-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
How will the impending ATF Brace regulations effect 'other firearms?
- Thread starter MoRivera
- Start date
Alrighty....
So this is what I have been able to gather so far, and I might be wrong so those who know better please correct me.
Rewind to yesterday once the 'ruling' dropped. For the heck of it I went to the Eform ATF site and didn't see any 'amnesty' function dropping the $200 tax. But then within about an hour, the section opened up (red).....
Went through the eForm 1 for SBR....and unlike before it wasn't asking for the DPS-414-C CT state form certifying it as an 'assault weapon' or pre-ban. Details of that requirement here in this thread...
www.northeastshooters.com
Before, you couldn't get to the last verification and submit page without that, now you can so I figured what the heck, maybe they missed that on this form and I can get a free SBR before they catch their misstep! I filled out two applications, got the email back confirming that they were 'submitted/in-process', and the cover letters to send in with fingerprints. Too good to be true?
Well, yeah. Even if ATF somehow approved it as an SBR, that now makes it a rifle/assault weapon by CT law and if it wasn't registered/certified as such with the above form, then it's illegal. Since these 'others' aren't pre-bans, they can't be certified. So I was thinking just keep a brace on it and configured like it was as an other, then it's legal in CT since the brace is still a brace, and it complies federally since it's SBR'd...win-win, right?
No (as I understand it). Apparently what this new ruling does is force CT's hand to make a new ruling on 'others', since by federal 'definition' they are now SBR's having barrels shorter than 16". 'Others' with 16" barrels I don't know, but the way it looks now CT will have to rule if they will allow those of us with 'others' and under-16" barrels to register them as SBR's. The hope is they will since there are so many in circulation, and if that's the case then free registration and we can finally put a real stock on it.
So we have to wait and see. It should post on the Federal Registry by Tues.
Fingers crossed.
So this is what I have been able to gather so far, and I might be wrong so those who know better please correct me.
Rewind to yesterday once the 'ruling' dropped. For the heck of it I went to the Eform ATF site and didn't see any 'amnesty' function dropping the $200 tax. But then within about an hour, the section opened up (red).....
Went through the eForm 1 for SBR....and unlike before it wasn't asking for the DPS-414-C CT state form certifying it as an 'assault weapon' or pre-ban. Details of that requirement here in this thread...
SBR-ing, and Pre-Ban 'Proof'
Hello All, Member of a few other groups for a while but first post here. Should have joined earlier since I'm a CT resident and there's so much info/discussion specific to our draconian restrictions. Forgive the length of my first post, but it's detailed. I know there have been other Pre-ban...
www.northeastshooters.com
Before, you couldn't get to the last verification and submit page without that, now you can so I figured what the heck, maybe they missed that on this form and I can get a free SBR before they catch their misstep! I filled out two applications, got the email back confirming that they were 'submitted/in-process', and the cover letters to send in with fingerprints. Too good to be true?
Well, yeah. Even if ATF somehow approved it as an SBR, that now makes it a rifle/assault weapon by CT law and if it wasn't registered/certified as such with the above form, then it's illegal. Since these 'others' aren't pre-bans, they can't be certified. So I was thinking just keep a brace on it and configured like it was as an other, then it's legal in CT since the brace is still a brace, and it complies federally since it's SBR'd...win-win, right?
No (as I understand it). Apparently what this new ruling does is force CT's hand to make a new ruling on 'others', since by federal 'definition' they are now SBR's having barrels shorter than 16". 'Others' with 16" barrels I don't know, but the way it looks now CT will have to rule if they will allow those of us with 'others' and under-16" barrels to register them as SBR's. The hope is they will since there are so many in circulation, and if that's the case then free registration and we can finally put a real stock on it.
So we have to wait and see. It should post on the Federal Registry by Tues.
Fingers crossed.
Last edited:
Yes, but if they can change their mind so whimsically about braces then who knows when just not having a brace isn't enough? Also, 'pistols' can't have a vertical fore grip, and CT law dictates that we can't have a semi-auto pistol that isn't pre-ban, so technically it's still an 'other' (which HAS to have a vertical fore grip), but CT may make some sort of ruling on 'others' whether they have a brace or not. We'll have to see.
So essentially we have to run bare buffer tubes unless the barrel is 16"+ then we can use a brace bc it's past the 16" federally and over 26" other ct law?
It's insane, I spent the last year buying individual high end parts to build a 300blk with a 12.5" barrel, so now I'm supposed to get a 16" barrel for it? Kind of defeats the purpose of it being a compact pdw for my home, plus I just got approved form 4 for my 9" suppressor for it. 16" barrel, buffer tube, reciever, 9" suppressor. Awesome, it'll be the length of a gd musket for indoor protection now.
It's insane, I spent the last year buying individual high end parts to build a 300blk with a 12.5" barrel, so now I'm supposed to get a 16" barrel for it? Kind of defeats the purpose of it being a compact pdw for my home, plus I just got approved form 4 for my 9" suppressor for it. 16" barrel, buffer tube, reciever, 9" suppressor. Awesome, it'll be the length of a gd musket for indoor protection now.
They get around that by interpreting. they interpret the law then its up to the courts to tell them that they've gone afoul of the COTUS. It's a game they've become very good at
Like I said, it's a game they're very good at
If they were good at it they wouldn't have created the problem to begin with. 10+ yrs ago they had the oppression they desired lol... but they flipped, and now they're trying to flip back and in the long game it will likely backfire. Brace equipped pistols are now guns in common use..... and it's basically because of the ATFs prior actions.
KBCraig
NES Member
Two words: "Constructive Possession".
Don't you see? This is all intentional! As long as they keep things convoluted and confusing, it makes it easier for them to make all the rules
They got you scared, don't they? You should be scared. They hold all the cards. Nothing will change as long they do IMHO
You have to consider what the game is.
You see it as making and interpreting rules and law to restrict 2A rights, permanently.
I see it as just f***ing around knowing full well it will be overturned eventually.
They know whether it's legislation or agency rules that the chaos that ensues is priceless as a tool of intimidation.
Thing about that is it's not something that they'd pursue you for in and of itself (although there's a first for everything), it's more like a tack-on if they find out from a search/seizure of your guns. So technically it's the 'risk' we all run by having all these spare uppers/parts/accessories, but not what will get a knock at your door. And likely only found out after you done f'd up A-A-ron....
But maybe that will change too somehow. Heck, any of us who have a completely legal AR rifle with a stock, and a completely legal 12.5"-barreled AR 'other' has the 'ability' to put that stock on the 'other' or that shorter barrel on the rifle's lower. So if they wanted to, they could charge you for 'constructive possession' just by that. It's like the thought police.
Last edited:
KBCraig
NES Member
Not me personally, since I don't really dabble in that world.
But yes: people who do should be very scared of what the ATF could turn into a crime if they felt motivated by your lack of deference to their au-thor-i-TAY.
From all the stuff we've seen so far of ATF going after vendors for certain binary triggers, solvent traps, or people who bought more than one gun a week, and confiscations....it was done to make an example. No, they don't have the physical manpower to go after everyone or even a third of us. But if you are one of the few that they do go after, they can absolutely ruin your life and reputation, bury you in departmental procedure, and leave you destitute dealing in legal fees...all without even arresting you. So they are counting on most people not wanting to be that handful of lucky ones that are made an example of.
The very definition of bully tactics.
The very definition of bully tactics.
Last edited:
So here's another question.....CT defines 'rifle' as this...
With that, in CT this was not a rifle since it had a brace as opposed to a buttstock....
...but it is not an SBR according to ATF either if it has a 16" barrel. But I take it ATF now views the presence of a brace as the overall firearm being 'designed to be fired from the shoulder' no matter what length? I.e. if the gun has a brace it's shoulderable and thus a rifle.
So does CT now defer to that as the definition of this gun as a rifle, even though before having a brace meant it wasn't 'designed to be fired from the shoulder' therefore not a rifle? Thus making it an illegal 'Assault Weapon'?
What a mess.
With that, in CT this was not a rifle since it had a brace as opposed to a buttstock....
...but it is not an SBR according to ATF either if it has a 16" barrel. But I take it ATF now views the presence of a brace as the overall firearm being 'designed to be fired from the shoulder' no matter what length? I.e. if the gun has a brace it's shoulderable and thus a rifle.
So does CT now defer to that as the definition of this gun as a rifle, even though before having a brace meant it wasn't 'designed to be fired from the shoulder' therefore not a rifle? Thus making it an illegal 'Assault Weapon'?
What a mess.
Not a lawyer, but I would guess no. CT and MA use definitions of pistol, rifle, shotgun, firearm that differ from federal law and ATF ruling. I also don’t believe they defer definition of such items to federal law except in the case of referencing the old federal AWB.
So, you need to comply with both sets of incongruent laws and regulations and the ATF update only impacts federal law.
And therein lies the pickle, in that there seems to be a bunch of paradoxes introduced with this new 'ruling'. CT law saws that an 'other' is a legal firearm that isn't a rifle by their definition, but by ATF's definition it is.
Now im confused. Which is often the older I get. Question, if you remove the brace and install a AR buffer tube which is simply covered in foam that is considered a SBR under this new "ruling"?
