User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
CO, USA
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 2:36:12 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: Woot! Day 76, received the email, approved. Finally! Do I have to wait until I get the actual stamp in the mail, or is this electronic approval good enough to build out my SBR? If you're talking the free form 1, you've already got all you're gonna get. Build away |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 5:24:28 AM EDT
[#2]
60 days here so maybe I’m getting close.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 7:32:20 AM EDT
[#3]
I’m still rather curious what would happen if I Form 4’d one of these approved Form 1 guns to my trust.
Especially if it he ruling gets overturned. I’m >< close to trying it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 9:12:10 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Firestarter123: I’m still rather curious what would happen if I Form 4’d one of these approved Form 1 guns to my trust. Especially if it he ruling gets overturned. I’m >< close to trying it. From what I understand - it is prohibited by law to use an application as evidence against you. So there's no criminal repercussion risk of trying to file the form. I don't see it actually going anywhere, but you can try. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 10:45:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stowe: If you're talking the free form 1, you've already got all you're gonna get. Build away Oh? Not going to get a stamp in the mail? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 4:00:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Dknight16]
[#6]
Nope. No stamp, no engraving.
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 4:12:54 PM EDT
[#7]
Well, alrighty then. I guess it makes sense. It does say "Approved with conditions" and at the bottom of the form it says "Approval Conditions: Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F"
But, I can still treat it like I would any other SBR, right? I can change the brace for a stock, put a vertical front grip, etc? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 4:26:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: Well, alrighty then. I guess it makes sense. It does say "Approved with conditions" and at the bottom of the form it says "Approval Conditions: Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F" But, I can still treat it like I would any other SBR, right? I can change the brace for a stock, put a vertical front grip, etc? It is a registered SBR, even without the stamp or engraving. So This is my understanding. I hope it’s correct. Since I put a JMac stock on my previously braced Rattler. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 4:35:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Finally got mine back.
I'm an FFL/SOT (01/03). No pics, no prints, no bullshit. I thought it would be an automatic slam dunk inside of a month, maybe. My first two submissions were on 1/24/23 Then 4 more on 1/27/23 NAY! NAY! The first 2 came back approved on 7/6, both of them signed by the same examiner and a few hours apart. The other 4 came back approved on 7/7 within 2-5 minutes of each other, but no signatures. I was thinking it might have been a batch job. but was concerned about no signatures. Monday, 7/10 I got the other 4 again within 2 minutes of each other, but this time signed by an examiner. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 5:00:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: EDL]
[#10]
Ok, got my answer: Straight from the ATF's site (amazing how 5 minutes of Googling gets you to the pertinent info vs over an hour on the ATF's actual site trying to find it):
From the ATF's site: "Once the firearm is registered as a short-barreled rifle (SBR) can I remove/change the “stabilizing brace” or attach an item marketed as a stock? If so, am I required to notify ATF in advance? Yes, once the firearm is registered as an SBR, you can change out the “brace” device or stock for a different brace or stock. You do not need to contact ATF/NFA because changing the brace/stock does not change the configuration of the SBR. However, if the length of the firearm has changed you will need to notify the NFA Division. Final Note: The SBR is not “registered” until an approved Form 1 is received from NFA. The brace cannot be substituted/replaced until that time." (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/once-firearm-registered-short-barreled-rifle-sbr-can-i-removechange-%E2%80%9Cstabilizing-brace%E2%80%9D) Ok, but....the whole length thing. Obviously it's going to be difficult to find a stock that gives you the exact same length as when the brace is installed. So, is this another potential catch. I've also read that you can amend your SBR configuration simply by notifying the ATF that it has changed and you don't need permission from them to do it, you just have to let them know you did. A law site that I read that handles gun trusts says never to say you are changing the config, but use the term "amend" so you can add more configurations, such as different calibers and barrel lengths. I would assume that overall length would fall into that category if you change out the brace for a stock? |
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 5:09:28 PM EDT
[#11]
If you had an SBA3 on the pistol when you filed, the length would be variable since the brace was adjustable. Not sure how you would ammend that, and to what. A stock works the same way.
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 9:43:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: EDL]
[#12]
It does have an SBA3, but as I recall, the brace is not counted in the overall length of a pistol. You're supposed to remove it and measure from the end of the buffer tube to the end of the barrel. A rifle or shotgun includes the stock as it is designed to be fired from the shoulder, so is part of the firearm. A brace is viewed as an accessory, thus not part of the firearm. That's how I measured mine. I've also seen others talking about a requirement to include a complete picture of the pistol to show it has a brace on the whole firearm, but I did not submit such a picture with my form. The only pictures submitted were close ups of the areas of the lower that had any markings. It was approved, sooooo....
Technically, even leaving the brace on it can alter the length any time it is adjusted, so I don't understand how a stock would be any different or why it matters...then again, I don't understand a lot of the BS the ATF does. |
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 10:54:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Are you sure the length has to do with the entire gun, or just the barrel/upper?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2023 11:35:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By s4s4u: Are you sure the length has to do with the entire gun, or just the barrel/upper? Entire gun excluding any non-pinned muzzle devices with the brace/stock completely extended. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/14/2023 7:41:16 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Firestarter123: Entire gun excluding any non-pinned muzzle devices with the brace/stock completely extended. I also personally don't think it would be the end of the world if you weren't dead on. Within an inch is probably close enough. Maybe two inches. I've never heard of anyone getting their balls busted over OAL. |
|
|
SD, USA
|
Posted: 7/14/2023 10:57:32 AM EDT
[#16]
I guesstimated my OALs using the stock dimensions that I planned on replacing the braces with. So far, no doors kicked in and the wife’s cats haven’t been shot.
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 7/14/2023 11:23:32 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dakota_Don: I guesstimated my OALs using the stock dimensions that I planned on replacing the braces with. So far, no doors kicked in and the wife’s cats haven’t been shot. Ya, I don't think it is a big deal. I mean, you can pin a legal rifle upper onto the lower and it ceases to be an NFA item entirely. I don't get the concern with the length of your SBR. Shit, I would be swapping all sorts of different uppers on it, pending the mood. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 7/15/2023 11:33:27 PM EDT
[#18]
Which is ok to do was well. No permission needed for upper or caliber changes either, but the ATF "requests" that you update your configuration with them. Gun trust lawyers (at least the ones I've read on line) always say to never "change" the configuration, but "amend it" to add the new uppers/calibers. Some of the sites even have a form you fill out and it will generate the letter you send to the ATF notifying them of the additions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2023 8:48:01 PM EDT
[#19]
According to this video, the 5th Circuit judge that vacated the ATF rule just changed his mind and put a stay on his own decision. Anyone else hear this from a verifiable source?
 BREAKING NEWS: Judge Stays Decision That Vacated ATF Frame/Receiver Rule! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2023 8:51:12 PM EDT
[#20]
Here we go. This one is from FPC Administrative stay in vacated frame and receiver rule
|
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 7/18/2023 10:14:33 PM EDT
[#21]
That has no bearing on braced pistols
That is for “ghost guns” |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2023 1:52:12 AM EDT
[#22]
458 SOCOM lower approved. 85 days.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2023 6:32:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Submitted two on 5/18.
One approved today, 7/19. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2023 6:45:11 PM EDT
[#24]
I have one from 02/03 hanging out there that still hasn't moved.
|
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 7/19/2023 9:12:49 PM EDT
[#25]
May 4 submitted, received approval today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2023 11:02:26 AM EDT
[#26]
02/03 application approved today. 168 days. The one that I filed after this took 54 days.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 7/21/2023 2:15:31 PM EDT
[#27]
E-form 1 control # 2023689474 submitted 5/16/23 just approved !
Fuck yeah ! Time to order a case of 9mm to celebrate !!! |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/22/2023 11:33:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#28]
[Deleted]
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 7/24/2023 8:26:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BULLDAWG_556: That has no bearing on braced pistols That is for “ghost guns” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BULLDAWG_556: That has no bearing on braced pistols That is for “ghost guns” Actually there is relevance. Got this today from SAF SAF CHEERS 5th CIRCUIT VICTORY IN VANDERSTOK FRAME, RECEIVER CASE BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is cheering a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, challenging the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms. SAF had intervened in the case, opposing the ATF’s change in defining frames and receivers. The court today refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay. SAF and its partners in the intervention are represented by attorney Chad Flores. According to the Fifth Circuit panel, “Because the ATF has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, nor irreparable harm in the absence of a stay, we DENY the government’s request to stay the vacatur of the two challenged portions of the Rule. “  acatur ...reestablish[es] the status quo ante”…which is the world before the Rule became effective. This effectively maintains, pending appeal, the status quo that existed for 54 years from 1968 to 2022.“The court issued a ruling which declined to stay our successful challenge during this appeal,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As this case moves forward, we expect to again prevail on the portions of the Final Rule that we challenged. The court’s finding that ATF had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits bodes well for SAF and its members.” “We’re delighted the court ruled in favor of our challenges to the Biden administration’s overreach, and we will pursue this case to its ultimate conclusion,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. The gist of it is that they are winning against AFT making up shit as they wish. If their "ghost guns" directives are deemed unconsitutiional it will likely apply to the "final rule" on pistol braces as well. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2023 7:03:22 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By s4s4u: Actually there is relevance. Got this today from SAF The gist of it is that they are winning against AFT making up shit as they wish. If their "ghost guns" directives are deemed unconsitutiional it will likely apply to the "final rule" on pistol braces as well. Cool, thanks for the post… |
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2023 2:06:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Disapproved after 75 days.
"SERIAL NUMBER MISSING THE PREFIX" What next? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2023 2:13:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By retro02: Disapproved after 75 days. "SERIAL NUMBER MISSING THE PREFIX" What next? Resubmit |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2023 2:28:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Resubmit Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By retro02: Disapproved after 75 days. "SERIAL NUMBER MISSING THE PREFIX" What next? Resubmit Using paper as eForms no longer works for these submissions. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/28/2023 3:18:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Stocks ordered. There has to be some upside to this mess.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/30/2023 11:01:01 AM EDT
[#35]
Is ATF still working on amnesty forms or is there a pause?
|
|
|
SD, USA
|
Posted: 7/30/2023 12:23:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Initially, they were coming back quickly for most of the submissions. As with any paperwork they process, it only gets slower with time. Timeliness and efficiency are unimportant it seems.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/30/2023 8:35:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Dknight16]
[#37]
Is ATF still working on amnesty forms or is there a pause?
Still working. |
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/1/2023 8:09:48 PM EDT
[#38]
Pistol Brace rule declared Unconstitutional!
 BREAKING JUST NOW: Pistol Brace Rule FOUND LIKELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL… |
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 8/1/2023 10:25:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: wcb6092]
[#39]
So the 5th Circuit is sending this back to the District court to determine if a preliminary injunction is warranted ? This is progress but not the big decision we are all looking for.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6710/attachments/original/1690919131/Mock_v_Garland_Opinion.pdf?1690919131 For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the order denying a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instruction to consider that motion expeditiously. To ensure relative stability, we MAINTAIN the preliminary injunction pending appeal that the motions panel issued on May 23, 2023, as clarified by this merits panel on May 26, 2023.63 This court’s injunction will expire 60 days from the date of this decision, or once the district court rules on a preliminary injunction, whichever occurs first. We direct the district court to rule within 60 days. We place no limitation on the matters that the conscientious district court may address on remand, and we give no indication of what decisions it should reach, regarding a preliminary injunction or any other matter. |
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/1/2023 10:56:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wcb6092: So the 5th Circuit is sending this back to the District court to determine if a preliminary injunction is warranted ? This is progress but not the big decision we are all looking for. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6710/attachments/original/1690919131/Mock_v_Garland_Opinion.pdf?1690919131 For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the order denying a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instruction to consider that motion expeditiously. To ensure relative stability, we MAINTAIN the preliminary injunction pending appeal that the motions panel issued on May 23, 2023, as clarified by this merits panel on May 26, 2023.63 This court’s injunction will expire 60 days from the date of this decision, or once the district court rules on a preliminary injunction, whichever occurs first. We direct the district court to rule within 60 days. We place no limitation on the matters that the conscientious district court may address on remand, and we give no indication of what decisions it should reach, regarding a preliminary injunction or any other matter. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wcb6092: So the 5th Circuit is sending this back to the District court to determine if a preliminary injunction is warranted ? This is progress but not the big decision we are all looking for. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6710/attachments/original/1690919131/Mock_v_Garland_Opinion.pdf?1690919131 For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the order denying a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instruction to consider that motion expeditiously. To ensure relative stability, we MAINTAIN the preliminary injunction pending appeal that the motions panel issued on May 23, 2023, as clarified by this merits panel on May 26, 2023.63 This court’s injunction will expire 60 days from the date of this decision, or once the district court rules on a preliminary injunction, whichever occurs first. We direct the district court to rule within 60 days. We place no limitation on the matters that the conscientious district court may address on remand, and we give no indication of what decisions it should reach, regarding a preliminary injunction or any other matter. Yeah, the law seems very confusing to me at times. I read that as the 5th telling the District to "try again". I don't understand "why" it has to go back, but maybe that is standard practice for appeals on injunctions and TRO's. As far as I can tell the actual merits of the case have not been heard yet. FPC says this: NEW ORLEANS, LA (August 1, 2023) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in Mock v. Garland, finding that FPC and FPCAF are likely to win on the merits of their lawsuit challenging ATF’s pistol brace rule. The Fifth Circuit also remanded the lawsuit back to the district court with instructions to reconsider the other preliminary injunction factors within 60 days. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org. “The ATF incorrectly maintains that the Final Rule is merely interpretive, not legislative, and thus not subject to the logical-outgrowth test,” writes Judge Smith in the Court’s opinion. “The Final Rule affects individual rights, speaks with the force of law, and significantly implicates private interests. Thus, it is legislative in character. Then, because the Final Rule bears almost no resemblance in manner or kind to the Proposed Rule, the Final Rule fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA.” The Court goes on to state: “To ensure relative stability, we MAINTAIN the preliminary injunction pending appeal that the motions panel issued on May 23, 2023, as clarified by this merits panel on May 26, 2023. This court’s injunction will expire 60 days from the date of this decision, or once the district court rules on a preliminary injunction, whichever occurs first. We direct the district court to rule within 60 days.” “Said in its simplest terms, the Fifth Circuit just indicated that the Plaintiffs–Firearms Policy Coalition, Maxim Defense, and FPC’s individual members–are likely to defeat ATF’s pistol brace rule when the merits of this case are finally heard,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s General Counsel and FPC’s counsel in this case. “This is a huge win for peaceable gun owners across the nation, a huge win for FPC’s members, and yet another massive defeat for ATF and this administration’s gun control agenda.” |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 8/3/2023 1:40:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: brianb860]
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brianb860: I submitted four on 2/11/23 with digital prints. Nothing back yet on any of them. Got my first approval on 8/1/23. Still waiting on the other three. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/5/2023 12:43:22 PM EDT
[#42]
When the ATF gets a smackdown in the court will they let amnesty filings keep their SBR approval or will they send a stamp immediately for $200 or will they just say your sh*t is removed from the NFA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2023 1:37:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: lazyengineer]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By urbanredneck: When the ATF gets a smackdown in the court will they let amnesty filings keep their SBR approval or will they send a stamp immediately for $200 or will they just say your sh*t is removed from the NFA. Lol, this is literally ever other post in this thread. The answer is yes the registrations will remain, they are not dependent on each other- USAG has the authority to grant the free SBR and the With Conditions relaxation of the engraving requirement. The courts can't reasonably overturn that part, as that authority is granted and codified. Standing by for tomorrow's 88th repeat of this exact question again! |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/5/2023 4:40:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: Lol, this is literally ever other post in this thread. The answer is yes the registrations will remain, they are not dependent on each other- USAG has the authority to grant the free SBR and the With Conditions relaxation of the engraving requirement. The courts can't reasonably overturn that part, as that authority is granted and codified. Standing by for tomorrow's 88th repeat of this exact question again! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: Originally Posted By urbanredneck: When the ATF gets a smackdown in the court will they let amnesty filings keep their SBR approval or will they send a stamp immediately for $200 or will they just say your sh*t is removed from the NFA. Lol, this is literally ever other post in this thread. The answer is yes the registrations will remain, they are not dependent on each other- USAG has the authority to grant the free SBR and the With Conditions relaxation of the engraving requirement. The courts can't reasonably overturn that part, as that authority is granted and codified. Standing by for tomorrow's 88th repeat of this exact question again! So option 1....I thought they would rescind all approvals. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 8/5/2023 4:55:55 PM EDT
[#45]
No, once it’s on the registry it’s on the registry they can’t take it back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2023 4:59:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By urbanredneck: So option 1....I thought they would rescind all approvals. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By urbanredneck: Originally Posted By lazyengineer: Originally Posted By urbanredneck: When the ATF gets a smackdown in the court will they let amnesty filings keep their SBR approval or will they send a stamp immediately for $200 or will they just say your sh*t is removed from the NFA. Lol, this is literally ever other post in this thread. The answer is yes the registrations will remain, they are not dependent on each other- USAG has the authority to grant the free SBR and the With Conditions relaxation of the engraving requirement. The courts can't reasonably overturn that part, as that authority is granted and codified. Standing by for tomorrow's 88th repeat of this exact question again! So option 1....I thought they would rescind all approvals. no This isn't an ATF agent of the week policy of the day. This is an official "BY MY AUTHORITY" signed declaration of the US AG with details. And he (not ATF) does indeed have the authority for the waivers. It doesn't say in the ruling: "so long as the ban is in effect, my Authority is in Effect - but if the courts toss the ban portion - then blow me, I'm going to remove all forbearance registrations". It says, if you fill out this paperwork, and are approved, you have your registration. Registration With Conditions that you don't have engrave. So if anyone gives you shit about not being engraved, and are in a position of authority where they can - you show them your registration and the "with Conditions" line. Based on some other's postings: it's interesting to see how many people have wet dreams of fellow gun owners being fucked over by this whole ordeal one way or the other though. Nice. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2023 12:55:20 AM EDT
[#47]
So, if the pistol brace ban is over turned, what would stop the AG from saying "the conditions of your non-engraved, no stamp SBR are no longer in effect, therefore, it is removed from the registry and you no longer have a legal SBR unless you pay $200 and reregister under the standard procedures"?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2023 1:21:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: _DR]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BULLDAWG_556: No, once it’s on the registry it’s on the registry they can’t take it back. Except for that guy that sent in paperwork for a post 1986 MG and AFT mistakenly sent him a tax stamp? They sure deregistered that guy after they approved it. https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/ATF_ruling_may_have_accidentally_opened_door_to_new_machine_guns_PAGE_9_Form_1_APPROVED/5-1624460/&page=9 |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2023 9:17:15 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lazyengineer: no This isn't an ATF agent of the week policy of the day. This is an official "BY MY AUTHORITY" signed declaration of the US AG with details. And he (not ATF) does indeed have the authority for the waivers. It doesn't say in the ruling: "so long as the ban is in effect, my Authority is in Effect - but if the courts toss the ban portion - then blow me, I'm going to remove all forbearance registrations". It says, if you fill out this paperwork, and are approved, you have your registration. Registration With Conditions that you don't have engrave. So if anyone gives you shit about not being engraved, and are in a position of authority where they can - you show them your registration and the "with Conditions" line. Based on some other's postings: it's interesting to see how many people have wet dreams of fellow gun owners being fucked over by this whole ordeal one way or the other though. Nice. No one fully knows what is going to happen. Will the entire thing be tossed? Will part of it be tossed? But one that is clear is that the tax forbearance was PART of "ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F". It is in the rule, it is on the website, and if this thing is tossed, it is a clusterfuck. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces The tax forbearance was a "remedy" for your braced pistol magically becoming an SBR via fiat. If the illegal ruling is tossed, your braced pistol magically turned SBR is back to being a braced pistol. There is nothing to "remedy". I'm sure no one lied on their government submissions and SBR'd stripped lowers sitting around. So your braced pistol is back...as it should be. If someone was planning on SBR'ing it anyway, no harm no foul "if" the ATF eventually asks for $200. You didn't engrave anything, so nothing to worry about. Now I don't know if they will or not. But I can't think of any reason for them to NOT send out a letter that says something like "Due to the reversal of rule 2021R-08F", there is no longer a need for a tax forbearance. Therefore, we are informing you that you must put your weapon back into a non NFA status. If you would like to keep it as an NFA weapon, plus submit $200 for a tax stamp within X days and we can expedite your request. " Seems like it is up to them, but the ATF now has all of your information either way. If you contact them to remove your weapon from the registry, they don't delete your data as if it was never there. The notate your file that the weapon is no longer in NFA weapon. https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/Removing-SBR-from-NFA-registry---s/51-504262/ Again, logically speaking, if the rule is reversed, why would you need the FreeBR for your braced pistol? And if you were going to SBR it anyway, how are you out anything? Or maybe the ATF says F it, you can keep them. Who knows. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 8/6/2023 10:50:23 AM EDT
[#50]
Agree 100%. If someone (the AG, the ATF, whomever) has the authority to create the forbearance and give out approvals without the $200 and engraving requirement, then certainly they have the authority to recall it. I say that, logically, the FreeBR, as you called it, is absolutely contingent upon the conditions, it's precisely why the approval states as much.
But, as you also said, we don't know what will happen if it gets over turned. It can go in any direction, but it makes the most sense that if it is, then your FreeBR goes back to being a pistol since the conditions no longer exist. I can absolutely see them expediting a stamp afterward, if you choose, since it is already in the registry and approved, just send in your $200 and go get the lower engraved, but then again, that makes sense and the government frequently does shit that doesn't make sense, so who knows. I'm hoping, although slim chance, that the entire barrel length issue gets tossed, but that hasn't been a point of contention in this yet. Having that restriction is ridiculous in the face of the original NFA as it was never the main point of it, only an additional restriction to prevent a loophole. Handguns and pistols were one of the primary factors (along with machine guns, et al.), but ultimately got tossed before the NFA was passed, the reasoning for barrel length limits no longer made any sense. That's the angle I'd take in trying to argue for the removal of the barrel limit, but I'm not a lawyer. Best case scenario, IMHO, is that suppressors and barrel length limits get removed. I seriously doubt AOW's and machine guns will ever get removed. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
