AFT pistol stabilizing brace rule just came down.

[BC38]

According to the AFT, that will do nothing to make the firearm legal. Buried in their ridiculous publication, removing the pistol brace and leaving the barrel shorter than 16 inches makes the weapon an SBR.
It is only when you remove the short barrel that you make the firearm legal. You can remove the short barrel and leave the pistol brace on. Or, replace the short barrel with a 16 inch barrel and leave the pistol brace on.
It's ridiculous and makes no sense.
Removing your complete pistol upper from the lower and waiting for this "rule" to be struck down is the best option IMO.
AA

Can you please site chapter and verse for this statement?

I ask because one of the first "remedies" they list for owners of braced pistols to make them compliant is to remove the brace in such a way as to render it incapable of being re-installed - which presumably means basically destroying it (presumably to ensure no constructive intent).

As for the idea of removing the upper from the lower, that won't fly. As long as you possess both parts you can easily re-assemble them to "make" an SBR - that is the very definition of constructive intent. That's why you can be prosecuted for simply possessing both a full-auto sear and an AR-15. Because you can put them together and have a full-auto M-16. (a.k.a. an unregistered and illegal machine gun).

 

[BC38]

That is a valid argument. I shook my head, too.

However, it is equally valid to argue that the ATF ruled that the braces were legal, millions were sold, and now the ATF has decided to change its mind. For money? Maybe. For political correctness? Likely.

BUT!

In pertinent part, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution of the United States of America (some people don't like this document - ever wonder why?):

Section 9.

,,,

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.,,,,

Emphasis added.



(c) Cornell Law

"Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. "

As the ATF cannot pass statutes one can argue that this rule is ineffective from the outset.

As ATF is a creature of Congress, and if Congress cannot pass such a law, then neither can the ATF, and since the act being described was deemed legal by the ATF they cannot now be heard to criminalize it. The 120 day free period doesn't make the rule "nicer" or "legal".

Full employment for lawyers................................

Excellent summation and argument....

 

[AlwaysArmed]

Can you please site chapter and verse for this statement?

I ask because one of the first "remedies" they list for owners of braced pistols to make them compliant is to remove the brace in such a way as to render it incapable of being re-installed - which presumably means basically destroying it (presumably to ensure no constructive intent).

You can download the pdf document and find it there, if you can make your way through the ridiculous paperwork.
AA

 

[AlwaysArmed]

Legal or not with buffer tube?

Not legal according to AFT's "New Rule".

 

[BC38]

You can download the pdf document and find it there, if you can make your way through the ridiculous paperwork.
AA

Not legal according to AFT's "New Rule".

Based on your statements, you have presumably already done that. Is it too much to ask you to state EXACTLY where in the text of the ruling you found the info on which you based your statement?

If you've found pertinent info, share it. If you're just repeating something you heard somewhere, then say so. Because what you are asserting is contradictory to the info others are publishing.

We're all on the same side here, so playing the "find it for yourself" game serves no constructive purpose.

 

[AlwaysArmed]

Another misleading fact about this whole thing is saying it's a pistol stabilizing brace ban. It isn't. You can have all the pistol braces you want (reference the ATF New Rule .pdf). What the New Rule is actually saying is you can't have a rifle with a barrel shorter that 16 inches unless you register it as an SBR. You can have a rifle with a barrel 16 inches or longer with a pistol brace attached.
AA

 

[BC38]

Can the moderators or someone PLEASE change the thread title to "ATF" instead of AFT? I may be the only one, but that is bugging the HELL out of me. Reminds me of a certain, high-ranking, clueless, politician who shall not be named...

 

[AlwaysArmed]

Can the moderators or someone PLEASE change the thread title to "ATF" instead of AFT? I may be the only one, but that is bugging the HELL out of me. Reminds me of a certain, high-ranking, clueless, politician who shall not be named...

Yeah well, he's the guy that started this.
AA

 

[BSA1]

There is, of course, a law saying that a stock on a pistol or rifle with under a 16" barrel requires a tax stamp. I don't like it, but most of the braces are stocks, plain as day.

Except for years the BATF said it wasn’t daytime.

 

[BLUEDOT37]

Can the moderators or someone PLEASE change the thread title to "ATF" instead of AFT? I may be the only one, but that is bugging the HELL out of me. Reminds me of a certain, high-ranking, clueless, politician who shall not be named...

AlwaysArmed can fix it. All he has to do is go to his original post (#1) & click the "EDIT" icon at the bottom of the post by "QUOTE", then retype the title name correctly.

.

 

[BC38]

Let's say hypothetically I have an HK SP5 and own a brace but have never attached it. Under the new rule, I have to get a tax stamp and register it or destroy the arm brace.

That's the way I read it - you have to destroy or dispose of the brace - or sell the gun without it - in order to avoid the established standard of "constructive intent".

The ATF's definition of constructive intent boils down to "you have everything to build one so the assumption is that you INTEND to build one".

Basically, as far as the ATF is concerned, having the parts to build one is the same thing as having one - which in the case of prohibited items means you can be prosecuted as if you had already built one, just because you possess all the required parts.

This standard has been applied to full-auto firearms for decades. Now they want to apply it to the pistol braces that they have suddenly decided are ILLEGAL - contrary to thousands of pages of documentation THEY have provided to manufacturers over the last decade explicitly stating that they were LEGAL.

 

[BC38]

AlwaysArmed can fix it. All he has to do is go to his original post (#1) & click the "EDIT" icon at the bottom of the post by "QUOTE", then retype the title name correctly.

.

Yes, I know. Just seems like a moderator would be more likely to actually take the necessary corrective action.

AlwaysArmed doesn't even seem willing to make the effort to provide supporting info for his very adamantly stated points about the topic under discussion.

 

[Racer X]

"The ATF's definition of constructive intent boils down to "you have everything to build one so the assumption is that you INTEND to build one".

then the owner of each and every plumbing supply store in the US will be doing time because they have the components to build a still. Remember BATFE starts with alcohol.

 

[BC38]

"The ATF's definition of constructive intent boils down to "you have everything to build one so the assumption is that you INTEND to build one".

then the owner of each and every plumbing supply store in the US will be doing time because they have the components to build a still. Remember BATFE starts with alcohol.

Yeah, if they applied the same principle to plumbing - but of course they don't.

Plumbing isn't something they can easily sensationalize to scare the ignorant urban proles.

Though they are trying to do it with natural gas cook stoves...

 

[petepeterson]

Just show the ATF agent your copy of the Constitution. They'll surely leave you alone then.

 

[Fishinfool]

Late to the thread, but something I haven't really seen mentioned is by registering your braced handgun as a SBR, you are giving up your weapons status as a handgun.

Depending on how you use your weapon, and the laws in your state, that may or may not make a difference to you.

It does for me. I own two handguns that are in question. I own plenty of rifles, I bought these to be handguns, in good faith based on a decade of ATF approval.

For example, in many states, including my own, it is illegal to have a loaded rifle in a motor vehicle (most states that includes an ATV, boat, snowmobile, ect.). Not so a handgun if you have a permit. In these states, if you are carrying your newly minted, ATF approved SBR in your vehicle, you better plan on unloading it and putting it in a secure case, separate from its ammo feeding device.

It is also going to make the re-selling of these weapons problematic. And, I believe the rule still stands that you need ATF written permission to travel out of state with a SBR?

Larry

 

[ladder13]

Not legal according to AFT's "New Rule".

I’ve read 83 pages of the 293, so far. Looks like the “pistol” with a buffer tube is soon to be, or is right now, illegal. Pg 25?

Nevermind, they talk about a buffer tube that is adjustable. I have seen AR’s with fixed buffer tubes.

Haven’t gotten thru the whole 293 so wordage on those tubes is likely hidden in the legalese.

Obviously I am confused. Can I get $200 instead of a “free” stamp?

 

[AlwaysArmed]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnvPdE75qZs[/ame]

 

[zeke]

I’ve read 83 pages of the 293, so far. Looks like the “pistol” with a buffer tube is soon to be, or is right now, illegal. Pg 25?

Nevermind, they talk about a buffer tube that is adjustable. I have seen AR’s with fixed buffer tubes.

Haven’t gotten thru the whole 293 so wordage on those tubes is likely hidden in the legalese.

Obviously I am confused. Can I get $200 instead of a “free” stamp?

From the paragraph preceding "other factors"

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:

"provided that other factors" This wording is unclear to me that they mean all of other factors, or any of the other factors.

 

[Duckford]

That is a valid argument. I shook my head, too.

However, it is equally valid to argue that the ATF ruled that the braces were legal, millions were sold, and now the ATF has decided to change its mind. For money? Maybe. For political correctness? Likely.

BUT!

In pertinent part, Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution of the United States of America (some people don't like this document - ever wonder why?):

Section 9.

,,,

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.,,,,

Emphasis added.



(c) Cornell Law

"Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. "

As the ATF cannot pass statutes one can argue that this rule is ineffective from the outset.

As ATF is a creature of Congress, and if Congress cannot pass such a law, then neither can the ATF, and since the act being described was deemed legal by the ATF they cannot now be heard to criminalize it. The 120 day free period doesn't make the rule "nicer" or "legal".

Full employment for lawyers................................

This could have affects on people and things far outside of arms and anything 2nd Amendment. If all this stands, it sets a bad example going forward.

Any time an administrative agency up and changes its mind on set policy and clarifications, or whenever a public official or attorney general gives ruling or clarification, or grants license or certificate and then "changes their mind", they will cite "Gun Owner v ATF" which says that they have the ability to give approval and guidance for years on end, and then one day up and change their mind at will.

It keeps jamming open the door to abuse of the executive branch. Keeps pushing the idea that administrations and agencies can set policy and change it at whim. Whereas they are supposed to follow their own rulings, precedents, and abide by their own definitions they have set.