Who else is caught in the pistol arm brace fiasco?

[ladder13]

Oh learned members, a question. Does this have to be registered?

 

[Sistema1927]

Oh learned members, a question. Does this have to be registered?

No. It is still a pistol. The buffer tube is required for operation (if it was an AK, that wouldn't be the case), and being a standard pistol tube it doesn't have the indentions to allow the addition of an adjustable stock.

 

[ladder13]

No. It is still a pistol. The buffer tube is required for operation (if it was an AK, that wouldn't be the case), and being a standard pistol tube it doesn't have the indentions to allow the addition of an adjustable stock.

Alrighty then, maybe instead of a “free” stamp they can send a $200 Amazon gift card to me.

 

[five 0]

If you didn't watch the above videos I posted you should.

 

[WCCPHD]

Why do they even need a picture? It’s to their advantage to get you to register the gun.

Maybe take a pic off the net?

Photo required is not of the brace. Its is of the existing markings on the gun. They are not requiring the receivers to be engraved with the "Maker's" information and are allowing the applicant to "adopt" the current engraving/markings. This is why they want the photograph.

 

[03hemi]

As the OP of this thread, I truly appreciate all of the feedback and opinions. Although I've registered on ATF eforms, I think that I will hold off on filling out a Form 1 until there is a lot more clarification on whether or not the ATF's ruling stands or not, and if it does, when the 120 day clock begins. I'm really not in any hurry to register anything with the gov't.

Me too, but I’m waiting for the “directive” to actually come down to the agents, until then, it’s all conjecture, but if it does I’ll be first in line for a waiver. I’m already a tax stamp holder on another firearm so I’m going to definitely take advantage of the deal.

 

[BC38]

Photo required is not of the brace. Its is of the existing markings on the gun. They are not requiring the receivers to be engraved with the "Maker's" information and are allowing the applicant to "adopt" the current engraving/markings. This is why they want the photograph.

Is that a long-winded way of saying they want a picture of the serialized lower - including the serial number?
Presumably to keep the owner from using the same stamp for multiple SBRs or swapping the SBR upper onto another lower?

 

[Rodan]

The purpose of the pictures is to establish proof that you are in possession of an SBR (by the new definition).

 

[STORMINORMAN]

The purpose of the pictures is to establish proof that you are in possession of an SBR (by the new definition).

...and all THAT entails as well?

 

[THREEDFLYER]

Keep in mind......this is a regulation....NOT a law and there are lawsuits filed so hold on with doing anything......the next 120 days should prove interesting.

 

[Screwball]

Keep in mind......this is a regulation....NOT a law and there are lawsuits filed so hold on with doing anything......the next 120 days should prove interesting.

Unfortunately, my job would be over if I got hit with an NFA felony. I filed the five I have today as SBRs. Have to think what I’m going to do with my TAC-14, since they decided that those owners are up S***’s Creek in regards to illegal SBSs.

Main reason I did, saves me $1,000 in tax and I don’t have to engrave my info on them. For me, I was looking at SBRing most of them… so zero issue. I’m already an NFA owner, so I’m already on the “list.”

Once my stamps are approved… stocks on all of them. The braces, maybe I’ll sell them or give them away. If another person files for the amnesty stamp… who am I to judge?

But bringing up the legal actions does give me a specific idea. One of my SBA3s will go up in storage. If/when this gets overturned, I’ll build a pistol lower with a new receiver and place the brace on that. If I don’t want to file a 5320.20, two pins and switch to the pistol lower.

 

[Mainsail]

I'll throw the brace in the trash before I put my name in some .gov registration.

 

[abigails&w]

Yes

Does this apply to the braces on CAA Micro Conversion Kits (MCK) for actual pistols like Glocks as well?

I've scrolled through this thread and did not see this question being answered. Answer to the above question I believe is affirmative ("yes"). For more information on what types of firearms are affected see these two published articles from ATF:

"What are some of the types of commercially available firearms with attached stabilizing braces that are short-barreled rifles? ":
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/bracefinalruleguidance-commerciallypdf/download

"What are some of the types of common weapon platforms with attached “stabilizing brace” designs that are short-barreled rifles?":
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/bracefinalruleguidance-non-commercial1-10/download

 

[abigails&w]

Here is my question,
I have a few spare stripped lowers in my safe. Can I just register them as SBR's under this rule even if I don't own a brace? If not, can I just buy a cheap brace, mount it on a receiver, register it, then throw the brace away? Can I take a bolt action rifle and chop the barrel to 14", then register it?
I am just wondering if there are other ways to take advantage of this debacle.

If I understand this correctly, not if that firearm was not acquired, quote "Prior to the publication of the NPRM and this rule to clarify the regulatory definition of a rifle". Full paragraph quoted below for context:

Quote: "Consequently, many parties in possession of weapon and “brace” combinations
that ATF did not specifically classify in the past as being subject to the NFA may have
been violating the NFA by possessing an unregistered rifle with a barrel of less than 16
inches. In addition, where the Department is overruling ATF’s previous classification
letters, possessors of the firearms equipped with “stabilizing braces” that were at issue in
those letters may also be in possession of unregistered NFA firearms. Prior to the
publication of the NPRM and this rule to clarify the regulatory definition of a rifle, many
parties did not register these firearms due to a variety of factors discussed in this rule.
Therefore, in exercising its enforcement discretion, the Department provides affected
persons options that they can choose from by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS FROM THE
DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] to comply with the
statutory requirements. "

from:

"FACTORING CRITERIA FOR FIREARMS WITH ATTACHED “STABILIZING BRACES"
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/factoringcriteriaforfirearmswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/download

 

[Paul in Nevada]

If I understand this correctly, not if that firearm was not acquired, quote "Prior to the publication of the NPRM and this rule to clarify the regulatory definition of a rifle". Full paragraph quoted below for context:

Well, I'm not sure I understand. What if I had the receiver, barrel, and brace sitting on separate shelves all these years? What if I had a brace mounted to a lower but no upper installed? What if I went out and bought all the parts tomorrow?
I guess I am just trying to see how to cash in on this. If you can register with the brace, then ditch the brace for a conventional stock this would be a jackpot. If that's the case I would feel like a fool not to cash in on this nonsense before ATF clarifies or a judge throws it out. Those who got a free SBR classification out of the deal would be crowing about it for years.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

And, what if the ATF decided tomorrow to publish a rule that any pistol capable of firing more than once before it is reloaded & with a barrel measuring less than 12" was now illegal, but gave the public 30 days in which to apply for a $1,000.00 federal permit...? Or, you can just "turn them in"

Ready to "file" for all your handguns?

It was all perfectly legal just yesterday, but you'll be a felon next month...?

Baa! Baaa! Baaaa! Sounds just like the sheep being led to the slaughter!

 

[03hemi]

And, what if the ATF decided tomorrow to publish a rule that any pistol capable of firing more than once before it is reloaded & with a barrel measuring less than 12" was now illegal, but gave the public 30 days in which to apply for a $1,000.00 federal permit...? Or, you can just "turn them in"

Ready to "file" for all your handguns?

It was all perfectly legal just yesterday, but you'll be a felon next month...?

Baa! Baaa! Baaaa! Sounds just like the sheep being led to the slaughter!

Yes, yes I would, their rules so…
You willing to be the “beta” court case while waiting in the federal pen?
I’m too cute for prison, not me.

 

[abigails&w]

Well, I'm not sure I understand. What if I had the receiver, barrel, and brace sitting on separate shelves all these years?.

Then looks to me you could do it (register for free as SBR now). It would be the same as you'd have those parts assembled into a braced pistol, right?

What if I had a brace mounted to a lower but no upper installed?

If you had a pistol upper available, same as above... If not, same as below, I believe:

What if I went out and bought all the parts tomorrow?

This path won't work because you would get the parts after finding out about the new classification.

The way I read this, they give a one time exception to people who were caught in this mess. Mess that they explain in the last paper quoted in my previous post.

 

[BC38]

Then looks to me you could do it (register for free as SBR now). It would be the same as you'd have those parts assembled into a braced pistol, right?



If you had a pistol upper available, same as above... If not, same as below, I believe:



This path won't work because you would get the parts after finding out about the new classification.

The way I read this, they give a one time exception to people who were caught in this mess. Mess that they explain in the last paper quoted in my previous post.

EXCEPT that (as far as I know) this new "rule" has not yet been adopted (it hasn't been published in the Federal Register).
So, at this point in time it is not yet the "law" governing anything - even assuming that you accept ATF re-definitions as "laws" to begin with....

 

[abigails&w]

Well

EXCEPT that (as far as I know) this new "rule" has not yet been adopted (it hasn't been published in the Federal Register).
So, at this point in time it is not yet the "law" governing anything - even assuming that you accept ATF re-definitions as "laws" to begin with....

On 13th this month like many others I received this notice from my gun club which made me look for more information. I tried to answer to couple of people whose questions appeared lost without answers, based on what I learned from those ATF publications. Here is that notice I got on 13th if it can help anyone else:

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. This rule is effective the date it is published in the Federal Register (likely next week).

Following are the compliance options for an individual (non-licensee) in possession of a firearm equipped with a "stabilizing brace”, which is a short-barreled rifle (SBR), after the effective date of the final rule:

• Submit an ATF Form 1/EForm 1 application to register a firearm, within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register, (to qualify for a free tax-stamp - normally $200).
• Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” so that it cannot be reattached and thereby removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the National Firearms Act.
• Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm thus removing it from the provisions of the NFA.
• Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.
• Destroy the firearm. For more information go to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - How to Properly Destroy Firearms

READ THE FINAL RULE HERE

The published documents that I quoted were what I got from this "FINAL RULE" link: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/factoringcriteriaforfirearmswithattachedstabilizingbracespdf/download

So yes, what you wrote is correct, the date that matters it's the date of publication in the Federal Register. But things won't change from this "final rule", won't they?