SBR a dying concept?

[2wheelwander]

Just had this conversation with an ATF agent 2 days ago. Deciding to SBR my Scorpion and was able to have a great conversation regarding SBR's, trusts, stamp transfers, processes, etc.. He brought up the brace as a non stamp alternative, which I countered it was worth it to me to pay the stamp and have the folding stock of my choice. He understood and made the comment referring to ATF's "current" stance on arm braces. We both laughed and reiterated why I wanted to do an SBR.

In short, the ATF is way too busy and understaffed to monitor local ranges trying to catch Joe honest citizen touching an arm brace to his shoulder for 2 seconds to get a pinch on a law that obviously leans towards common sense. Unless you are involved in felon activities otherwise and giving them a reason to look at you, don't loose a wink of sleep over it.

Feel free to disagree and take my input for what you paid for it.

[raimius]

What?

It clearly states you cannot.

The wordage reads as if it happens incidentally, okay. Any other time, no.

There is absolutely nothing unclear in the letter.

Originally Posted by ATF letter

To the extent the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational ‘use’ of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute a ‘redesign,’ such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.

Note the "incidental, sporatic, or situational" language. It gives them room to argue that using a brace like a stock too often or installing one with the specific intended purpose of using it as a stock could fall into NFA Title II territory...but also gives them room to allow some people to shoulder them, sometimes. It does not commit the ATF to either extreme.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by 2wheelwander

Just had this conversation with an ATF agent 2 days ago. Deciding to SBR my Scorpion and was able to have a great conversation regarding SBR's, trusts, stamp transfers, processes, etc.. He brought up the brace as a non stamp alternative, which I countered it was worth it to me to pay the stamp and have the folding stock of my choice. He understood and made the comment referring to ATF's "current" stance on arm braces. We both laughed and reiterated why I wanted to do an SBR.

In short, the ATF is way too busy and understaffed to monitor local ranges trying to catch Joe honest citizen touching an arm brace to his shoulder for 2 seconds to get a pinch on a law that obviously leans towards common sense. Unless you are involved in felon activities otherwise and giving them a reason to look at you, don't loose a wink of sleep over it.

Feel free to disagree and take my input for what you paid for it.

I doubt you were able to get on the subject, but does this apply to "firearms" like the Mossberg Shockwave too?

[2wheelwander]

^^ I did not. My brief understanding from other conversations/non AFT agents is that it is not considered a shotgun in the strictest definition and thus cannot be stamped a SBS.

But I'll ask next time I have contact with him, great question to get clarification on.

One thing he did mention that counters what I've read here is that once you stamp a pistol into a SBR, you CAN reclassify it back into a pistol, with proper paperwork.

Also, upon our death, with the proper background check, when no trust is present, your spouse can legally take posession of your NFA items tax free, no further $200 per item required. BUT, they have to proceed with all paperwork, fringerprints, etc., as normal. Same for our kids.

[dogtown tom]

TruthTellers I really wish we could get a petition or some message sent to Trump and have him make an executive order on Short Barrel Rifles/Shotguns.

1. No Executive Order can eliminate the NFA.
2. Trump isn't a fan of the Second Amendment except in public.
3. We need to worry more about Trump's ATF banning bumpstocks by changing the definition of machine gun used since 1934.

The law is so antiquated, it was made in the 30s when police were not as well trained or equipped as they are today and someone concealing a shouldered firearm under a trenchcoat was a massive amount of firepower.

We have a lot of laws that predate the NFA.....yet they remain in effect.

The Marble Game Getter was an over/under .22/.410 AOW that Congress had to classify as "not a gangster weapon", which goes to show that the reasons the NFA was made was to regulate weapons at the time used by gangsters.

Of course it was. The original draft of the 1834 NFA banned ALL concealable firearms...including handguns. After pleas from S&W and Colt they were removed at the last minute.

Today the police have vests, radios, training, strategies, and many other techniques to combat and stop a shooter using any gun, not just some SBR/SBS.

Sorry, I don't get your logic.
Police stopping the shooter? Only if they are there. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

If I could write the Exec. Order, it would instruct the ATF to only prosecute people who use a pistol with a brace during a violent criminal act to be charged with violating the NFA law. All law abiding citizens who own braced pistols may use them in any way they see fit to effect a better means of self defense, hunting, or sports shooting.

How about an Executive Order that merely says what the Second Amendment says?

Pretty simple and Trump has all the authority to do it. Of course, it goes away under a different president, but for 6 years we get to shoot braced pistols off the shoulder without fear of federal prosecution.

Please cite the authority that allows the President to change a Federal law?

Obama hated guns and didn't do an EO on firearms during his eight years in office. There's a reason why he couldn't.

[TruthTellers]

dogtown, Trump enforces the federal laws, he has the authority to see how they are enforced. With pistol braces, he can do it with the stroke of a pen and say shooting them off the shoulder with full intention is not manufacturing a SBR.

[44 AMP]

With pistol braces, he can do it with the stroke of a pen and say shooting them off the shoulder with full intention is not manufacturing a SBR.

I suppose he could, but why should he?

And, its possible he can't change the definition "with the stroke of a pen" but it is certain he can change the amount of enforcement.

Obama did it with pot. Didn't change the law in any way, just told federal enforcement agencies not to bother going after the "recreational user". If they weren't otherwise violating state & fed law.

Or so I heard...

[Drm50]

I would just like to see some common sense used. I have no desire to have a stocked Glock or such. The classic guns that are outlawed under gun control act
would not be guns of choice for criminals. Compared to today's weapons they are Muzzel loaders. It seems stupid to me that a gun like Shock Wave is legal but a standard shotgun with 171/2" barrel is illegal. When it gets right down to
it, if a person is not going engage in criminal activity with their legal guns, why
would they do so just because they had a stocked handgun? The whole act is
outdated. Besides that how many felons care about gun laws. They will use a
club if they don't have a gun. I don't think the original law was more than feel
good laws at the time.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I suppose he could, but why should he?

And, its possible he can't change the definition "with the stroke of a pen" but it is certain he can change the amount of enforcement.

Obama did it with pot. Didn't change the law in any way, just told federal enforcement agencies not to bother going after the "recreational user". If they weren't otherwise violating state & fed law.

Or so I heard...

There you go, "recreational" as in the recreational shooter. I'd go a step further and say for self defense too. If you're in your home, you should use whatever gun works best to defend it. SBR's are good for home defense.

And I think that's a good enough reason for the why should he, because while he was running for President, he had a platform of national reciprocity for self defense outside the home. Inside the home, I can't imagine why he would be opposed to certain guns over others.

Except machine guns or things that simulate full auto, that's a red line apparently in America.

[GoingQuiet]

I will agree that MANY people are willing to spend $195 on a brace versus $200 on a tax stamp.

However, there are some purists that detest form 1's and will gladly pay the $200 as not to have a gun that was form 1'd.

An overwhelming amount of NFA buyers that I've dealt with prefer the form 1 gun route now with an arm brace and they get the best of both worlds because they eventually do stock up the gun.

We've seen a lot of people buy a stripped lower, brace it - file a form 1 - and then when they're done with the brace, they sell it to someone who - WAIT FOR IT - is going to do the exact same thing with their project. The brace gets sold to someone else and then the process goes on and on.

Great solution to a problem that should not exist.