ATF and pistol braces ?

[TunnelRat]

Machine guns are defined, making it relatively easy to argue that a bump stock does not meet the definition of a machine gun and that the ATF can’t change an existing definition. Are stocks clearly defined in such a way that shows a brace does not meet the definition of a stock and that the inclusion of them does not create a SBR? If the only legal standing for a brace is that it was approved in the past by an ATF decision, not Congressional legislation, then it seems to me like the ATF reversing that definition has more legal standing than the ATF trying to argue bump stocks are machine guns. I do know that common usage factors into this.

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP
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".

Manufacturers report what they have made to ATF, that doesn't mean what they report is accurate.

Colt makes an AR they call the "OEM" https://www.colt.com/detail-page/col...6-161-lpgb-blk


Colt calls this a carbine (rifle) ....it clearly does not meet the definition of "rifle" in federal law because it has no shoulder stock. Any dealer receiveing this model would accurately record it in his bound book as an "Other" and when transferring to a buyer record it as a receiver on the Form 4473.

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.

You cannot turn a rifle into a pistol ever, not even via the NFA.
If you have:
An AR pistol, you can go pistol>rifle>pistol.
An AR rifle will always be a rifle unless made into a Short Barreled Rifle via a Form 1.

Both of those can be configured as:

If this firearm started as a rifle, it may look like an AR pistol.....but its not, its an SBR because its a firearm made from a rifle.

And, I believe a receiver classed as "other" allows you to go either way and back, but I'm not certain about that.

Well, ALL receivers and frames are "other firearms" because they do not meet the definition of rifle or handgun.
While you can certainly go either way in assembling either a handgun or a long gun from a receiver, only firearms first assembled as a handgun can be subsequently reassembled as a rifle, then back to pistol.

If the receiver is first assembled as a rifle it can never be reassembled as a pistol.

First a rifle, always a rifle.

[dogtown tom]

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.

No, they didn't. The USSC has denied cert on challenges to the bump stock ban.

The decision this week on bump stocks was not by the USSC, but the 5th Circuit.

* 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.

Absolutely 100% malarkey.
There is no such thing as a "pistol receiver" or "rifle receiver" even if those words are engraved on that receiver. It's just receiver. Period.

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.

Federal law does not require that, but a particular state may. That does not change how federal law or ATF regs view frames or receivers.

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.

The ability to go pistol>rifle>pistol is due to US v Thompson Center Arms.
See ATF Ruling 2011-4 Pistols Configured from Rifles; Rifles Configured from Pistols

[dogtown tom]

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've transferred thousands of PSA lowers and never have they been categorized as anything different than what they are.
Lowers, whether stripped or complete are just lowers.

Now, if a licensee ships a firearm in "knockdown condition" or disassembled into its components......that's the same as shipping the complete assembled firearm and FAET is due. ATF Ruling 93-2

[stinkeypete]

Let me apologize again to those who have not been reading the whole thread!
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/44...53009/download
was posted by Aguila Blanca, which is an updated form compared to when I personally purchased lower receivers. Because when I build an AR, I get the parts and put then all together. THINGS HAVE CHANGED in the past 20 years.

Citing official documents is the best way to win an argument, and AB did this. The sincerest form of flattery is imitation, so:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinion...-51016-CV2.pdf

[Aguila Blanca]

Things have a way of changing. Like the 4473.

The 2005 edition enters the firearm type in question 18, which is in Part B - to be filled out by the transferor (seller). The only choices are "Handgun," Long gun," and "Both."

The next edition I have a copy of is from October, 2016. The type question has moved to Question 16, and the choices are "Handgun," "Long Gun (rifles or shotguns)," and "Other Firearm (frame, receiver, etc. See instructions for Question 16.)"

So if we look at the instructions for Question 16 (again, from the 2016 edition), we find the following:

Question 16. Type 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.

So in just over a decade, the declaration of firearm type went from a choice of handgun, long gun, or both ... to handgun, long gun, or neither. That may not seem like a big deal but, as we are seeing today, it's HUGE.

I try to keep up with the changes to the 4473, but I only started that fairly recently. I'm sure there are big gaps in my collection, especially since the earliest I have is from 2005.

[dogtown tom]

The change from "Handgun/Long Gun/Both" to "Handgun/Long Gun/Other" occurred in the fall of 2008.

While the Form 4473 "version" date was August 2008 I believe, it wasn't required for use until early 2009. The reason implementation was delayed was FFL complaints about changing the form during the peak hunting season. So some dealers may have begun using the Form as soon as ATF started shipping them around November, others waited until they were required to do so.

The "Handgun/Long Gun/Both" version was also the last 4473 printed on yellow paper.

[44 AMP]

Just saw a report from Reuters, posted on Microsoft news about the ATF ruling.

I am intentionally NOT posting a link, because I have serious doubts about the accuracy of the information, due to this, in the report...

For decades, short-barreled rifles have been subject to strict regulations, including a law known as the National Rifle Act, which requires additional taxation and background checks for private transfers, among other provisions.

Since they get the name of the Federal law wrong, I have my doubts about what they got right.

They are reporting that now, braced pistols ARE short barrel rifles and this...

The new rule gives owners, manufacturers and distributors 120 days to report their stabilizing braces to the ATF tax-free. They may also remove the stabilizing brace or turn in any pistol modified by a stabilizing brace to the ATF.

I post this as a heads up, and so that those who are, or might be affected can look for valid information from more reputable sources.

Be sure to properly thank all those morons who posted internet videos to "poke the bear".

[Aguila Blanca]

The BATFE announced today that they have submitted the new rules for publication in the Federal Register. The NSSF reported on it. Link to the BATFE announcement:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...s-used-convert

The BATFE announcement states that there will be a window of 120 days from the date of publication for owners of such firearms to register than as short-barreled rifle.

The NSSF press release:

ATF Announces Final Rule on Pistols Equipped With a Stabilizing Arm Brace

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced the Stabilizing Pistol Brace Final Rule published in the Federal Register. ATF asserts that when manufacturers, dealers and individuals attach a stabilizing arm brace to a pistol, it is defined as a short-barreled rifle and must comply with the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA).

NSSF® submitted comments to ATF on its proposed rule which can be read here. ATF’s rulemaking was recently called into question by a federal appellate court.

NSSF is carefully reviewing the final rule which goes into effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. The rule allows for a 120-day period for manufacturers, dealers, and individuals to register tax-free any existing NFA short-barreled rifles covered by the rule or take other measures to avoid being a felon. This will clearly be a topic of much discussion at next week’s SHOT Show®.

For more information visit ATF.gov.

Those among us who own these things -- be advised, and act accordingly.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Be sure to properly thank all those morons who posted internet videos to "poke the bear".

I agree.

[HiBC]

I'll read it.

I figured out some time back a lot of the fuss was about the brace. OK. I decided my AR pistol could work fine for me with just a buffer tube. No brace.

Of course,my opinion means nothing, but IMO,its a lawful pistol .

Is there still questionaire and"points"?

[zeke]

it appears work sheet 4999 has been replaced with open ended, unclarified descriptions that can not be used by an individual. Am hoping i do not break some board rule over copying. If informed i did, will delete it

." 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. However, firearms with such attachments may be submitted to ATF for reclassification.
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:
(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or
length of similarly designed rifles;
269



(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the
trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory,
component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping
attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer
tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method) that is consistent
with similarly designed rifles;
(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that
require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as
designed;
(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the
shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for
the cycle of operations;
(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional
materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general
community.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zeke

Am hoping i do not break some board rule over copying. If informed i did, will delete it

What's the source? If this is from the government, there's no problem. If you are quoting the NSSF, then it probably is copyrighted material.

[zeke]

From the link previously posted. It's a direct quote out of the final rule


https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

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

[zukiphile]

I must be missing something.

I gather that the new rule is that an AR with a pistol brace leaves an owner with three options:
1. Return it to a braceless configuration and keep the firearm,
2. leave it with the brace attached and turn it in as an unregistered SBR, or
3. register it as an SBR tax free during the amnesty period.

Why not register a stack of receivers as SBRs tax free, then engrave and build them at your convenience?

[Tom Servo]

(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.

Holy cow is this vague. We're going to have differing opinions depending on the agent inspecting a given gun, and possibly differing opinions within each field division. And those differing opinions can get someone thrown in prison.

Under the final rule, the Attorney General has authorized a tax forbearance that allows current possessors of "stabilizing brace" equipped firearms that meet the definition of "rifle" and have a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches to register the firearms tax-free. A current possessor is a person1 who possessed the "stabilizing brace" equipped firearm prior to January 13, 2023.

So they're giving out free tax stamps during the 120-day amnesty period? I wasn't aware they could do that.

[JohnKSa]

I gather that the new rule is that an AR with a pistol brace leaves an owner with three options:
1. Return it to a braceless configuration and keep the firearm,
2. leave it with the brace attached and turn it in as an unregistered SBR, or
3. register it as an SBR tax free during the amnesty period.

First of all, this doesn't just apply to AR pistols, it applies to any kind of pistol.

Second, the fourth option is clearly there based on the new rules.

If the brace is really a brace and is attached to a pistol that is really a pistol, then it can stay as it is. What does that mean? The rule provides a ton of discussion and examples of what that means, but here's the gist.

If the brace has features that are peculiar to stocks and that serve no purpose to a brace, then it's probably not going to qualify as a brace and would be treated as a stock for enforcement purposes.

If the brace is attached to a firearm that is not a pistol (there's a lot of discussion and examples of what is and isn't a pistol in the rules document) then the overall firearm will not be a pistol and may be subject to NFA rules.

So the new rule is that if you REALLY have a stabilizing brace that is attached to a firearm that is REALLY a pistol, that's perfectly fine.

But if you have a "stabilizing brace" that looks and works like a stock and it is attached to a pistol then the resulting item is an NFA firearm. Also, if a brace is attached to a firearm that qualifies as something other than a pistol, the result may be an NFA firearm depending on the characteristics of the resulting combination.

Which is to say that it's the same rule we've always had, there's just 300 pages of discussion and documentation and examples to work from that are now on the public record.

Why not register a stack of receivers as SBRs tax free, then engrave and build them at your convenience?

Looks possible if you follow the law.

[zeke]

"provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder"

The new rule is open ended in it's interpretation of various statements and definitions. It clearly states they rewrote the definition of rifle. The new definition has no clear measurements that can be made, and clearly rely on some ones interpretation of what the six (i to vi listed above) factors are, none of which can be measured consistently by varying people in varying situations. Then to say if you have any questions about an specific firearm, you can just send the firearm to us to evaluate, presumably with in their 120 days?.

While the rule clearly shows some examples of what they consider sbr's, they failed to provide any clear examples of what could be considered to meet their rule.

The rule changed an existing definition of a term used in various long standing laws, is ambiguous at best and the only specific items in it are the lists/pictures of what they consider not to meet the rule. As plenty of lawyers may tell you, the intent doesn't really matter if it contradicts what the rule actually says. And imo, it is not ATF's role to change definitions commonly used in laws without going through congress.

Unless someone owns one of the specific examples listed/pictured in the rule, they can not even questimate if their current item meets the law.

[stagpanther]

My short-barreled AR pistols have smooth buffer tubes with nothing on them. I consider the rule to be irrelevant.

And, I believe a receiver classed as "other" allows you to go either way and back, but I'm not certain about that.

That comes under the "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" test.

[zeke]

Would ask another question. Someone can't determine whether their firearm fits under the new rule and sends it to atf for a determination as suggested by the new rule. What happens if atf determines it is a now an unregistered sbr? Can't imagine them sending it back to ya with request to use the options in the new rule? Imo, that would be illegal in and of itself. Will they alter the firearm to insure it isn't an sbr, then send it back? While i am guessing this send it back option was intended for manufacturers, it did not appear to be presented that way?

[zukiphile]

Looks as if the amnesty application may require a photograph of an item already owned, so at least to some degree, the item would need to be already built at the time of the application.

Of course, essentially having to demonstrate that you've violated the NFA in order to get the "free" stamp may dissuade quite a few people.

[44 AMP]

Why not register a stack of receivers as SBRs tax free, then engrave and build them at your convenience?

If you are a licensed manufacturer, you probably could do that. Some makers did that when the Hughes Amendment became law.

However, if you are NOT a licensed manufacturer, then I think doing that might put you on thin ice, legally speaking. I don't know that it will, I just see the possibility that someone in the system might decide that unlicensed you, registering several receivers at once might indicate you were, or intended to manufacture firearms without the proper licenses.

Also, what about the state? If you're in one of those states that has passed crap about "ghost guns" and "firearms precursors" you might have to deal with that, as well.

Of course, essentially having to demonstrate that you've violated the NFA in order to get the "free" stamp may dissuade quite a few people.

IF you comply with the provisions of the "Amnesty period" you haven't violated the law.

(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general
community.

And there is it, as I read it, a direct confirmation, Congratulations all you UTube idiots, posting videos showing you firing "braced" pistols from the shoulder. YOU caused this rule change.

[zukiphile]

Three things make this topic hard, at least for today. First is knowing what the agency says on the topic. It's almost 300 pages, and that's a bunch to skim, but that's the easy part. Second is how the agency with behave over the next several months. As with individual people, what is said and what is done may differ. The third, verging on impossible, is anticipating what the next position of the agency will be.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

And there is it, as I read it, a direct confirmation, Congratulations all you UTube idiots, posting videos showing you firing "braced" pistols from the shoulder. YOU caused this rule change.

I think that blame is misdirected.

I don't think you believe that the agency really adopts policy based on use in the community, or evidence generally, or even cohesive reasoning. Without attention to the way braces are used, you'd never have seen the intermediate period in which it was agency policy that how a brace was used doesn't determine whether a specific firearm is subject to NFA taxation.

This leaves prosecution under the NFA on this point in an odd spot. It should be difficult for the federal government to prosecute someone for possessing a pistol with a pistol brace where the underlying law must be interpreted in a manner most favourable to the defendant, and the agency itself has argued that it isn't subject to NFA regulation.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

If you are a licensed manufacturer, you probably could do that. Some makers did that when the Hughes Amendment became law.

However, if you are NOT a licensed manufacturer, then I think doing that might put you on thin ice, legally speaking. I don't know that it will, I just see the possibility that someone in the system might decide that unlicensed you, registering several receivers at once might indicate you were, or intended to manufacture firearms without the proper licenses.

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.

IF you comply with the provisions of the "Amnesty period" you haven't violated the law.

Are you sure? I'm not. If I haven't broken the law, for what am I to receive amnesty? (Admittedly we are all using the term figuratively; we've been convicted of nothing yet -- we are just providing the evidence of violation.)
As I read the agency position in the link above, it's that they misinterpreted the underlying law the whole time, but now they have it right.

The following may be prudence or paranoia, but I express it anyway:

Agency interpretations are written in sand. There's now a reg that offers an amnesty program in which you submit photographic evidence of your possession of an untaxed SBR. In response, the agency decides whether your item falls within the NFA today or whether its an NFA item for which you will receive neither a stamp nor amnesty*. If it doesn't fall within the NFA as determined by the examiner, you can't get a stamp. The agency retains the photograph, the description, your fingerprints.

What regs does the next gust of wind bring? Are you content that it won't be painful or expensive?

_______________________
* As an example, if you were to submit an application for an SBR with an actual stock, would you expect a stamp or a summons?

[JohnKSa]

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

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

As I read the agency position in the link above, it's that they misinterpreted the underlying law the whole time, but now they have it right.

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.

[HiBC]

At some point, a person has to choose their battles.
I don't have a brace on my 10 in 300 blk. No foregrip, No handstop. Military iron sights. Basic.minimalist AR pistol.

I'm not trying to get away with anything. I don't want an NFA weapon. I don't care if the $200 is waived. I don't want to sign up.

I think,at this point,I'm legal.

But I'd be at the mercy of everyone with authority that may be misinformed or interpret vague law differently than I do. Like the old defensive driving slogan "You can be dead right" . No,I'm not the "Test case Patriot" Sorry.

I just don't want to play the game. Lawyers are expensive.

So I just ordered a 16 in 300 Blk bbl. I'll take a pic to document it was first a pistol. Then I will retrofit it to being a 16 in carbine.

I can live with it. Now I am free to mount a 3X Burris short eye relief scope.

Its not what I originally wanted. This whole ATF/ AR pistol/ Brace/ potential legal trouble swamp thing is a source of stress Im just tired of thinking about.

I'm going to whistle "Don't Worry,be happy!" and let it go.

If and when SCOTUS puts the ATF an a short leash, I'll revisit the idea.

Life is pretty good. I'll be OK. I don't think I'll need grief counseling.
A range trip... Maybe a little ice fishing... A 6 pak of PBR ,,,

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

As I read the agency position in the link above, it's that they misinterpreted the underlying law the whole time, but now they have it right.

Which reminds me of what is perhaps my favorite Peanuts cartoon of all time.

Lucy (you know, crabby Lucy) says in panel #1, "I'm perfect."

Panel #2: Lucy (again), "I thought I made a mistake once,"

Panel #3: Lucy (yet again), "But I was wrong."