ATF and pistol braces ?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by zuk

If you have a reserve of serialized receivers already and you are submitting a number of form 1 applications on them, that doesn't look like something that would require a manufacturing license other than the license involved in the form 1 process itself.

The obstacle would be that all those braced pistols would have to have existed at the time the reg became effective.

Originally Posted by JohnKsa

And, I think, already be in the possession of the person registering them at that point.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by JohnKsa

Actually, the tone of the document as I read it is justifying their position the entire time, starting from the very first ruling they issued on the topic, and showing how at each step their position has been consistent with the law/NFA and with the current position. They go into detail, starting with the first stabilizing brace they received and working up to the new rule.

That is, they are trying to make the point that this isn't really a new rule at all, just a clarification of the existing law--and that all the rulings they have issued to date, when taken in context have all also been consistent with existing law. Having read a good deal of the document, I have to say they make a pretty good case.

Due to inconsistent advice regarding
how the use of a “stabilizing brace” device affected a classification and the resulting
public confusion on the proper application of the NFA and GCA to firearms with
“stabilizing braces,” as described in the NPRM and this final rule, the Department seeks
to inform the industry and public on the best interpretation regarding when “a firearm is
designed . . . , made . . . , and intended to be fired from the shoulder” within the meaning
of the relevant statutory terms.

p. 95, Factoring Criteria.

That inconsistent advice came from the agency. Where the advice has been that one can shoulder a brace or not without violating the NFA, the agency position that its current position is a clarification may not be persuasive.


The argument based on the statutory language defining a rifle as "intended to be fired from the shoulder" shook loose a memory from congression hearings prior to the AWB. The witness from the ATF testified with concern about just one of the evil features of AR15s. He assured the congressman that the only reason to put a "pistol' grip on a rifle is to allow faster unaimed firing from the hip.

[44 AMP]

I've got my opinions, feel free to disagree, but the way I'm looking at it right now is that first, the ATF actually has been remarkably consistent on one point, particularly, and that is, if it has a stock, and a barrel shorter than the rifle length (16") then it is an SBR.

And, while there has been more than a bit of back and forth about whether a brace is a stock and when its not, they have been consistent about it, if it was a brace, and NOT a stock then it wasn't an NFA item.

They used the definition that has been in use since at least 1934, which was the design intent. Literally, if if it was made to be shouldered, it was a stock, and if it wasn't, even though you could shoulder it, it was a brace.

The ATF has always known that people could, and would shoulder the "brace" if physically possible, but they used the standard legal definition of designed intent. Until now.

Since you they did know people were doing it, you can argue that the folks posting internet videos of them doing it didn't matter, or change anything, but I disagree.

I think what the internet videos did was not so much pointing out and showing that people were doing it (ATF knew that, didn't seem to care much) it was the fact that those videos were the 21st century equivalent of sticking out your tongue, putting thumbs in your ears waggling you fingers and shouting "neener neener" at the ATF, for the entire world to see. And while the changes might have been simmering on a back burner somewhere in the ATF, the affront to the law, and by extension the ATF from those videos moved the issue to a front burner and turned up the heat.

Note that the "clarification" ruling just released includes language about taking into account "(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general
community." and THAT is something new.

IF I'm understanding this correctly now, its not JUST what the design intent was, but ALSO how people are likely to use it that factors into whether or not its a stock or a brace. For that, I thank those U-tubers.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Since you they did know people were doing it, you can argue that the folks posting internet videos of them doing it didn't matter, or change anything, but I disagree.

To be clear, I wouldn't assert that internet popularity can't matter, just that people doing something neither illegal nor immoral haven't done something wrong, even if a regulator dislikes it or feels ridiculed over it. I don't hold much of the youtube world in high regard either; I'm just not blaming them for executive branch policy.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I've got my opinions, feel free to disagree, but the way I'm looking at it right now is that first, the ATF actually has been remarkably consistent on one point, particularly, and that is, if it has a stock, and a barrel shorter than the rifle length (16") then it is an SBR.

And, while there has been more than a bit of back and forth about whether a brace is a stock and when it's not, they have been consistent about it, if it was a brace, and NOT a stock then it wasn't an NFA item.

They used the definition that has been in use since at least 1934, which was the design intent. Literally, if if it was made to be shouldered, it was a stock, and if it wasn't, even though you could shoulder it, it was a brace.

The ATF has always known that people could, and would shoulder the "brace" if physically possible, but they used the standard legal definition of designed intent. Until now.

I agree that the agency has been consistent on the issue of whether a rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches is an SBR and an NFA item. It has been since the NFA was first enforced. That isn't the issue presented by braces.

I see an agency that approved a brace without respect to use, and that in 2014 then confirmed that use can't alter classification under the NFA.
https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/files/2015/02/sb15.pdf In 2015, it found an entirely new position that where and how one holds a device determines whether it was "re-designed". https://docs.google.com/viewerng/vie...s.pdf&hl=en_US. Only a couple of years later, it decided that holding a brace like a stock sometimes wasn't a re-design. https://vpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2...ch-21-2017.pdf

The "design intent" of the brace itself isn't material to whether the agency objects to the way the device is used. The abandoned points system floated but later retracted by the agency made fairly plain that they were looking the utility of the entire weapon to which the brace was attached, not the "design intent" or likely use in the "community".

On the issue presented by braces (as opposed to SBRs) the consistency doesn't overwhelm me.

[JohnKSa]

Where the advice has been that one can shoulder a brace or not without violating the NFA...

The ruling addresses this and tries (however successfully/unsuccessfully) to make the argument that the one response was about "incidental shouldering" of an actual brace as opposed to using a brace that has, or has been altered, to have features of a shoulder stock, especially features that serve no purpose on a true brace.

That said, clearly there was need for some sort of final clarification/clear statement of the rule and they've provided that along with a lot of explanation and backstory.

The fact that it's complicated is due to several factors, the main one of which is that the whole idea of stabilizing braces was intended to push the boundaries of the NFA and it did so successfully enough that even the regulating/enforcement agency had difficulty drawing a clear line between what was regulated and what was not.

I think what we are teaching them is that the next time something like this comes up, they will immediately issue a huge complicated ruling if they can't figure out a way to just make a flat out prohibition work with the way the law is written. Clearly they would have been far better off had they just said up front that it looked like a shoulder stock, worked like a shoulder stock and so it was prohibited without NFA registration. It was their honest attempt to provide a ruling that gave the benefit of the doubt to the manufacturer and the gun community that resulted in the confusion--it's ironic that is now being used to indict them.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I think what we are teaching them is that the next time something like this comes up, they will immediately issue a huge complicated ruling if they can't figure out a way to just make a flat out prohibition work with the way the law is written. Clearly they would have been far better off had they just said up front that it looked like a shoulder stock, worked like a shoulder stock and so it was prohibited without NFA registration. It was their honest attempt to provide a ruling that gave the benefit of the doubt to the manufacturer and the gun community that resulted in the confusion--it's ironic that is now being used to indict them.

It was arguably more a result of the YouTube warriors referred to by 44 AMP (yes, I'm talking about Demolition Ranch -- among others) who garnered views by publicly thumbing their noses at the BATFE by showing these "braced handguns" being used exclusively as shoulder-fired weapons.

Some people just don't know when to shut up. I blame the same mentality for the current crop of "ghost gun" laws that are popping up all across the country. I've know about 80% receivers for decades. And for as long as I've known about them, I've tried to discourage people from posting about them and discussing them on the Internet -- because the government and the anti-gun advocates read the Internet.

So here we are. 80% frames and receivers are on the way to being regulated out of existence. Wrist braces, which were previously accepted and allowed for "occasional" firing from the shoulder are now on their way to being short-barreled rifles. Why?

BECAUSE IDIOTS COULDN'T STOP PUBLICIZING THEM.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

[2damnold4this]

As the owner of a braced AR pistol, what are my options to comply with this regulation and what would you choose?

[zukiphile]

The usual implicit warning is that I'm not your lawyer and my post isn't legal advice. I'd also add that I am certain I don't know everything you'd want to know about this "final rule".

The first two traits of an individual possession that might influence the decision would be whether you plan to take it out of state frequently and whether your state allows possession of NFA items. My untutored impression is that GA has fairly liberal regulations on firearms and that NFA items aren't prohibited. I also don't know whether you need a brace or how your pistol is configured.

The risk with each option varies.

1. Do nothing. The most risky would be to ignore the problem and see if anyone notices. You could also wade through the various non-standards and assess the likelihood that someone at the agency will decide to prosecute you. The up front costs of this option are low, but the potential future cost are high.

2. Submit an "amnesty" Form 1. You could submit the form 1 within the specified period and see whether you get a stamp. The immediate cost will be restrictions on interstate travel and the cost of the fingerprint submission and engraving. Some people will feel discomfort at providing proof of violation of the NFA to the agency. The agency has indicated that it won't pursue enforcement in the near term, but the agency has engaged in enforcement in the face of similar representations in the past. You are not entitled to assert detrimental reliance against the government because that is an equitable remedy.

There is a non-trivial risk that when this regulation is the subject of an injunction, your application will sit without agency action, or be used as evidence in a prosecution.

3. Submit a normal Form 1. You could take your pistol apart and file a form 1 for a legitimate SBR. It will cost you the tax, the fingerprint transmission and engraving, and it will be subject it to regulation of interstate travel, but you won't have confessed to a federal felony. While you are at it, you might also get a real stock.

4. Make it into a non-NFA item. You could get a 16" barrel. There is a possibility that the agency will prosecute you for constructive possession if you keep the parts. The benefit is that you get to travel like a free person with your rifle, you get better velocity and reduced muzzle blast.

5. Destroy or surrender the firearm. The risk here is that you are now a firearm short of your prior count, but it should reduce the threat of state action.


I like option 3, submit a $200 form 1. I know people don't like to be on the NFA registry because it's a list, but we are all on lists anyway. I've used the cheekweld method of stabilization and I don't care for it. A good stock and sling are important to me.

You might come to a different conclusion.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

The usual implicit warning is that I'm not your lawyer and my post isn't legal advice. I'd also add that I am certain I don't know everything you'd want to know about this "final rule".

The first two traits of an individual possession that might influence the decision would be whether you plan to take it out of state frequently and whether your state allows possession of NFA items. My untutored impression is that GA has fairly liberal regulations on firearms and that NFA items aren't prohibited. I also don't know whether you need a brace or how your pistol is configured.

The risk with each option varies.

1. Do nothing. The most risky would be to ignore the problem and see if anyone notices. You could also wade through the various non-standards and assess the likelihood that someone at the agency will decide to prosecute you. The up front costs of this option are low, but the potential future cost are high.

2. Submit an "amnesty" Form 1. You could submit the form 1 within the specified period and see whether you get a stamp. The immediate cost will be restrictions on interstate travel and the cost of the fingerprint submission and engraving. Some people will feel discomfort at providing proof of violation of the NFA to the agency. The agency has indicated that it won't pursue enforcement in the near term, but the agency has engaged in enforcement in the face of similar representations in the past. You are not entitled to assert detrimental reliance against the government because that is an equitable remedy.

There is a non-trivial risk that when this regulation is the subject of an injunction, your application will sit without agency action, or be used as evidence in a prosecution.

3. Submit a normal Form 1. You could take your pistol apart and file a form 1 for a legitimate SBR. It will cost you the tax, the fingerprint transmission and engraving, and it will be subject it to regulation of interstate travel, but you won't have confessed to a federal felony. While you are at it, you might also get a real stock.

4. Make it into a non-NFA item. You could get a 16" barrel. There is a possibility that the agency will prosecute you for constructive possession if you keep the parts. The benefit is that you get to travel like a free person with your rifle, you get better velocity and reduced muzzle blast.

5. Destroy or surrender the firearm. The risk here is that you are now a firearm short of your prior count, but it should reduce the threat of state action.


I like option 3, submit a $200 form 1. I know people don't like to be on the NFA registry because it's a list, but we are all on lists anyway. I've used the cheekweld method of stabilization and I don't care for it. A good stock and sling are important to me.

You might come to a different conclusion.

If memory serves, and sometimes it doesn't, the engraving requirement is dropped for firearms that qualify for, comply with the new amnesty rule and receive their stamp. Photo documentation of the markings does seem to be required.

And there appears to be another oprion if you are unsure if your specific firearm needs registration. You can send it in for determination. Not entirely sure why any individual would risk this.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...edpdf/download

MARKINGS
27. ONCE THE FIREARM IS REGISTERED, AM I REQUIRED TO MARK THE FIREARM SINCE I MANUFACTURED A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR)?
• If the SBR equipped with a “stabilizing brace” is registered within the 120-day tax forbearance period, the possessor is allowed to adopt the markings on the firearm. The maker’s marking exception is only applicable to firearms that are registered pursuant to the final rule. If the firearm is a personally made firearm, the possessor must mark in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92 & 479.102 prior to submitting the E-Form 1.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by zeke

If memory serves, and sometimes it doesn't, the engraving requirement is dropped for firearms that qualify for, comply with the new amnesty rule and receive their stamp.

Interesting.

An unrelated question: If millions of pistols with braces designed to serve as stocks are in the market, aren't they "in common use"?

[zeke]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

Interesting.

An unrelated question: If millions of pistols with braces designed to serve as stocks are in the market, aren't they "in common use"?

Beyond my capability, and don't have the big black book

[Aguila Blanca]

Isn't another option to simply remove the brace and destroy it (or turn it in), thus rendering the firearm a non-NFA pistol again?

I can't say which path I would choose, because I have intentionally avoided owning an AR pistol. I saw this coming several years ago, and I decided I didn't want to poke the bear.

[zeke]

"Isn't another option to simply remove the brace and destroy it (or turn it in), thus rendering the firearm a non-NFA pistol again?"

Would not count on this, depending on what specifc firearm is being referenced and how ATF is interpreting the five "factors"

This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed,
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a
weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment
(e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired
from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other
factors are:"

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Isn't another option to simply remove the brace and destroy it (or turn it in), thus rendering the firearm a non-NFA pistol again?

I think that is an other option, but Zeke's incomplete confidence in it is correct. "Surface area" isn't an amount of surface area, and even an empty buffer tube has surface area.

[Mike38]

As the owner of a braced AR pistol, what are my options to comply with this regulation and what would you choose?

I do not want you to answer this. Seriously, do not publicly announce it. What I want you to do is sit back, take a deep breath, and answer to yourself, and yourself only.

Did you buy a pistol brace to use as their claimed intention because you are handicapped, or did you buy it as a "work-around" of the SBR laws?

Seriously now, keep the answer to yourself. And please, stop admitting you have a pistol brace on the internet.

Extremally unpopular opinion follows:

Keep kicking that sleeping bear you fools!

If you are exploring a cave and you come across a sleeping bear, do you keep quiet and don't touch it, or do you boldly walk up to it and kick it?

People with bump stocks, pistol braces and forced reset triggers kick that sleeping bear.

Admit it to yourself, pistol braces were invented to skirt around the short barrel rifle law, not to assist handicapped people to hold up an AR pistol. It's as obvious as the nose on my face. Everyone claims it's for helping the handicapped, but you know as well as I do it's a work-around of law. You kicked the sleeping bear. The bear is the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. You kicked that bear with a pistol brace in your hand. You kicked that bear with a forced reset trigger in your hand. You kicked that bear with a bump stock in your hand. You kicked that bear enough times that now it's pissed, and you don't understand why it's pissed? DO NOT KICK A SLEEPING BEAR. Do not piss off the BATFE.

Anybody that owns an AR pistol or an AK pistol has more money than brains. They are absolutely worthless other than making noise and burning up money. They are not accurate. They are worthless for self defense. They are worthless in a combat situation. All they are good for is emptying your wallet with 30 seconds of enjoyment.

Keep kicking that bear, and you will be left with nothing but a .22 revolver and a single shot .410 shotgun.

[zeke]

Imo this "rule" is easily challenged and will be hard to defend. However would comply with it till/if it is overruled.

Ime, every goobermental decision/ruling/law is challengeable. This means everything in the rule is challengeable, including the extensive documentation of how they handled the comments on the previous proposal and the comments themselves, which should have been in a separate summary. Imo, this was novice rule writing for that and the following reasons.

1-They changed the definition of rifle, which practically changes previous law. They didn't change an interpretation of the definition, they changed the actual wording. Changing definitions is changing laws, not applying an interpretation of them.
2- It is ridiculously long and filled with all kinds of challengeable statements.
3-They never provided a specific example of what would comply with the ruling, while providing numerous specific examples of what wouldn't comply.
4-They waived the $200 fee and engraving requirements of an existing law.
5-With the exemption of the specific examples noted, there are no clear requirements for compliance that could be applied consistently or clearly.
6-They give an option to send your firearm in for determination if you can't figure it out. They appear to say they will send it back if they determine it doesn't comply. Am no lawyer, but this would seem highly illegal to send back an illegal sbr to the owner.

Time will tell, and the above is only an opinion.

[HiBC]

Its wrong,its inappropriate, for a Federal Agency to go into an emotional state (kicked bear) and retaliate.
Control is an illusion. Adults are not here to control other adults. We are equals,remember?
Yes,we can have laws. Yes,we can arrest and prosecute those who actually do harm to others.

If we hope to have a society where people check themselves within lawful boundaries, why do we justify a Federal Agency going on the warpath over their fear of losing control? CONTROL!!

If you go rogue and murder people in their sleep with a KaBar knife,you deserve society's rage for the harm you have done. (Found guilty,of course)

The killing was out of control.

If you go to a safe space, shoot 1000 rounds with a braced AR pistol rapid fire,brace on your shoulder, grinning ear to ear... So what? What harm have you done? Who is injured?

MAYBE some bureaucrat sees a video. That dang First Amendment !! Its got to go!

Mr Bear, sees it,and feels POKED!! Look here Mabel!! That dang Gen Xer!! With his saggy britches !! Got a short barreled AR-15 pistol!! Shooting up the world!! He ain;t respecting my authority! That hacks me off!! (Grabs another donut)
"By golly,we are gonna have a MEETING! Tomorrow! Teach them somber itches to poke this bear!

Who was harmed but Mr Bear's ego? His "Power",His "Control" ? Thats sick.

If the guy is shooting roadsigns, bust the crap out of him.

How many times did the FBI interview the Parkland school shooter?

Yeah...well,uh...We didn't want to stigmatize him...Its uh Out of our control...

[44 AMP]

1-They changed the definition of rifle, which practically changes previous law.

I don't see where they did that. A rifle is still a rifle, still has the same definition it has always had. A rifle has a stock. What I see is an expanded definition (admittedly verbose and a bit confusing) covering when a brace becomes a stock.

I think we're throwing about a lot of terms, and missing some important points. One being that a brace does not make a pistol an NFA item. A STOCK does. IF a pistol brace meets the revised definition, then its a STOCK, in the ruling of the ATF. Argue about the revised definition of what is, and isn't a stock, argue about if the ATF had the legal authority to rule that way, fine. Don't argue that they changed the legal definition of a rifle, they didn't.

4-They waived the $200 fee and engraving requirements of an existing law.

Waiving some of the requirements during an "amesty period" is not a new thing, and various govt agencies have done it in the past.

I am curious about the "marking requirement". Is this something buried in the new ruling that I missed? (entirely possible) or is it something being required IF you are designated the "manufacturer" of an SBR?? What marking is required? Specifically, what does the marking have to say? Is it any different than the standard markings required on all firearms??

I have seen SBRs that were purpose built as SBRs by a manufacturer and SBRs that were "created" and registered as SBRs by owners, none had any special markings indicating SBR on the gun. The tax stamp and paperwork identified the gun by serial# and barrel length. So where does this "marking requirement" come from???

Its wrong,its inappropriate, for a Federal Agency to go into an emotional state (kicked bear) and retaliate.

Yes, it is. And you will never see that, "officially". But do remember that the agencies are made up not just of laws and regulations but also of people. People with egos. Some of those egos big enough to cover the power and prestige of the agency those people work for. People like that often take an affront to their agency as a personal affront, and if possible, they will act on it. It will be all "back channel" and "off the record" so its unofficial and there is no proof, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that there is never any effect. The bear never admits he got kicked or poked, officially, (he can't, and won't) but when things happen after the bear is poked, that didn't happen before, what other conclusions can we draw??

I went through the whole "stocked pistol" thing with an actual stocked pistol, a Broomhandle Mauser, way back when. At one time, if you had the gun and the stock, it was an NFA item. Not wishing to become entangled in the NFA rules, I did not get a stock for my Mauser. THEN, the ATF ruled that a stock for that pistol was ok, and not an NFA item as it was a "curio & relic".
SO, I got a stock (reproduction I assumed) and all was fine, until the ATF "redefined" things and said only original period stocks qualified as curio & relics, and a reproduction stock did not so having a reproduction stock and the pistol made them an NFA item.

I sold the stock immediately (entirely legal to do) and wound up selling the pistol a few years later, ending my involvement in those kinds of things.

This is, in many ways similar, your "braced" AR pistol is now (possibly) being a stocked pistol and therefore an NFA item. Register it under the allowed amnesty rules, you're covered. Remove the brace (now a "stock") and the gun is just a pistol, nothing else. Keep the former brace and now a stock and the pistol and you might be in the "constructive possession" category, and people have been prosecuted for that.

regarding this,

6-They give an option to send your firearm in for determination if you can't figure it out. They appear to say they will send it back if they determine it doesn't comply. Am no lawyer, but this would seem highly illegal to send back an illegal sbr to the owner.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I think they should have to send you back the gun either way, as it is not an illegal SBR until after the expiration of the amnesty period. IF they rule it is an SBR, they might not send it back but they must give you the opportunity to register it, otherwise I see grounds for legal action. UNLIKE machine guns, there is no prohibition for registering SBRs. IF they don't give you the gun back and don't let you register it I would consider that theft.

None of the guns covered by the new ruling are being banned or prohibited, provided they get registered as NFA items, or get reconfigured to not be classed as NFA items.

Of course, that would be in a perfect world, and we don't live in one.

[zeke]

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearm...finition-rifle

"The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger."

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...espdf/download

Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of
Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (“Department” or “DOJ”) is amending the
regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) to
clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
Specifically, under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) and the National Firearms Act
of 1934 (“NFA”) the definition of “rifle” shall include a weapon that is equipped with an
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that
provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided
other factors, as described in this preamble and in the amended regulations, indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder"

They actually state they are changing the definition. Ime, if you change a definition in a law, you change the law.

[2damnold4this]

Thanks for the suggestions on how I might comply with the new regulation.

I purchased the AR pistol as a light weight option to carry at the hunting land during the off season. One of my favorite recreational activities is walking the hunting land and changing my camera cards. I wanted a light weight firearm that I could get quick hits up close and still have a reasonable chance of taking a feral pig or coyote at up to 150 yards or so. The AR pistol was light weight and I added a brace to it to have a convenient place for a rear sling attachment point. A ten round Pmag with Hornady GMX ammo and an inexpensive Sig red dot made for a light weight package that is reasonably quick up close and still able to hit a ten inch plate at 200 yards.

There are obviously other firearms that could fill this role but the AR pistol worked for me.

From the great suggestions posted here it seems like I have some options:

1) Register it as an SBR. I did an E-file back in November for a form 4 item that is still in ATF Purgatory, so my finger prints and photo should still be fresh. I assume if I registered the firearm, I could change the buffer tube and put a proper stock on it that would no doubt make the firearm more shootable for me.

2) I could get rid of the brace and put a sling mount on the buffer tube or castle nut and hope the ATF doesn't make another rule change that makes all AR pistols NFA items.

3) I could turn it into a rifle. I could ditch the short barrel for a light weight non NFA barrel and associated hardware, change the buffer tube, add a proper stock, and the result might work fine for which I was using the braced pistol. This would be the most expensive option but it might be the most fun.



I'm sorry if my question or thoughts on this new ATF regulation offended anyone, but I do want to comply with this new regulation and I'm not an expert on the topic.

[zeke]

This is from their own website

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...edpdf/download

MARKINGS
27. ONCE THE FIREARM IS REGISTERED, AM I REQUIRED TO MARK THE FIREARM SINCE I MANUFACTURED A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR)?
• If the SBR equipped with a “stabilizing brace” is registered within the 120-day tax forbearance period, the possessor is allowed to adopt the markings on the firearm. The maker’s marking exception is only applicable to firearms that are registered pursuant to the final rule. If the firearm is a personally made firearm, the possessor must mark in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92 & 479.102 prior to submitting the E-Form 1.

The marking requirements and $200 payment are in long established law. Imo, this ruling is temporarily voiding these requirements from an established law, not voiding these requirements from a new law that would contain these requirements. Imo, there is a difference. But am not a lawyer. Imo, ATF does not have the legal capability to make new laws, or change existing laws without going through those who approve such things. Goobermental agency's job is to implement the law, or possibly make interpretations, not to make or change existing laws. But again, am not a lawyer.

Imo, if you send your firearm to them for determination and they make a determination your firearm does not meet the ruling after the ruling is published, they have officially determined your firearm is illegal. The ATF can not legally ship an illegal firearms to individuals, imo. Amnesty or not.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 2damnold

3) I could turn it into a rifle. I could ditch the short barrel for a light weight non NFA barrel and associated hardware, change the buffer tube, add a proper stock, and the result might work fine for which I was using the braced pistol. This would be the most expensive option but it might be the most fun.

I have a couple of pencil barrels on uppers with carbon fiber handguards. They can be made very pleasant to shoot. I don't find that with short barreled 5.56s; those seem to be snappy by the time they are well enough gassed to be reliable.

[zukiphile]

A. Definition of “Rifle”
The rule provides an amendment to the definition of “rifle” in §§ 478.11 and
479.11. In issuing this final rule, the Department has revised the proposed regulatory text
in the NPRM to account for the comments received. The rule does not adopt the
Worksheet 4999 as proposed in the NPRM. The rule does, however, adopt from the
NPRM and proposed Worksheet 4999 several of the objective design features that
indicate a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and
incorporates those features into the definition of “rifle.” The final regulatory text for the
definition of “rifle” reflects the best interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.
All previous ATF classifications involving “stabilizing brace” attachments for firearms
are superseded as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. As such, they are no longer valid or authoritative, and cannot be relied
upon.

p. 269, Factoring Criteria.

Originally Posted by Mike38

DO NOT KICK A SLEEPING BEAR.

I understand that people are employing a metaphor. Following the logic of the metaphor, if a bear is so dangerous that it shouldn't be kicked, it should be caged.

[44 AMP]

Imo, if you send your firearm to them for determination and they make a determination your firearm does not meet the ruling after the ruling is published, they have officially determined your firearm is illegal. The ATF can not legally ship an illegal firearms to individuals, imo. Amnesty or not.

This may be nothing more than a difference of opinion and the ATF will do whatever it does without asking either of us, but consider this argument...

There is a difference between an illegal firearm and illegal possession of a firearm. A gun with an altered, defaced or removed serial number is essentially illegal to possess, under any circumstances. IT is an illegal gun.

A firearm that is not legal because it is not registered, but would be, if registered is not an illegal gun, its an illegal possession of that gun.

Look at any state that requires a permit for possession for a handgun to see this in operation. The gun is not illegal, possessing it without the required state license, is.

The "amnesty period" for the formerly braced but now "stocked" pistols is not changing the law, it is changing, for a limited time, the enforcement (and prosecution) of the law. You are still technically guilty of breaking the law by having the unregistered NFA item, but you will not be prosecuted for that, IF you "fix the problem" by registering it within the amnesty period window.

They have done this sort of thing before, and I believe it is within their legal authority to do so.

My point here is that while you have committed a crime (breaking the statute law) there are situations where you will not be prosecuted for that crime.

One example of this is justifiable homicide. Shooting and killing someone is always a crime. However, there are situations where the law finds commission of that crime legally justified. Yes, there is a world of difference in the details, I am in no way suggesting they are the same thing, only that the principle of having committed a crime and not being prosecuted for it applies in both cases.

[JohnKSa]

Following the logic of the metaphor, if a bear is so dangerous that it shouldn't be kicked, it should be caged.

NFA has been the law for many decades. Elected representatives of the people put it into place almost 90 years ago and have not repealed it. The Supreme Court, each member appointed by an elected official have not overturned it.

I don't think anyone here likes the NFA, but it's the law and it's going to stay the law because that's the way enough of the people in the U.S. want it.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

This may be nothing more than a difference of opinion and the ATF will do whatever it does without asking either of us, but consider this argument...

There is a difference between an illegal firearm and illegal possession of a firearm. A gun with an altered, defaced or removed serial number is essentially illegal to possess, under any circumstances. IT is an illegal gun.

A firearm that is not legal because it is not registered, but would be, if registered is not an illegal gun, its an illegal possession of that gun.

Look at any state that requires a permit for possession for a handgun to see this in operation. The gun is not illegal, possessing it without the required state license, is.

The "amnesty period" for the formerly braced but now "stocked" pistols is not changing the law, it is changing, for a limited time, the enforcement (and prosecution) of the law. You are still technically guilty of breaking the law by having the unregistered NFA item, but you will not be prosecuted for that, IF you "fix the problem" by registering it within the amnesty period window.

They have done this sort of thing before, and I believe it is within their legal authority to do so.

My point here is that while you have committed a crime (breaking the statute law) there are situations where you will not be prosecuted for that crime.

One example of this is justifiable homicide. Shooting and killing someone is always a crime. However, there are situations where the law finds commission of that crime legally justified. Yes, there is a world of difference in the details, I am in no way suggesting they are the same thing, only that the principle of having committed a crime and not being prosecuted for it applies in both cases.

i get your point, so let me rephrase. Imo the ATF will be breaking the law by sending you a firearm after they made a determination it is illegal to posses that specific firearm. Imo, the amnesty doesn't cover that act, which may also be covered by any applicable shipping/mailing regulations.