JUST IN! Nation WIDE injunction on the Pistol Brace Rule!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Makes me wonder where that leaves the ones who got a stamp under the new rule? Say you had a braced pistol, then got the stamp and put a stock on the pistol to make it a sbr. Then there is a temporary injunction against the rule. Now the rule has been suspended, would the stock need to be replaced by the original brace?
 
Makes me wonder where that leaves the ones who got a stamp under the new rule? Say you had a braced pistol, then got the stamp and put a stock on the pistol to make it a sbr. Then there is a temporary injunction against the rule. Now the rule has been suspended, would the stock need to be replaced by the original brace?

I was curious about this too.
If you have the brace on, it's a legal pistol. What do you do with the tax stamp? I guess you could put a solid stock on it.
At any rate, mission accomplished. They have a few of them registered, anyway.
 
Makes me wonder where that leaves the ones who got a stamp under the new rule? Say you had a braced pistol, then got the stamp and put a stock on the pistol to make it a sbr. Then there is a temporary injunction against the rule. Now the rule has been suspended, would the stock need to be replaced by the original brace?
If you registered it as an SBR, you can put a real stock on it. Doing that means it's no longer a pistol, can't be carried with a CPL and you can't take it across State lines without ATF approval.

Since the ATF ruling is stayed, brace equipped pistols are no longer considered an NFA item (for now).
 
Makes me wonder where that leaves the ones who got a stamp under the new rule? Say you had a braced pistol, then got the stamp and put a stock on the pistol to make it a sbr. Then there is a temporary injunction against the rule. Now the rule has been suspended, would the stock need to be replaced by the original brace?

I was curious about this too.
If you have the brace on, it's a legal pistol. What do you do with the tax stamp? I guess you could put a solid stock on it.
At any rate, mission accomplished. They have a few of them registered, anyway.

I know you can make an AR pistol into a rifle, but read you can't make a AR rifle into a pistol, unless you stamp it.

From ATF's website.

"Can I lawfully make a rifle into a pistol without registering that firearm?

No. A firearm that was originally a rifle would be classified as a "weapon made from a rifle" if it has either a barrel less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches. If an individual wishes to make an NFA firearm, they must first submit ATF Form 1 (Application to Make and Register a Firearm), pay a $200.00 making tax, and receive approval of the application from ATF before converting the firearm.

[18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3)-(4)]"

I had 2 SBR AR's before all this happened, I also had a braced 7" AR that I did the no tax stamp on. I wanted to keep it as a pistol for road trips...truck gun.

I guess I'd have to buy another AR pistol lower if the brace law goes out.

Still have my brace.

i-Vnp3G3h-L.jpg
 
"A firearm that was originally a rifle"

Seems like a loophole for a firearm that was "originally" a pistol.
 
This happens when people build a Ruger 10/22 a lot. The Charger receiver is exactly the same as the carbine receiver, just stamped differently. The pistol receiver can be made into anything, the carbine receiver must be a rifle. Technically, there are also a "Rifle" stamped receiver and then the takedown receivers as well. But you get the point.
 
Only 2 to contend with here. On an AR pistol, the brace is in some ways irrelevant since there is still the buffer tube protruding out the back end which can be used for a cheek weld.

On the MP5 pistol however, there is only an end cap, so nothing to cheek weld to. In this instance, the brace is a nice addition so that the cheek weld can happen. No need to shoulder, but also shouldn't be a felony to move it 6" from cheek to shoulder...
 
The .22 Tippmans

After 10 years of legality I purchased the 12 inch M4-22 at my LGS. It was hoot to shoot! Then Boulder did their second AR ban, which has since been withdrawn, but before it was supposed to go into effect I bought the Bugout that was in the LGS's display case and I like to help when I can. The Bugout has a folding brace and 6.5 in barrel. It is close to amazing out to 100 yards and fits in my range bag!

So last May the braces left my possession and property. They are back as of today and I really don't feel like a felon, yet.
 

Attachments

  • tipps.jpg
    tipps.jpg
    86.8 KB · Views: 30
If you registered it as an SBR, you can put a real stock on it. Doing that means it's no longer a pistol, can't be carried with a CPL and you can't take it across State lines without ATF approval.

Since the ATF ruling is stayed, brace equipped pistols are no longer considered an NFA item (for now).

Conversely, since the ATF ruling is stayed, all the new SBRs are illegal because the tax stamp is/was conditional to the ATF rule being in effect. No rule, no tax stamp. Again, you have folks trying to do the right thing by listening to the ATF that are now felons.
 
Conversely, since the ATF ruling is stayed, all the new SBRs are illegal because the tax stamp is/was conditional to the ATF rule being in effect. No rule, no tax stamp. Again, you have folks trying to do the right thing by listening to the ATF that are now felons.

I thought that the atf didn't actually issue tax stamps under the rule, all you got was a letter.
 
Conversely, since the ATF ruling is stayed, all the new SBRs are illegal because the tax stamp is/was conditional to the ATF rule being in effect. No rule, no tax stamp. Again, you have folks trying to do the right thing by listening to the ATF that are now felons.
Umm no!. The approvals are still valid. Attorney General Merrick Garland suspended the tax at the time of the Form 1 applications were submitted. The rule was in effect at the time of the submission and application were later approved. There is no automatic trigger that retroactively unapproves approved SBRs and makes felons out of everyone. Furthermore, the collection of the $200 tax ONLY was conditional on the rule and NOT the approval of the applications. If anything, the Attorney General Merrick Garland could try to collect the tax owed or he may not. I'm not sure of the case law on whether he can do so or not.

In any event, the case is still working its way through the court system, and probably will be for anther year or two before it's finalized. The injunction may or may not be overturned within that time frame. We don't know how it will all play out once the dust is settled.

The approvals weren't
 
Last edited:
Makes me wonder where that leaves the ones who got a stamp under the new rule? Say you had a braced pistol, then got the stamp and put a stock on the pistol to make it a sbr. Then there is a temporary injunction against the rule. Now the rule has been suspended, would the stock need to be replaced by the original brace?
No, you have a registered SBR and you can keep the stock on it. You can also put the brace back on it if you want it to be considered a pistol. You have the option to legally switch back and forth.
 
I know you can make an AR pistol into a rifle, but read you can't make a AR rifle into a pistol, unless you stamp it.

From ATF's website.

"Can I lawfully make a rifle into a pistol without registering that firearm?

No. A firearm that was originally a rifle would be classified as a "weapon made from a rifle" if it has either a barrel less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches. If an individual wishes to make an NFA firearm, they must first submit ATF Form 1 (Application to Make and Register a Firearm), pay a $200.00 making tax, and receive approval of the application from ATF before converting the firearm.

[18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3)-(4)]"

I had 2 SBR AR's before all this happened, I also had a braced 7" AR that I did the no tax stamp on. I wanted to keep it as a pistol for road trips...truck gun.

I guess I'd have to buy another AR pistol lower if the brace law goes out.

Still have my brace.

i-Vnp3G3h-L.jpg

You can change a SBR'd pistol that started it's life as a pistol back to a pistol by simply removing the stock.
  • A SBR sold from the factory as a SBR can never be a pistol.
  • A stripped lower that has never been a pistol or rifle that's first configured into either a rifle or SBR can never be a pistol.
  • If you SBR a pistol that started it's life as a pistol, you can change it back from a SBR to a pistol.
  • When what started out as a pistol is turned into a rifle via 16" barrel, you are the "maker" of the rifle. The only difference between a pistol that was "made" into a rifle vs a SBR is that the SBR must be registered per law.

FYI: If you had two tax stamped SBRs that were pistols before you SBR'd them that you want to travel with as pistols, you can simply take off the stock and put a brace on them to turn it back into a pistol. The NFA laws and the ATF regulations only apply when your registered SBR is in a SBR configuration. If you put a 16" barrel on them to make them a long barrel rifle OR you turn them back into a pistol by taking off the stock, the NFA laws no longer apply even if it's registered. You only have to notify the ATF if you plan on leaving your state with a registered SBR that is in a SBR configuration, and NOT if your registered SBR is in 16" rifle or in a pistol configuration.
 
Last edited:
It's the leaving the state BS with a SBR that lead a lot of people to go the braced pistol route.
 
Anyone read about this thing called prohibition? A constitutional amendment to ban the sale and possession of alcoholic beverages. Alcohol was perfectly legal before 1920, yet congress banned it from 1920 to 1933, so don't delude yourselves into thinking that lawful possession by millions today prevents a prohibition tomorrow. Would it be a mistake for the government to do such a thing? Yes, but humans have a habit of forgetting history and its mistakes and end up repeating the mistakes.

1. Owning/possessing/drinking/selling alcohol is not enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Congress itself did not ban alcohol, another error - Congress might have written that amendment but it took a two-thirds majority of state legislatures to ratify it.

2. A Constitutional amendment banning something that was in common existence is a far cry from an administrative agency's rule-making. You cannot conflate a Constitutional amendment with an agency's rule on a subject.

Heaven help us if we ever have a Constitutional convention where everything is on the table.

But there have been thousands of proposed amendments and only 27 have been adopted and, if we think about the BofR as literally a part of the original 1787 Constitution, then in 235 years there have only been 17 amendments and the 18th Amendment/Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment because it was so overwhelmingly unpopular, never mind stupid on its face.

Jus' sayin'.....let's not confuse these issues.........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top