Currently have one - as of the date that you submit the application for the "free" SBR NFA stamp.
AFT pistol stabilizing brace rule just came down.
- Thread starter AlwaysArmed
- Start date
Currently have one - as of the date that you submit the application for the "free" SBR NFA stamp.
Under the "normal" process, this is correct. You have to submit the application BEFORE building the SBR and getting approval.
That is one of the problems and potential "gotcha's" of this theoretical "amnesty" program they are proposing.
In this case you have to submit all of the self-incriminating evidence that you have already built/possess an SBR long BEFORE you get your stamp - and then HOPE that they don't find a reason to not approve your application. Because if they DO find a reason to deny your application - or even if it sits too long waiting to be approved - then technically you will be in possession of contraband - an unregistered SBR.
What's more, you will have fully documented that fact for them, incriminating yourself, so that they are then free to pursue enforcement action against you.
I for one wouldn't do it. I'd pursue one of the other compliance alternatives. The potential enticement to try to obtain a "free" $200 tax stamp isn't worth it to me. I'd rather pay the $200 if I wanted to own an SBR.
Last edited:
Congress passes laws. Federal agencies then write and administer the regulations to implement those laws. The individual actions of regulatory agencies do not require Congressional approval.
Our cars are loaded with individual items of safety equipment that were never specifically mandated by Congress. The law authorized the Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to regulate aspects of vehicle design related to safety...and NHTSA set about creating those safety standards and implementing them as regulations.
The NFA bans pistol stocks. Pistol braces are a pretty obvious attempt to get around that ban while nominally conforming to the letter of the law. BATFE has now proposed to close that loophole, while providing for the millions of people who bought such firearms legally to be grandfathered in.
Regulations.gov
Pretty sure the responsibility of the Federal agencys is not open ended. Certainly they have latitude with interpreting and administering laws, but they can not change the law without congressional approval. Was taught by my states DOJ, that changing definitions in a law is changing the law.
Can you provide a link for the section of the regulation requiring a complete photograph of the pistol with the brace?
The BATF is NOT banning pistol stocks. In their FAQ sheet they specially say they do not regulate the sale of firearm accessories.
They say it is legal to have brace on a firearm with a 16" barrel.
But then they have the "constructive possession" rule whatever that means.
That's correct. The "law" consists of the statute, the implementing regulations, and any sub regulatory guidance the agency uses to enforce or to determine when to enforce the law.
Under US administrative law if a federal agency makes a significant change in an interpretation of a rule (regulation) they muse for through the notice of proposed rule making process and seek public comment. Unfortunately they do not have to amend their proposed rule based on that comment.
Their interpretation cannot conflict with statutory language and when and where the statute is silent, their interpretation of the statute must still be a "reasonable construction" of the statute. That's all done under the doctrine of Chevron Deference.
However if an interpretation, or in this case a reinterpretation of a statute or regulation results in criminal penalties, then the Rule of Lenity must be applied prior to or in place of Chevron Deference. In simple terms that means if there is an alternative interpretation that is more favorable to the defendant it must be used. The idea is that a federal executive branch agency can't just change the law in a manner that makes someone guilty of a criminal offense even if the statute is silent and the construction is reasonable.
It's why the ATF had the authority to interpret the regs and say pistol braces are not an NFA item, but now cannot say "oh after millions of them have been sold, we've changed about minds and if you don't destroy them or register them you'll face 10 years in prison for illegal possession of an unregistered NFA item".
That's Chevron Deference versus the Rule of Lenity. I have no doubt the ATF knows this.
They've also carefully avoided the limitation of the NFA to "dangerous and unusual" firearms which exempts firearms in "common use". In 290 odd pages they go out of their way to talk about and apply the "dangerous and unusual" criteria, but intentionally avoid the Caitano decision that makes clear that 200,000 is the threshold for "common use".
I have doubt the ATF knows it's going to lose. But it's been pushed there by politics and the politicians behind it know that even though it will be over turned a lot of braced pistols will be destroyed or registered before it's thrown out and it's a win for them either way.
It's the same abuse of the 2A that is happening on a regular basis as states enact laws that clearly violate Supreme Court rulings. They know they'll be over turned but that it will takes years for it to grind through the court system.
Regulating safety standards of new car manufacture is regulation of commerce, well established in the Constitution and law. New car manufacturing standards do not affect old cars, privately held cars that are customized by customers. Owners are not held to these safety standards one bit. There is no Federal felony for possession of a modified automobile with disabled safety features. There isn't even a Federal law that states that owners cannot modify their automobiles as they see fit.
Even with road safety standards set by prescribed law, they have no bearing on personal ownership and/or private use on private roads, raceways, or off road use. One need not have insurance or safety features if one only drives a truck on one's own personal property and never enters a public roadway.
Even what is regulated for road use is seen as a regulation of standards for public road use, and set only as a provision and standard for access and use of public roads. There is no prohibition, need for tax stamp, or felony for owning a truck with no headlights and driving it around your yard without headlights.
Your analogy is useless.
I thought you could remove (destroy?) the brace and be legal? It's still a pistol. What am I missing?
Or is there something about "trigger pull", which I think they are referring to distance between trigger and rear of pistol.
NFrameFred
Member
Bottom line can be taken from Led Zepplin as in "What is and what should never be"
Common sense, right and wrong, and what oughta be don't and probably won't factor into the decisions of the grubby power grabbers once they have laid claim on something. The Constitutional and common sense arguments made here make too much "walking around sense" unless and until the SCOTUS proclaims it so.
There is NO rash or epidemic of crimes committed using these contrivances ,and the original reason where bank robbers were using sawed off weapons for heists and hot-rodded cars to cross state lines to escape prosecuting jurisdictions was addressed by federal laws decades ago. Now it's more of a political football trying to placate hysterical anti gunners who believe a "silencer" can make a firearm whisper quiet and every gun they don't like (which is all of them) should be restricted and.or banned, that AR's are 'machine guns' and if we only do away with the death penalty and punitive measures criminals will turn over a new leaf and we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya . . . .
Common sense, right and wrong, and what oughta be don't and probably won't factor into the decisions of the grubby power grabbers once they have laid claim on something. The Constitutional and common sense arguments made here make too much "walking around sense" unless and until the SCOTUS proclaims it so.
There is NO rash or epidemic of crimes committed using these contrivances ,and the original reason where bank robbers were using sawed off weapons for heists and hot-rodded cars to cross state lines to escape prosecuting jurisdictions was addressed by federal laws decades ago. Now it's more of a political football trying to placate hysterical anti gunners who believe a "silencer" can make a firearm whisper quiet and every gun they don't like (which is all of them) should be restricted and.or banned, that AR's are 'machine guns' and if we only do away with the death penalty and punitive measures criminals will turn over a new leaf and we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya . . . .
atf says final rule will be published in fed register next week
ATF Says Imported Braced'-'Guns Can be Registered, Rule to be Published Next Week | The Reload
ATF Says Imported Braced'-'Guns Can be Registered, Rule to be Published Next Week | The Reload
Respectfully, sir, 'implementing' or 'administering' a law is not the same as 'changing' a law'.
When Congress passes a law, the agency affected by it is charged with drafting the regulations to make that law effective. I grant you the difference can be subtle, but let me make an analogy...
You might tell your child to clean up his room. It is up to him to determine how to do that: Sweep the floor or vacuum it? Put his books in alphabetical order or just stack them by size? Hang up his clothes or fold them and put them in drawers?
Returning to my previous example...Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208 required passive restraints (airbags) in vehicles...one of the most far-reaching and expensive rules ever promulgated by the federal government. Yet it was not mandated by Congress; it was a proposal by NHTSA, with a comment period, and was then adopted. The link below goes to FMVSS 208, and serves to illustrate how complex these rules can be. There is no way something like this would be written as a law and presented to Congress for debate and a vote...
eCFR :: 49 CFR 571.208 -- Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of a straw-man argument.
I wouldn't call that a straw man. In fact, I think he did a good job of showing the absurdity of equating the ATF rule change to new car safety regs.
You're thinking of "length of pull", the distance between trigger and butt. "Trigger pull" is the force needed to trip the sear of the trigger, typically measured in pounds.
Except that wasn't the point I was making.
Than, what point ARE you trying to make?
I already explained how the safety regulations of new automobile production are almost completely different than the NFA. I will go further, since you continue your point.
Administrative agencies certainly have power under prescribed law, and can make judgement calls, issue clarifications, and define things within their authority granted by prescribed law. That's not the issue here.
The fact is, the ATF is the one who approved of arm braces and sent letters to manufacturers stating that such items and their use was NOT a loophole or violation of the NFA. When the ATF let these standings hold for as many years as they did, allowing manufacturers to continue to manufacture and sell them by the hundreds of thousands, to hundreds of thousands of customers who bought them on good faith that they were NOT violations or loopholes of the NFA.
When they allowed pistol braces in 2012 they set a precedent that has power, and administrative agencies simply cannot change their minds on a whim about important issues, especially those that involve felony level criminal charges like the NFA carries. When they sent a return letter to Sig on their arm brace in 2015, which is a typical "stock" style arm brace as the ATF now claims, they set a precedent that stood for seven years, and led to many manufacturers making items, and hundreds of thousands of citizens buying them, on clarifications and guidelines SET BY THE ATF THEMSELVES.
When the ATF did so, and did not retract their judgements and guidelines for that many years, with that many sales, and by setting such a long standing PRECEDENT, the ATF de facto ruled that arm braces were not violations of the NFA or loopholes of the NFA.
The point being, administrative agencies and even the courts are expected to follow their own rulings and guidelines, and follow their own precedents. Especially considering the nature of the NFA, and considering it makes potential felonies of those who make small mistakes in following it.
If the arm braces were really a violation of the NFA, the ATF had plenty of time to reject them when they came out, and plenty of time to reject them as they evolved. If it was such an obvious "loophole" of the NFA, why did they send a letter to Sig saying that it was OK for them to make ans ell them? Seven years before arbitrarily changing their mind?
Even if the ATF made a mistake, the fact that they made their rulings with their authority is exactly WHY the pistol braces are no longer fair game for the ATF to rule on any longer.
If you don't like the fact the arm braces are some sort of so called "loophole" of the NFA, than one must place blame on the responsible entity that let them become the issue they are today: the ATF itself.
We have to major reasons to reject the ATF's new ruling: lenity and the fact this carries such serious and extreme crimes with harsh punishments, and more importantly, precedents set by the administrative agencies themselves.
By ruling on arm braces, the ATF sealed itself from making further judgements on arm braces. Their authority under the prescribed law was used, and now is set in hard cement of precedent.
If a king or noble did such, it would be acceptable. They write, judge, and adjudicate their laws. But an administrative agency's ability to administer things is limited, and its ability to change its own rulings is limited.
The case is made, and rightfully so, that if arm braces are to be declared loopholes at this point, it is out of the hands of the ATF because they can't "go back and fix a mistake they made". Not after this much time and precedent. That this is back to the prescribed law to change their NFA status at this point.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep
It's like they got caught in broad daylight trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Don't think the courts will shine favorably on the ATF. Since pistols with braces look, walk and talk like a duck and the ATF approved them, and are now changing boat's midstream, it'll be interesting to see what happens to SBRs…the NFA. They may have unwittingly shined a spotlight where they didn't want it shined.
Yep
It's like they got caught in broad daylight trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Don't think the courts will shine favorably on the ATF. Since pistols with braces look, walk and talk like a duck and the ATF approved them, and are now changing boat's midstream, it'll be interesting to see what happens to SBRs…the NFA. They may have unwittingly shined a spotlight where they didn't want it shined.
Last edited:
Respectfully, was taught by our states DOJ that changing a definition that is clearly spelled out in the enabling law, is changing the law. And they used a comprehensible/expansive change of the definition of rifle. Which imo is beyond their legal capability, and required a congressional approval. And this might be the very least of their worries.
Let me make an analogy. You tell a child to clean up their room. The child changes the definition of clean to mean destroy, and totally destroys the room.
