ATF and pistol braces ?

[stagpanther]

On a different thread the possibility of a pinned muzzle device is mentioned as a way to increase length of barrel. I suspect this is yet another "loophole" that will eventually be closed. Here's a very creative adaptation from Odin which is essentially a super-long barrel shroud integrated into the barrel. If it were not for my pessimistic take on the general direction of AR pistol regulation, I'd be tempted to try this out of curiosity.

[JohnKSa]

Pinning alone is not sufficient to increase barrel length from a legal standpoint--it will need to be pinned and then welded so the pin can't be removed.

[stagpanther]

These reportedly are both pinned and welded. At the end of the day, if someone really wanted to make a (illegal) short barrel AR out of a legal rifle it's pretty easy to simply cut down the length of any barrel.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Pinning alone is not sufficient to increase barrel length from a legal standpoint--it will need to be pinned and then welded so the pin can't be removed.

Correct, but for clarification: this doesn't mean the muzzle brake or flash hider has to be welded all around after pinning. It only means the head of the pin has to be welded over to prevent removal.

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/...to-your-rifle/

Silver soldering is another acceptable method.

[Jim Watson]

I have only seen one advertisement for permanently attaching a bloop tube to an existing brace gun barrel, seems like there would be more shops doing it. Maybe as the 120 days wears down with no courtroom win.

[HiBC]

Permanently attaching muzzle devices (welding on a pickle) may present obstacles later. Example? You want an adjustable gas block now? Or maybe a different forend?

Some options are open,but plan ahead.

It might not make much difference for "battle rifle" 3 to 4 MOA accuracy, but I have a reluctance to weld or silver solder on the bit of barrel that sends my projectile in the way.

All the effort to stress relieve ,lap, hold tight dimensions might "go up in a flash" burning a bead of goose poop on a 1/8 in thick wall of barrel steel it the muzzle crown.

Seems questionable to me.

[Jim Watson]

It has been fairly routine to pin and weld on a long flash hider to piece a genuine 14.5" M4 barrel out to non NFA length.
If you want to make a change later, you are only out the cost of the pin job in addition to the 16" barrel you did not buy to start with.

[44 AMP]

Ok, we've gone from AR pistol braces all the way to the "other end of the horse" and muzzle devices. Is there anything useful left to discuss?? (and still be on topic??)

[Aguila Blanca]

Topic?

What's that?

[stagpanther]

Ok, we've gone from AR pistol braces all the way to the "other end of the horse" and muzzle devices. Is there anything useful left to discuss?? (and still be on topic??)

I brought it up only because it is a possible option in the effort to make a pistol compliant in light of the new ruling. I'm taking the "fall-back" position of converting to 16" barrels since I foresee going after those as an outright ban on ARs--which I don't think will ever be politically winnable.

[P Flados]

FYI,

For the fussing about buffer tubes, reading the rule might help. I will pull a couple of pieces from the 98 page pdf file as published in the Federal Register.

First consider that the rule says it is ok to remove and dispose of the brace (see below from page 93). This section goes into great detail but makes no mention of replacing the buffer tube. Note that the dispose / alter text is not complete but it is accurate for the case where an affected individual only has one gun the brace can be installed on.

3. Permanently remove and dispose
of, or alter, the ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ such
that it cannot be reattached, thereby
removing the weapon from regulation as
a ‘‘firearm’’ under the NFA. The
Department recognizes that the removal
of a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ from a firearm
that was originally received as a ‘‘short-
barreled rifle’’ results in the production
of a ‘‘weapon made from a rifle,’’ as
defined by the NFA. However, the
Department in its enforcement
discretion will allow persons to
reconfigure the firearm to a pistol by
May 31, 2023 and will not require the
registration of these firearms as a
‘‘weapon made from a rifle.’’

On page 87 there is text that is explicitly says that buffer tubes do not need to be replaced.

With respect to the cost of replacing
the buffer tube with a pistol tube, the
rule does not require such a
replacement. The Department also finds
it unlikely that these individuals will
purchase a pistol tube; therefore, the
cost for a pistol tube was not included
in the final analysis.

[9x19]

To add some information... the Form 1s the ATF is using for their amnesty period have some changes over previous editions, in that they combined the old Tax Exempt categories (box 1b and 1c) and created a new Tax Exempt category for their new rule.

In addition, these approved Form 1s have come back "Approved with Conditions" with the condition being "Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F."

So if their new rule is struck down, I guess the firearms revert to Title 1 pistols?

I guess those who apply/get approved shouldn't be in a hurry to change the braces for stocks.

[stagpanther]

So if their new rule is struck down, I guess the firearms revert to Title 1 pistols?

I guess those who apply/get approved shouldn't be in a hurry to change the braces for stocks.

KISS applies--keep it stupid, stupid.

[dogtown tom]

9x19 To add some information... the Form 1s the ATF is using for their amnesty period have some changes over previous editions, in that they combined the old Tax Exempt categories (box 1b and 1c) and created a new Tax Exempt category for their new rule.

In addition, these approved Form 1s have come back "Approved with Conditions" with the condition being "Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F."

Correct, in addition you just get an approved Form 1 but do not get a tax stamp affixed because you didn't pay for one.

So if their new rule is struck down, I guess the firearms revert to Title 1 pistols?

Not necessarily.

I guess those who apply/get approved shouldn't be in a hurry to change the braces for stocks.

You shouldn;t be in a hurry to begin with.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/un...ide-2/download

12. Once the firearm is registered as a short-barreled rifle (SBR) can I remove/change the “stabilizing brace” or attach an item marketed as a stock? If so, am I required to notify ATF in advance?
• Yes, the firearm is registered as an SBR, and you can change out the “brace” device or stock for a different brace or stock. You do not need to contact ATF/NFA because changing the brace/stock does not change the configuration of the SBR. However, if the length of the firearm has changed you will need to notify the NFA Division. Final Note: The SBR is not “registered” until an approved Form 1 is received from NFA. The brace cannot be substituted/replaced until that time.

[44 AMP]

However, if the length of the firearm has changed you will need to notify the NFA Division.

This has me a bit confused. Why would changing the length matter? If you make it shorter, its still an SBR, and if you make it longer, its still a registered SBR, isn't it?? Even if you turn it into a rifle, since the change is reversable, doesn't it stay a registered SBR??

I admit I am not familiar with the SBR paperwork, when you register it, do they list the length (overall? Barrel only?) on the forms? That wouild be the only reason I can think of to need to notify the ATF if you change the length, so they can update the forms to accurately list what you have.

But, if they don't, then why would they need to know?

[dogtown tom]

44 AMP

This has me a bit confused. Why would changing the length matter? If you make it shorter, its still an SBR, and if you make it longer, its still a registered SBR, isn't it?? Even if you turn it into a rifle, since the change is reversable, doesn't it stay a registered SBR??

ATF wanting you to do something that isn't required by federal law.

I admit I am not familiar with the SBR paperwork, when you register it, do they list the length (overall? Barrel only?) on the forms? That wouild be the only reason I can think of to need to notify the ATF if you change the length, so they can update the forms to accurately list what you have.

Form 1's and 4's require you to list the OAL and bbl length. If you submit and change anything before approval, you ARE required to notify them and amend your form.
After approval, there is no requirement to notify of any permanent changes, but ATF asks that you do so they can keep the Registry accurate.

But, if they don't, then why would they need to know?

Their heads literally explode if they approve a Form 1 for the making of an SBR that shows an 11" bbl and that possessor later submits a Form 4 to transfer to a buyer and the Form 4 shows that the bbl length is now 12.5".

And yes, there are many errors on Form 1's because guys don't read the instructions and fail to enter correct information. This is why ATF will often ask for pphotos of the markings.

[44 AMP]

Thanks for the information. Figured it had to be something they "needed" to fill in a spot on their forms.

[Nathan]

So any legal progress on this…..any cases we should be watching….may is coming.

[HiBC]

I started with a legal 10 in bbl AR pistol . Plain pistol buffer tube,no brace. No SBR paper filed. No forend grip. No optic except optional red dot . Iron sights now.

I'm covering any potential "constructive possession" contingencies by having a 16 in bbl carbine that anything in my parts box could be lawfully assembled to.

I think that covers it.

Yes/No/Maybe?

[JohnKSa]

If the parts in question can be assembled into a legal configuration then you should be ok even if they could also be assembled into one that is regulated.

That only goes so far--if you actually get caught with it assembled into a regulated configuration, then the tactic offers no protection.

[44 AMP]

Also be aware that people who have legal parts that could be assembled into an illegal item, but had not done so, have been prosecuted.

I believe the term is "Constructive possession". Its not uncommon, and is actual a kind of SOP for certain circumstances.

Like "terrorist bombers" for one. Have all the needed components for a bomb, talk about bombing something, but never actually make a bomb, and you could still wind up doing decades in "Club Fed".

Got parts to make a silencer, but don't ever actually make one? Could be the same deal.

Have an SMG parts kit, and a piece of uncut pipe along with instructions how to built it? You'll have your day in court, it has happened.

People can be, and have been prosecuted not for what they actually did, but for what they could have done, and its not a new thing.

Neither is "moving the goalposts" either by changing definitions, interpretations, regulations or even actual law, so that what we did to comply with the law previously no longer does.

[JohnKSa]

Also be aware that people who have legal parts that could be assembled into an illegal item, but had not done so, have been prosecuted.

Correct. That's what he's asking about.

It's a defense that all the parts you have COULD be assembled into a legal/unregulated configuration. They don't have to be, it's enough that you can demonstrate how every part you have COULD be used in a legal/unregulated configuration.

Where you get into trouble is if you have parts that can only be assembled into an illegal/regulated configuration. That's considered evidence of intent even if you never assemble them that way.

[44 AMP]

That's considered evidence of intent even if you never assemble them that way.

Right, this is what gets mad bombers who never actually build the bombs convicted. Obvious intent, after all, what other use could bomb materials be, other than as a few common household chemicals...

Of course, having timers and fuzes does kind of shoot the household chemicals argument in the butt, so to speak...

[JohnKSa]

Not that it's relevant to the topic, but I'm not sure how applicable the principle is to explosives/bombs. After all, you can buy binary explosives where the intent to make something blow up is obvious from the beginning--it's even advertised right on the label and yet everything is perfectly legal.

[HiBC]

OK, as the ATF explained it someplace, You can have a 10 in bbl Contender pistol.

You can also have a 16 in bbl Contender rifle that is shoulder fired.

You can have a kit of the parts to assemble a Contender carbine (16 in) and a Contender pistol. No problem.

But you DO have a constructive possession problem if you have a 10 in Contender barrel ,a carbine buttstock, and no 16 in + bbl.

You must have the parts necessary to assemble lawful firearm.

Thats my approach. If I have a "brace" part I can put it on a buffer tube and assemble it to a lower SO LONG AS 1) I do not assemble it to a Short Barrel Upper and 2) I have a 16 in + barreled upper I can pin on,resulting in a lawful carbine.
Along this journey of trying to build a lawful AR pistol, I bought a Tailhook buffer tube/brace . Its aluminum and folds open like a pocket knife. It cost a lot of money. It will work fine as a 16 in carbine buttstock. I don't need to chop it up.

Where you get into trouble is if you have parts that can only be assembled into an illegal/regulated configuration. That's considered evidence of intent even if you never assemble them that way.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm under the impression there is a presumption of innocence till proven guilty of a crime. Did we give that up?
A two gallon can of gasoline in the shed for the lawn mower is not a crime,even if (in some strange mind) I COULD do something nefarious with it.

Its a different story if I assemble it into a destructive device (molotov cocktail)

Lets not be criminalized because some agent thinks "Well,you COULD commit a crime"

But I have not.And I do not intend to.