. We know they will argue that it can be taxed and regulated. And we would likely see a lot of fight against the idea that the tax makes it unconstitutional given that this would put the entire NFA at risk. Would be an interesting fight. But if you want a quicker resolution you may want to identify something with a smaller impact.

 

[drgrant]

This mess is destined for court and I highly doubt it survives. Among other things, the ATF cannot wave the tax stamp. The $200 is a law, the ATF can’t write a regulation that is not within a law.

Lol the ATF has done numerous nfa amnesties when they "changed the regs" but obviously all that is pre Bruen, pre Heller even.

 

[Caveman]

Good question. We know they will argue that it can be taxed and regulated. And we would likely see a lot of fight against the idea that the tax makes it unconstitutional given that this would put the entire NFA at risk. Would be an interesting fight. But if you want a quicker resolution you may want to identify something with a smaller impact.

I’d actually hope that the larger impact would be more likely to be heard by scotus. I’ve been disappointed before though by scotus.

 

[drgrant]

Retort - “Can a constitutionally enumerated right be be taxed, and if so which others?”

It's been taxed for years, fwiw. Pittman-Robertson taxes all guns and ammo with an excise tax at initial sale.

It should be unconstitutional, frankly. Across the board.

 

[Garys]

Do you mean the entire regulation, the amnesty, or the tax stamp waiver?

Or all of it?

I don't have one of these, but a relative does and is concerned about what to do.

This mess is destined for court and I highly doubt it survives. Among other things, the ATF cannot wave the tax stamp. The $200 is a law, the ATF can’t write a regulation that is not within a law.

 

[Caveman]

Do you mean the entire regulation, the amnesty, or the tax stamp waiver?

Or all of it?

I don't have one of these, but a relative does and is concerned about what to do.

Ianal but I would be surprised if this survives as a whole at all. it really shines a spotlight on the AFT’s arbitrary changing of the rules making millions felons especially after the bumpstock ruling.

 

[KBCraig]

The argument would be that SBRs are taxed, not banned

The legislative history of the NFA makes it clear that the intent was to ban through taxation. The inflation-adjusted $200 tax from 1934 would be roughly $4,400 today for every SBS, SBR, and silencer. Same for automatics, except the 1986 Hughes Amendment to FOPA already drove the price through the roof by banning (not taxing, but actually banning) all new machine guns for the civilian market.

That was the first ever actual gun ban under federal law, so it doesn't survive "history and tradition" under Bruen. That will be a law suit for a different day, but I'm sure there are several litigants lined up and waiting.

As has been pointed out, NFA'34 started out as a handgun ban (through taxation, because they knew they couldn't actually ban guns). SBS/SBR were added only because it's relatively easy to cut down a rifle/shotgun to make it "concealable" like a handgun... but handguns were dropped from the law because that was politically untenable.

For reasons of political insanity, SBR/SBS stayed in the law for no logical reason. Even a cut-down rifle/shotgun is less concealable than an actual handgun, but... politicians generally know nothing about the things they're trying to ban.