ATF and pistol braces ?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Whatever they say, if there's no practical legal result then the definition hasn't changed. Any basis for a challenge would depend on some kind of standing-...

Standing is a separate issue. If you concede that the definition has been amended, raising standing doesn't alter the fact of amendment.

Is that what you meant by "handwaving?

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If you don't believe his pistol is an SBR, then we agree that it is not. If you believe it is, then you would need to use the law to show how it fits the definition of an SBR.

Having demonstrated that you didn't understand the point about the vagueness of the considerations, you would be better served by re-reading the observation you misconstrued, not telling people what you think they need to do.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The law has to be used for something or it serves no purpose. If the government can't demonstrate that an action is illegal or an item is regulated/illegal then they can't move forward. That is the bottom line. They have to demonstrate how the pistol would fit the definition of SBR or it is not an SBR and isn't regulated as an SBR.

Your sense of what a bottom line may be isn't a comment on the rule.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

No more than with any other law. If the government claims that the pistol is an SBR because of X, Y, and Z, all the defendant need do is point out that X, Y, or Z does not apply to the pistol, or that X, Y, or Z is not a reasonable criteria for identifying an SBR.

Your detailed grasp of prosecution for a federal felony could use some work.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

This is where it gets humorous. You have attacked the validity/consistency/ambiguity of the opinions everywhich way possible but will use them to bolster your argument when it suits your purpose. Furthermore, the letters and the opinions in them have been invalidated so using them as a basis for argument is, at best, seriously problematic.

Your understanding of discussion of problems with the rule leaves you conceiving of it as an "attack" and conclude that past agency conduct is excluded from an analysis of agency conduct as a consequence of an agency assertion?

That's a very modest level of scrutiny you've afforded the reg.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Besides, UNLESS those opinion letters changed the law, something you say the BATF is not allowed to do, then the NFA still applies and should be the only basis for evaluating the current rule. You can't argue that the rule expands the law compared to the now invalidated opinion letters because they have been invalidated and, more to the point, they were never law to begin with.

Here you elide what an agency has done and should be allowed to do and misstate the explanation.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Absolutely incorrect. This kind of blatant mischaracterization of the law while you are in the midst of an argument that focuses heavily on semantics and specific wording makes me wonder about your motives.

Wondering about my motives in response to a point you've misunderstood is consistent with your limits as demonstrated in this thread.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Before any weapon can be classified as a rifle under the rule, it must have:

"...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..."

Since an AR pistol with the sig brace has just such a rearward attachment, it clears that leg of the test.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

One of those factors is a "scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed..."

So not just "a scope" "alone". Not even an accessory, component or other rearward attachment providing shouldering capability plus a scope. The scope must be one that is can only be used (due to eye relief limitations) if the gun is shouldered.

Yes, the scope alone amongst the considerations listed for a weapon brought within the regulatory definition of "rifle". It does not need to only be used if the weapon is shouldered. I walked you through the regulatory analysis of the item.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Ok, you keep saying this.

I do that for two reasons:
1. It's true, and
2. it appears necessary

Of course, I didn't rely on the agency admission on this point but have explained how it differs from the NFA.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If you read the rule, you (or anyone) will see that it is very careful to point out that the changes are made to the regulations, to the CFR.

You might be able to tell that I read the rule at post 160.

The discussion in this thread has been about the change of a regulatory definition. The assertion is not that the rule chances the text of the NFA. See posts 122, 139, 141, 147, 153 and 181 as well.

Don't mistake the difference between passed legislation and promulgated regulation as a difference between what is binding and what isn't.

That why the regulation is a benign FAQ section. See Cargill v. Garland on that point.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Changes to those regulations are NOT changes to the law, although they do have to be consistent with the law.

Yes, they amended the regulatory definitions in the CFR. That is not a problem unless the rule goes beyond the boundaries of the NFA. That's why it's so important to judge the rule based on the NFA--that's the only standard that it needs to meet.

You were doing well right up to the last sentence. There is considerably more at play than you will gather from agency literature.

[JohnKSa]

Standing is a separate issue. If you concede that the definition has been amended, raising standing doesn't alter the fact of amendment.

Regulations have a purpose. If they can not be used for that purpose they are meaningless.

Enforcement/prosecution is the purpose of regulations. More to the point, if they are to be challenged, there must be some basis for doing so. If there's no way to show how the regulations harmed someone (things that are illegal that should not be illegal per federal law) then there's no basis for challenging them, practically or theoretically.

I'm not ignoring your post 226, it's basically a long string of "Is too!" and "I know more than you." comments--there is no point in responding to any of them. If you want to address the substance of my comments that you quoted in the post, I'll respond to that.

They also are not consistent with the NFA, if using differing definitions.

The point of regulations/rules (the content of the CFR) is to amplify/clarify/explain.

This is a perfect example. When the NFA was created, there were no stabilizing braces. When they were invented, the obvious question was whether they were legal or not. The initial attempts by the BATF (the proper entity to answer such a question) to provide guidance failed. The BATF has one story for why they failed, the gun community has their own. Both have some merit, both have some problems. Regardless, everyone agreed that the question was not answered.

Now it has been answered.

I didn't rely on the agency admission on this point but have explained how it differs from the NFA.

Of COURSE it differs from the NFA. It would be pointless to have them be identical.

The issue is, as I have said repeatedly what the practical legal difference is between the rule and the NFA. The BATF has the authority to create/expand/modify definitions in the parts of the CFR that are their purview to explain/clarify applicable federal law. As long as the result doesn't overstep the federal law that they are based on, there is no problem.

The test isn't whether they are different, the test is whether the CFR is consistent with the applicable sections of federal law.

If one can find things that aren't illegal under the NFA that are illegal per the CFR, then the CFR could be challenged and needs to be amended. If not, then the rule is ok and should stand up to challenges.

The discussion in this thread has been about the change of a regulatory definition.

1. I think if you will go back and look, you will see that I have repeatedly brought up the point that the comparison needs to be between the NFA and the rule, not between the rule and previous rulings.

2. Changes in the regulatory definition are moot unless they overstep the bounds of the federal law they are based on. The whole point of having the CFR is so that it can be changed when necessary without having to amend federal law.

There is considerably more at play than you will gather from agency literature.

I didn't make the statement based on what I gathered from agency literature. It's based on the purpose and nature of the CFR.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by johnKSa

I'm not ignoring your post 226, it's basically a long string of "Is too!" and "I know more than you." comments--there is no point in responding to any of them. If you want to address the substance of my comments that you quoted in the post, I'll respond to that.

John, you aren't obligated to respond to any post. If you aren't up to addressing the corrections and explanations, don't.

Your comments on motive, the sincerity of commentary, allegations of lack of substance about observations it turns out you aren't grasping, seeming resistance to understanding the role of ambiguity and how that may restrict what the agency can enforce, and avoidance of examination of the text of the rule speak to an incuriosity about the rule itself. If all you can gleen from post 226, a post that corrects some of the sloppier parts of your analysis and clarifies the binding quality of federal regulation, is that it is insubstantial to address the errors you offer, then I am content to let people reading this thread determine for themselves the value of your analysis.


I will pay you a compliment about this discussion; at no point have you deleted my posts as a response to disagreement. Well done.

[44 AMP]

I suggest that the purpose and nature of the CFR and the NFA law is irrelevant to us as ordinary folks. If you are planning a lawsuit, and exploring arguments for such, fine, but that's hardly the point of this forum. The point is what the laws and other rules ARE, and how we help our members comply with them.

How they came to be, and nuances of legal language are interesting background, once mentioned, I don't see the applicability to the real world we have to live in.

Whether or not you agree with the accuracy of the definitions, how they are or are not amended, and whether or not they change the law simply DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is that, until/unless reversed or overturned by some portion of the govt with the authority to do so they ARE the rules we have to work with, and under.

The arguments have been made, reasoned and best of all, civil, which is what we strive for in this forum. The problem is, they don't apply to people who have guns that might be reclassified as NFA items, what they need is rational, reasoned direction and accurate information, not arguments over the nuances of legal language, UNLESS such nuances apply to their specific situations.

marshal your arguments, and submit them to those people who are preparing legal challenges for their perusal and review. You might have something they can use. The constant back and forth over what is essentially legal minutiae of language is not productive and frankly I think is wasting bandwidth and losing readers interest.

With respect, please focus on where we are, and where we are going, not on whether or not we got here the "right" way. That is a topic for a different discussion.

[Sharkbite]

Does anyone know if the rule has been posted in the federal registry?

[zeke]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

Does anyone know if the rule has been posted in the federal registry?

https://www.federalregister.gov/agen...losives-bureau

Not according to the site i have been watching. Would certainly want to have a clue before sending a firearm to atf for determination if it needed stamped or not. Have heard that ATF was accepting applications before the rule was even published, and it's been over a week since the rule was signed.

Am beginning to wonder if they are running into any difficulties.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The arguments have been made, reasoned and best of all, civil, which is what we strive for in this forum. The problem is, they don't apply to people who have guns that might be reclassified as NFA items, what they need is rational, reasoned direction and accurate information, not arguments over the nuances of legal language, UNLESS such nuances apply to their specific situations.

The text of the rule isn't really a nuance; it's what the change is.

The text applies to potential NFA weapon possessors in that the reg sets forth an extremely broad agency discretion. There is practical importance to recognizing the breadth of that discretion if one is considering submitting an untaxed potential SBR for licensing because there are features of that process that may expose one to prosecution.

Toward the goal of offering accurate information, I would caution against expressions that the answers are obvious, contrary opinions are "blatant mischaracterizations of the law" and dismissing discussion of legal doctrine that can influence enforcement as semantics. None of that supports accuracy.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I suggest that the purpose and nature of the CFR and the NFA law is irrelevant to us as ordinary folks. If you are planning a lawsuit, and exploring arguments for such, fine, but that's hardly the point of this forum. The point is what the laws and other rules ARE, and how we help our members comply with them.

With genuine regard for you, I'd note that the purpose of this subforum as clarified just a few years ago for staff who thought issues beyond the 2d Am. should have threads closed is considerably more broad. The purpose is "to be able to discuss the broader implications of all civil rights, and the laws that affect those rights."

If anyone is looking for legal guidance, I would encourage him to get it from an attorney, ideally his own. Even taking legal advice from an attorney in a seminar or article format poses dangers of misunderstanding about what the attorney says and what the client needs.

My hope for this format is to raise issues so that people are aware of the problems and can seek advice as they see fit.

[JohnKSa]

If you aren't up to addressing the corrections and explanations, don't.

Seriously, I'll be happy to address any issues of substance you raise. I just don't see any point in responding to comments like:

"Your detailed grasp of prosecution for a federal felony could use some work."
and
"Your sense of what a bottom line may be isn't a comment on the rule."

If you disagree with something I say, you can explain why and provide your own view, but just saying something like 'You're wrong and you don't understand.' doesn't advance the discussion nor does it provide any reasonable way to respond other than to say something like: "Am not!" or "Uh Uh!"

I would caution against expressions that the answers are obvious...

I think that the key is so far no no one has been able to produce an example of something that is illegal under the rule that would have been legal under the general interpretation of the NFA. That doesn't mean that there isn't such a counterexample, but the difficulty of finding it is comforting.

That means that one can continue to think about this situation just as they would have prior to the entire stabilizing brace fiasco. Don't put a shoulder stock on your pistol unless you want to register it. Not even if you call it something other than a shoulder stock. Not even if you can prove that in addition to acting as a shoulder stock it has some other function as well. Especially not if you add other features to your pistol that make it obvious you intend to use it by shouldering it.

As to the amnesty, the point has been made that anyone can be prosecuted for anything just as anyone can be sued for anything. The possibility doesn't speak to the likelihood, and it certainly doesn't speak to the issue of how successful that kind of a thing would be. I'm not going to say there's no risk at all to taking advantage of the amnesty--there's obviously risk in anything we do. But it seems that if a person takes the time to go through the rule and make sure they meet the requirements to be covered by the amnesty then the risk is quite small.

Whatever one may say about the rule, it is quite thorough. I know a lot of people are very unhappy about the rule and have, as a result, read through the rule trying to find things wrong with it. Not surprisingly, that kind of "analysis" has led to confusion, but an open-minded read is a different story. If one wants to know how to remain in compliance, it provides a lot of insight into how the BATF intends to enforce the NFA. More than enough to make compliance straightforward.

If anyone is looking for legal guidance, I would encourage him to get it from an attorney, ideally his own. Even taking legal advice from an attorney in a seminar or article format poses dangers of misunderstanding about what the attorney says and what the client needs.

Good advice. There's a lot at stake, and no one can be an expert at everything.

[P Flados]

Constructive possession has been discussed in a number of posts, but lets consider it in more detail.

The AFT has a track record for SBRs that includes some amount of common sense but some amount of "watch out". The Thompson Center Contender tripped them up for a while, but ended mostly OK (I think). This is my take on where I stand. I can own Contender rifles and I can own Contender pistols. I can own spare parts for either. As long as I do not install a <16" barrel on the frame with the rifle stock attached I have not created a SBR configuration.

The one tricky thing is that I should not be in possession of a component that I can only use "wrongly". If I have rifle stock and a pistol barrel, I must also have a rifle barrel (for the rifle stock) and I must have a pistol grip (for the pistol barrel).

As long as I have the only the right combination of parts, it is left up to me to not assemble them improperly.

The same is true to some extent in AR land even without any braces around. I can have both pistols and rifles and I can have spare parts. If I have a pistol upper, I need to be able to put it on a lower with a bare buffer tube (I think this needs to be either a pistol only tube or a tube that came with a brace). However if I have a pistol upper and a rifle stock, I also need to have at least one rifle upper.

Lets say I have a pistol length AR and I remove the brace from the buffer to maintain a pistol configuration. If I keep it around and ready to install, I am asking for trouble. Just like having a contender rifle stock and contender pistol barrels with no contender rifle barrel or no contender pistol grip.

Now I see three ways to keep an item sold as a brace and now considered a stock. If I take my braced lower and put a 16" upper on it, I have specifically complied with an ATF recommended action in the brace rule. If I keep my braced gun and do the Form 1, I am also ok. The last option is kind of weird but it should be ok to keep the brace as just a "part" and get rid of all barrels less than 16".

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I think that the key is so far no no one has been able to produce an example of something that is illegal under the rule that would have been legal under the general interpretation of the NFA. That doesn't mean that there isn't such a counterexample, but the difficulty of finding it is comforting.

John, I posted a link to a Stag Arms AR-15 "Other" that has been sold -- apparently legally -- as an "Other" for quite some time. Stag arms has multiple configurations in their "Other" line. And I'm fairly certain that those are squarely in the crosshairs of the new regulations, because Stag Arms has already sued the BATFE over the new rule.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by P Flados

The same is true to some extent in AR land even without any braces around. I can have both pistols and rifles and I can have spare parts. If I have a pistol upper, I need to be able to put it on a lower with a bare buffer tube (I think this needs to be either a pistol only tube or a tube that came with a brace). However if I have a pistol upper and a rifle stock, I also need to have at least one rifle upper.

I would say that if you have a pistol upper and a rifle stock, in addition to at least one rifle upper you also need at least one pistol lower.

You can make a pistol into a rifle, but you can't make a rifle into a pistol. If all you have is a rifle lower but you have both rifle and pistol uppers, you are in "constructive possession" of the parts to make the rifle lower into a short-barreled rifle.

[JohnKSa]

John, I posted a link to a Stag Arms AR-15 "Other" that has been sold -- apparently legally -- as an "Other" for quite some time. Stag arms has multiple configurations in their "Other" line. And I'm fairly certain that those are squarely in the crosshairs of the new regulations, because Stag Arms has already sued the BATFE over the new rule.

I addressed this aready in post 215.

"Just looking at the picture and evaluating it based purely on the NFA--as if the now-invalidated opinion letters and the universally deplored situation that resulted had never happened--it has a collapsible stock (albeit one with some unusual features), a vertical foregrip and a barrel under 16", a combination of features which would make it an NFA regulated item. "

That item was legal under the invalidated letters, not under a conventional interpretation of the NFA. Under the NFA, prior to the whole stabilizing brace fiasco and the confusion that it produced, that firearm would have universally been considered an NFA regulated firearm.

[stagpanther]

i think the "pistol first" rule was made the same day a massive amount of pot in ATF custody went missing.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Seriously, I'll be happy to address any issues of substance you raise. I just don't see any point in responding to comments like:

"Your detailed grasp of prosecution for a federal felony could use some work."
and
"Your sense of what a bottom line may be isn't a comment on the rule."

I am not asking you to address any of the substance in 226 or any other post.

This will be the second time you've responded to post 226 without addressing it in any substantial way. Your "bottom line" isn't about the rule as unpacked.

Originally Posted by JohnKSA

I think that the key is so far no no one has been able to produce an example of something that is illegal under the rule that would have been legal under the general interpretation of the NFA. That doesn't mean that there isn't such a counterexample, but the difficulty of finding it is comforting.

That you reformulated your prior standard from

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If the claim is that this rule expands the law, then it must be possible to come up with examples of things that are illegal under this rule that were not illegal under the NFA.

...may indicate your recognition of the problem with your question, which does not present the issue correctly either time.

The issue isn't whether it is illegal. It's whether the new rule can describe a weapon that previously was not regulated under the NFA. That's what the reg is about.

We know the original Sig brace on an AR pistol wasn't regulated under the NFA because the ATF so determined exactly that. You don't dispute that.

The weapon described checked every box of the regulatory definition that would permit an examiner to exercise discretion to apply the reg to find that it is an SBR. That's part of the problem with the new rule. You have presented no part of the new rule that would invalidate that reading. (Criminal presumption of innocence is present in a criminal trial, but is not itself an element constraining an examiner in reaching an agency determination, so using it to attempt to shift analysis away from what the definition in the new rule includes is not a reading of the new rule.)

Significantly, you dispute none of the regulatory language employed in that analysis, the fact of examiner discretion available under the "considerations", or that they can be applied as stated.

Instead, you substitute your discretion for what the reg permits an examiner to conclude even though your discretion isn't a limitation on the new rule.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

The two factors, a scope that is intended to be used when the gun is fired from the shoulder, plus provisions for shouldering the gun would certainly indicate that the firearm fits the definition of rifle under the NFA since the resulting firearm would certainly be "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder”.

That cannot be certain where the ATF had previously found to the contrary.

I repeat for clarity: The issue presented by the new rule is not your discretion, but what it permits an examiner to conclude.

Few will find that "comforting".

[JohnKSa]

I am not asking you to address any of the substance in 226 or any other post.

1. He says in reference to a post that does not contain substance.
2. He says as he once again calls attention to a post I didn't address to his satisfaction.

It's whether the new rule can describe a weapon that previously was not regulated under the NFA.

The point of rules is that they can deal with new situations without having to amend legislation. So, of course it can deal with a new situation and of course that's not a problem--as long as it doesn't increase the boundaries of the NFA.

And yes, of course it is whether the rule creates illegal/regulated firearms that were legal/unregulated under the NFA . If the rule doesn't expand the NFA then it's not a problem.

The idea that expanding a law can be done without having any effect on legality/regulation is nonsensical.

We know the original Sig brace on an AR pistol wasn't regulated under the NFA because the ATF so determined exactly that. You don't dispute that.

The original SIG brace on a pistol still isn't regulated under the NFA unless other factors indicating that the resulting firearm is intended to be shouldered are present. Which is perfectly consistent with the NFA from both sides, both in allowing the original SIG brace on a pistol with no rifle features and in regulating the resulting firearm if the combination of the brace and other factors indicate that it is "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" and therefore consistent with the NFA definition of a rifle.

That cannot be certain where the ATF had previously found to the contrary.

Nothing is 100% certain, if certainty is the standard, then it's impossible to attain. I'm willing to concede that my statement only meets the standard of being true "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I addressed this aready in post 215.

"Just looking at the picture and evaluating it based purely on the NFA--as if the now-invalidated opinion letters and the universally deplored situation that resulted had never happened--it has a collapsible stock (albeit one with some unusual features), a vertical foregrip and a barrel under 16", a combination of features which would make it an NFA regulated item. "

That item was legal under the invalidated letters, not under a conventional interpretation of the NFA. Under the NFA, prior to the whole stabilizing brace fiasco and the confusion that it produced, that firearm would have universally been considered an NFA regulated firearm.

You are viewing this through the narrow lens of your understanding of the law and the new rule. From that perspective, you say all those Stag Arms "Others" were never legal, so nothing has changed.

The problem is that, at the time all those firearms were purchased, the BATFE said they were legal, the manufacturer thought they were legal, the FFLs who did the transfers thought they were legal, and the people who bought them thought they were legal. Now the new rule "clarifies" the law (by expanding on the definition of "rifle" that appears in not one but TWO federal statutes) such that those same firearms are now NOT legal -- unless they can be registered as SBRs under the NFA within 120 days.

Technicalities aside, I don't think you'll convince many of the people who own those things that this isn't a change in the law.

[44 AMP]

Now the new rule "clarifies" the law (by expanding on the definition of "rifle" that appears in not one but TWO federal statutes) such that those same firearms are now NOT legal --

I see two assumptions here, neither of which is yet proven.

First, that the new rule "expands" and modifies the law. Either it does, or it doesn't, and I don't see where it does from my reading of it. There are cogent seeming arguments both ways, so we probably won't know until a court rules on it, one way, or the other.

Second, I don't see anywhere that the ATF is saying that affected firearms are illegal. They clearly avoid saying that. They say they MIGHT BE illegal and invite owners to submit them for evaluation under the new rules.

SO, while it is likely those guns will be ruled as NFA items, they aren't, until the ATF rules on them, each one, individually, or puts out guidance stating every gun equipped with "x" that they did rule on is in the same classification.

So, if your gun has a brace from bob's brace inc., and the ATF rules it a stock and therefore an SBR, they can state every identical gun with bob's brace is an SBR, but if they examine a gun with a brace from Joe's Brace Inc and rule it just a brace, then guns with Joe's brace are just pistols with a brace and not an SBR or NFA item.

That's how I see it, at this time. If I'm in error, do explain it to me, please.

[JohnKSa]

You are viewing this through the narrow lens of your understanding of the law...

You can stop right there, because that's all that needs to be said. You are correct. I'm doing that because the law is the basis on which the ruling will be judged. It will not be judged on the basis of what might have been allowed for a time under two, now invalidated rulings.

The problem is that, at the time all those firearms were purchased, the BATFE said they were legal...

And now they've invalidated those rulings so what they said means nothing. Furthermore, it's moot anyway because rulings are not judged on the basis of other rulings, they are judged on the law on which they are based.

As far as the damage done by the confusion generated by the invalidated rulings--that's why there's an amnesty. Where things that are illegal can be made legal. If there weren't things that are currently illegal out there, it would make no sense to have an amnesty--which is a HUGE hint that it's not possible to make headway on judging this ruling on the basis of past rulings. The existence of the amnesty strongly implies that people made incorrect assessments of legality on items that were not actually legal and the BATF is saying that they played a part in that and therefore are going to allow people to register them even though they didn't file the paperwork before creating the items. Not only register them, but without having to pay the tax.

Technicalities aside, I don't think you'll convince many of the people who own those things that this isn't a change in the law.

You can call them technicalities as long as you understand that these technicalities could potentially send someone to federal prison if they dismiss them.

As far as there being a change in the law, it's not a matter of convincing people--there clearly hasn't been a change in federal law. There has been a change in the CFR, but that change is, according to the enforcement agency (which is not only allowed, but responsible for changing the applicable portions pf the CFR when necessary), to correct confusion created by previous, now invalidated rulings. Rulings which caused people to get into a situation where an amnesty was required to extricate them from their legal jeopardy.

Second, I don't see anywhere that the ATF is saying that affected firearms are illegal.

The existence of the amnesty strongly implies that at least some of them are illegal.

...if they examine a gun with a brace from Joe's Brace Inc and rule it just a brace, then guns with Joe's brace are just pistols with a brace and not an SBR or NFA item.

It's important to note that one can end up with "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" even if one puts a legal brace on it. That's if there are other factors that indicate the weapon is intended to be fired from the shoulder.

[44 AMP]

It's important to note that one can end up with "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" even if one puts a legal brace on it. That's if there are other factors that indicate the weapon is intended to be fired from the shoulder.

Agreed. And the new rule has a list of factors they will be looking at. What we do not have is any indication HOW those factors will be used or judged, which ones are going to be "fixed" and which ones are going to be subjectively judged.

Sights that are useable only when the weapon is shouldered is mentioned, which seems pretty much pass/fail to me.

Also mentioned is information about how people will /are using the firearm and that seems a lot more subjective to me.

I can understand the part about maker advertising, obviously if the maker shows it being fired from the shoulder, that's their intent. But what weight does one apply to U tube videos showing morons screwing around firing it from the shoulder?? Clearly they are doing it, but how much should that MATTER when classifying the firearm NFA or not? The rule doesn't say.

Is it right if I have a legal item and use it in a legal manner that it should become illegal because some other people use it in an illegal manner???

I don't think so, but they keep trying to do that, and sometimes, succeed. After all isn't that the basis of all gun control??

Some people doing wrong, so everyone gets restricted??? Seems like it, to me.

[zeke]

Particular to those who may own "imported" pistols with braces. From the final rules preamble. appr pp 246

"The Department disagrees with the commenter who suggested that there will be financial implications resulting from the removal and replacement of imported parts for owners who imported pistols and added a “stabilizing brace.” The commenter incorrectly interpreted 18 U.S.C. 922(r) as requiring the removal and replacement of imported parts to comply with section 922(r). Section 922(r)generally makes it unlawful “for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle,” and 27 CFR 478.39
168 OMB,Circular A-4 38(Sept. 17, 2003), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent...ars/A4/a-4.pdf.
169 Type 7FFLSOTs may manufacture NFA firearms without payment of the making tax pursuant to 27 CFR 479.68 provided that the firearm is reported and registered as required by Part 479. Section 479.103 generally requires a Type 7FFLSOT to register firearms manufactured on an ATF Form 2 by the close of the next business day after the manufacture. Firearms of the sort discussed in this rule were manufactured and subsequently transferred by Type 7 FFL SOTs without the timely submission of a Form 2by the close of the next business day after manufacture.

246

provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. The criminal violation under18 U.S.C. 922(r) is for the “assembl[y]”of the semi-automatic rifle;therefore, modification of this kind of firearm through the removal of the relevant parts would not cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembl[y]” has already occurred. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the costs outlined in the standalone RIA, ATF assumes this group may use another scenario,such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK4gJeJ_CI4

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^

Translation: "Turning in or destroying the firearm does not create a financial implication."

Must be the new math.

[HiBC]

Once again, I'm trying to play by the rules.
Looking through the document, among the "factors" were some pictures of the Nimrod firing a braced AR Pistol/SBR

One of the pictures showed our Nimrod with a cheek weld on the buffer tube. The Brace/Buttstock was clearly a few inches off his shoulder. Clearly the brace was not being used as a shoulder stock.

Our Friends at the BATF said "NO! You can't do that! Go to jail!!

HMMM. This gives me the heebie-Jeebies. I don't want to go to jail. Does this mean if I contact the buffer tube with my face as I look through the sights I go to jail?

One fact that may be critical is in the BATF picture our Nimrod (gasp) has a brace attached to to his buffer tube,so it might be an SBR.

My buffer tube is naked. No brace or attachment. My gun is a pistol to the best of my knowledge. "I wouldn't have it any other way"

Do I have to go to jail for a cheek weld??? Its kind of important to me.

[Nathan]

I heard the best advice in town today. Hold off for now until the court battles are fought. There will be at least 1 big suit that will at least go to district court. It will likely result in a stay of enforcement. The ATF has stated you have 120 days to file your form 1.

Those people who threw bump stocks away now see the direction that is heading.

We still have a country of laws and for those who cannot read, we have lawyers and lawsuits to help them with that.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I heard the best advice in town today. Hold off for now until the court battles are fought. There will be at least 1 big suit that will at least go to district court. It will likely result in a stay of enforcement. The ATF has stated you have 120 days to file your form 1.

Those people who threw bump stocks away now see the direction that is heading.

We still have a country of laws and for those who cannot read, we have lawyers and lawsuits to help them with that.

Certainly agree with this, at least until the 120 days is underway (depending on option someone decides to pursue)

Still don't see the final rule published in the federal register?

https://www.federalregister.gov/agen...losives-bureau

It is my understanding the final rule is not in effect and the 120 days doesn't start till it is published in the Federal Register. And 10 days between the final rule being signed and then published is a long time.