ATF and pistol braces ?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

There are no "loopholes." That's a liberal term for anything they don't like.

The term loophole has been in use since before either the Democratic or Republican parties existed in this country. In fact the term has been in use since before this country was even established. The term isn’t owned by either political party and I have seen people on “both sides of the aisle” use it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

I think it’s reasonable that people disagree on this issue. When we start arguing that the use of a common term is in itself political is where I think we go from reasonable argument to ridiculous. YMMV.

Originally Posted by Bill DeShivs

Things are either illegal, or legal. If they aren't illegal, they are legal. There is no grey area.

If the legal world really was black and white then we wouldn’t need the Judicial Branch to interpret the laws and determine their Constitutionality. Fortunately the founding fathers were able to predict that disagreements would happen and incorporate that branch of government.

[kymasabe]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

If the legal world really was black and white then we wouldn’t need the Judicial Branch to interpret the laws and determine their Constitutionality. Fortunately the founding fathers were able to predict that disagreements would happen and incorporate that branch of government.

You know, for a bunch of land owners, shop owners and tradesmen, our founding fathers were brilliant. I wish that kind of strength, courage, and common sense existed in politics today.

[stinkeypete]

I am not a history scholar, but I am sure that if you research this deeply you'll find that the founding fathers were not simple farmers and tradesmen, but were in fact wealthy men, well read in philosophy and political science of the day. Benjamin Franklin was a scientist, etc. They were all 'liberals' of the day, the 'conservatives' supported King George.

This sort of notion is the same as the general population's notion of 'How the West was Won, by the Cowboy!"

These are good stories for entertainment or propaganda, but serious adults should want to know the more complicated truth of these matters.

As for my calling the mechanism by which something like a Shockwave or "AR Pistol with Armbrace" can be sold a 'loophole'- well, they look like sawed off shotguns and short barreled rifles to me, and to anyone. You can not tell the difference, visually.

Yes, I am a liberal. I'm a little to the left of Karl Marx. I like blued steel and hardwood and have no interest in machine guns, sawed off shotguns or short barreled rifles, and I will stand by my opinion:
These things which are allowed by an rule interpretation can be changed by a rule interpretation.

My reasoning is the example of bump stocks.

My conclusion is- if you want it, go ahead and buy it. The worst that happens is you have to put it into compliance with the later interpretations.

I don't think that interpretation has anything to do with politics, but rather the rule of law.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

I don't think that interpretation has anything to do with politics, but rather the rule of law.

The problem with the rule of law is that the laws are written by mortals, who are imperfect. And the imperfect mortals who write the laws often (usually? always?) have political reasons behind their drafting of the laws. The fact that laws (in general) are not perfect, despite being in black and white, is demonstrated by the path laws take to get to the Supreme Court.

A typical law might be ruled constitutional by a lower court, then ruled unconstitutional by a 3-judge panel at the appellate level, then reversed and ruled constitutional by a full en banc hearing at the appellate level, and then decided (whichever way it goes) by a split decision (possibly 5-4) at the Supreme Court. If the law was perfect and crystal clear, it would seem that every judge along the way would agree on whether or not said law is in accord with the Constitution.

And we have seen that even at the SCOTUS level, some of the decisions, and certainly some of the votes of individual justices, are clearly influenced by politics. Remember, our Constitution states that it is the highest law of the land. Yet the late Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsberg thought our Constitution should be interpreted through the lens of what courts in Europe are doing. There is ZERO support for that opinion in the Constitution -- that's a purely political opinion, and it was shocking (to me) that a Supreme Court Justice would say (or even think) that.

[smee78]

And this is why we will continue to lose our rights. Everyone is bickering back and forth about what they think and we can't even come together to agree and say this is wrong that the ATF approved the braces as a legal item and is now back peddling and changing the rules after millions of braces have been sold. Fudds on one side saying braces are wrong and tac ta cool people saying it should be legal because (insert reason here). If we fail to come together and fight for gun rights as a whole, the other side will keep picking our rights away and we will end up like Australia or Canada, death by a 1000 cuts.

[reddog81]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

No, the FFLs I deal with don't give me a copy of the 4473, but I do know what the item I'm buying is classified as.

Link to the new (December 2022) 4473: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download

The classification of the firearm is question #24, the first item after the buyer's signature and date. Note that above question 24 it says, "Section C - Must Be Completed By Transferor/Seller Prior To The Transfer Of The Firearm(s)". It was also question #24, just below the buyer's signature, on the 2020 edition of the 4473.

That means before you -- the buyer -- take possession, and before you walk out the door with your new toy. The FFLs typically fill that out while waiting for the authorization on the phone, and they have usually filled out the information about me and my identification before I sign the 4473.

On the 2016 version of the 4473, this was question #16, and that section was Section B. The classification question (#16) was also the first question below my signature.

Are you actually suggesting that you have bought firearms without knowing what type of firearms they were? Or are you just playing devil's advocate?

That's all correct but typically the FFL fills out their info after I fill out my info. I don't review what they record. I have watched them fill out the section before a few times but never with the intent of auditing them. I have purchased a few AR lowers years ago and have no idea how they were recorded. I'd be willing to bet more than a few others on this thread couldn't verify how the lowers they purchased were recorded by their FFL.

In these scenarios I knew what I was purchasing but not necessarily aware of what the FFL was recording.

[dogtown tom]

reddog81
I don't review what they record.

You should.
There's a very good reason that ATF redesigned the 4473 in 2020 and instructs dealers to complete Section A before the transferee/buyer completes section B.

I have watched them fill out the section before a few times but never with the intent of auditing them. I have purchased a few AR lowers years ago and have no idea how they were recorded. I'd be willing to bet more than a few others on this thread couldn't verify how the lowers they purchased were recorded by their FFL.

True.
But being a full 80% of buyers can't complete a 4473 without me handing it back for corrections or missed questions, I don't think most buyers give a hoot.

[Adventurer 2]

December 28, 2022 has passed. What was determined? Pistol brace owners want to know.

[Bill DeShivs]

Well, a federal judge just ruled that the bump stock ruling was unconstitutional-so I imagine ATF is rethinking the brace situation.

[TunnelRat]

What I’ve heard is to expect something this week. But as Bill pointed out, maybe that will change.

[9x19]

No new rules have been published. So far it's just been a lot of 'net denizens carrying water for the ATF...

Reminds me a lot of the Safe Act speculation that slowed the silencer market without ever getting out of committee.

[HiBC]

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that when I buy an AR lower,if it was ever or if it was intended to be a rifle the cartridge would be engraved on the receiver (ie 5.56 mm)
If the new bare receiver says "Multi" for cartridge,it has no history of being rifle and is correct to be a pistol.

How,or why,would the ffl designate a marked/invoiced (from the manufacturer) "multi" receiver a "rifle" (Assuming its not a built lower with rifle configuration)

I get it that an M-4 configured complete lower is built as a rifle whether it has an upper or not.

[9x19]

Um, not entirely accurate... at least regarding federal law.

If the receiver was shipped by the manufacturer and sold without an upper assembly, it does not matter how it is marked, nor what furniture it wears, it is simply a receiver, since it is incapable of chambering or firing a cartridge, it cannot be classified as a firearm of any type.

If the receiver was shipped and sold with a rifle length upper attached, then it is transferred as and will always be a rifle. It cannot be made into a pistol.

If the receiver was shipped and sold with a pistol length upper attached, then it is transferred as a pistol, but it can be made into a rifle and returned to a pistol configuration at any time.

[44 AMP]

it is simply a receiver, since it is incapable of chambering or firing a cartridge, it cannot be classified as a firearm of any type.

Any SPECIFIC type. It is classified as a firearm.

And, while I'm not certain, I think you've got it turned around a bit. (those with direct knowledge, please do correct me if I'm wrong)

I THINK, that the receiver is classified by the maker (and registered as such with the govt) before it goes out the door. Rifle, pistol or "other".

I believe you are correct, you can turn a pistol into a rifle and back, you cannot turn a rifle into a pistol unless you go the NFA route (because in the govt view, once a rifle, always a rifle and shortening it doesn't turn it into a pistol it turns it into a short barrel rifle (SBR) which, like "sawed off" shotguns is an NFA Item. And, I believe a receiver classed as "other" allows you to go either way and back, but I'm not certain about that. Not my area of expertise, sorry.

[zeke]

Common sense might seem to indicate they are rethinking it. However the gooberment seems to be working more like an extension of political party. Someone may push it through, even if knowing full well a court will reject it. Then they can claim being tough on guns, while blaming certain judges for overturning it. It's a win-win for them either way.

[ballardw]

Originally Posted by zeke

Common sense might seem to indicate they are rethinking it. However the gooberment seems to be working more like an extension of political party. Someone may push it through, even if knowing full well a court will reject it. Then they can claim being tough on guns, while blaming certain judges for overturning it. It's a win-win for them either way.

"Common sense" and BATF seldom belong in the same topic.

[stinkeypete]

I'm a liberal, so what do I know. However:
* The Supreme Court overturned President Trump's Administrative Action to make bump stocks an NFA item, ruling that the law must be passed by Congress, not by Presidential Action.

* The origin of the word "loophole" is first found in the written English language in the 17th century to mean an ambiguity in a set of rules to circumvent them, based on slits in a castle from which archers could shoot, but also escape from the castle.

* 9x19 is only partially correct. One can order a bare AR receiver as either a rifle receiver or a pistol receiver, the receiver need not be built into a lower at all. In order to be classified as "other", the receiver would need to be built into a product built by a manufacturer as a specialty product.

I'm a liberal, but I've built a couple sub-moa target ARs and those of us that owned T/C Contenders are well aware of the hazards of putting parts together that can land one a felony charge.

I read that the FBI recently arrested a fellow on a warrant and found a "muffler" (Nudge-Nudge, wink-wing, 'it's-not-a-supressor-it's-a-muffler") in his shooting gear and added the charge of having an unregistered suppressor. One lesson might be to not be a felon, but I also take away from it "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, assume it's a duck."

[9x19]

Some places, such as PSA, will categorize a complete lower receiver according to the furniture they include, but when those receivers get to the FFL, they should all be transferred as "Other - Receiver" on the 4473.

I'm not aware of any seller who makes such a distinction for a stripped lower receiver. Can you cite a source for that? I'd be curious to have a look.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

* 9x19 is only partially correct. One can order a bare AR receiver as either a rifle receiver or a pistol receiver, the receiver need not be built into a lower at all. In order to be classified as "other", the receiver would need to be built into a product built by a manufacturer as a specialty product.

I don't think this is at all correct with respect to the applicable laws and regulations.

[stinkeypete]

When I ordered two stripped AR receivers from a high end supplier, I was asked if I wanted them registered as rifle or handgun receivers. Although I was building varmint rifles, I ordered them as pistol receivers because it cost no extra but offered an option.

Exactly the same when you ordered a T/C Carbine. If you got the carbine, it was registered as a rifle and technically you could not make a pistol out of it, but the pistol you could make a carbine out of. OR, you could order a receiver in either configuration but no one bought the rifle receiver in the US, but in other countries it was easier to register the other way.

I mean, this is stuff I have bought.

[Aguila Blanca]

What you were asked is a function of what your FFL knows. According to my FFL, a lower (or any) receiver that has never been assembled as a pistol or as a rifle is neither, and is transferred as an "other."

Link to the new 4473: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download

In the instruction and definitions part, it states the following [emphasis added]:

Question 24. Category of Firearm(s): “Other” refers to frames, receivers, and other firearms that are neither handguns nor long guns (rifles or shotguns), such as firearms having a pistol grip that expel a shotgun shell, or National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms, including silencers. If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver, not a handgun or long gun. All frames and receivers are “firearms” by definition, and subject to the same GCA limitations. See 18 U.S.C § 921(a)(3)(B). 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) makes it unlawful for a licensee to sell any firearm other than a shotgun or rifle to any person under the age of 21. Since a frame or receiver for a firearm, to include one that can only be made into a long gun, is a “firearm other than a shotgun or rifle,” it cannot be transferred to anyone under the age of 21, nor can these firearms be transferred to anyone who is not a resident of the State where the transfer is to take place. Also, note that multiple sales forms are not required for frames or receivers of any firearms, or pistol grip shotguns, since they are not “pistols or revolvers” under 18 U.S.C.§ 923(g)(3)(A).

[stinkeypete]

Thank you for the clarification, AB! Somewhere along the way, I got old!

When I was talking to the manufacturer, the guy I was ordering from told me that the company needed to keep track of the number of completed long guns and pistols they produced for tax purposes. I had asked about why the price of a completed upper and completed lower was less than the price of 'assembled' rifle (one pin). He explained that there was a tax on completed rifles and that technically, if I made a rifle and sold it, there could be tax due unless I resold my stuff as 'parts'. This is about 20 years ago.

Things have changed and the new form 4473 makes things clear on how it's done now! Thank you for posting, it's irrefutable.

Now, I've had my coffee and the dog and I are going out to enjoy the last day of pheasant season, not strolling the fields with an 'other'!

[RickB]

ATF/Biden admin are being slapped around in the courts, right now.
Mag limits, assault weapon bans, concealed carry, bump stocks are all going Constitutional.
The arguments of overreach that applied to bump stocks, also apply to braces; ATF does not have the authority to declare a piece of plastic a machine gun.
ATF also wants to declare barreled uppers firearms (as is almost universally the way it's done in Europe), but, of course, it's hard to declare something a firearm, which needs to have a firearm attached to it to fire a shot.
The law defines firearms, and ATF can't, on a whim, change those definitions.

[Armybrat]

Yeah, the 5th Circuit has essentially said the changes have to be made by congressional legislation, not government agencies. “Separation of powers”.
And that should also apply to the brace question too, unless Roberts off the rails again.

The SCOTUS will most likely uphold the Fifth, IMO.

[dogtown tom]

HiBC My understanding (which could be wrong) is that when I buy an AR lower,if it was ever or if it was intended to be a rifle the cartridge would be engraved on the receiver (ie 5.56 mm)
If the new bare receiver says "Multi" for cartridge,it has no history of being rifle and is correct to be a pistol.

Markings on a firearm do not define the firearm. You can engrave "machine gun" on the receiver doesn't make it a machine gun.

Whoever told you that engraving the cartridge designation on the receiver makes the receiver a rifle should never be consulted again regarding firearms.

How,or why,would the ffl designate a marked/invoiced (from the manufacturer) "multi" receiver a "rifle" (Assuming its not a built lower with rifle configuration)

Manufacturers send ATF a list of what they manufacture. If they manufactured ten pistols, twenty rifles and a hundred receivers they could have identical receiver markings.

I get it that an M-4 configured complete lower is built as a rifle whether it has an upper or not.

What you get is incorrect.
A complete AR lower receiver with a shoulder stock is not a rifle, not a handgun, its just a firearm. It cannot be a rifle until it meets the definition of "rifle" in federal law.