User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
MO, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:14:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Bladeswitcher]
[#1]
Honestly, i want no part of this. I have thus far avoided collecting stamps and I don’t want to start now. I’m also unwilling to join the “will not comply” camp. My intention is to pull the current buffer tube and brace off of my 11.5” home build, slap on a spare pistol buffer tube i have in my parts drawer and sell the thing. I’ll let somebody else fight this fight.
BTW: I only have the pistol because it was something else to build. It’s not like i need it or even use it much. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:27:04 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Honestly, i want no part of this. I have thus far avoided collecting stamps and I don’t want to start now. I’m also unwilling to join the “will not comply” camp. My intention is to pull the current buffer tube and brace off of my 11.5” home build, slap on a spare pistol buffer tube i have in my parts drawer and sell the thing. I’ll let somebody else fight this fight. BTW: I only have the pistol because it was something else to build. It’s not like i need it or even use it much. typical response from a non-complaint individual, hide your dogs 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:29:01 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: Ok thanks. I will be registering mine . I never thought I would read something like this on this site. But you do you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:30:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mikec3500nc: Glad this is my first thread read as an official member of the forum (I've been around for years.) I am going to go tomorrow and add my 3 braced pistols to my trust, at least if this thing sticks, which I don't think it will, but if it does then my Son can be in possession and won't have to pay taxes on the weapons down the road. I don’t think you can add to trust. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:46:51 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GGGBeo50: Its not about the shouldering, its about money and control per usual. 10+ million braces x $200 = $2B No one is getting a free stamp. Once the program closes, rules will change again and submittals will be subject to $200 tax or confiscation. I think your tin foil may be a bit tight... How could a SBR be subject to another tax stamp? That makes no sense. I am willing to say that if nobody shouldered a brace there would be no issue with them today. We are our worst enemy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 1:55:12 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Oldgold: I never thought I would read something like this on this site. But you do you. Really? You should spend some time in the SBR forum. Its common for people to build pistols with the intention to turn them into SBR's. If you read my posts in that forum you might even find were I mentioned building my pistols with the sole reason to eventually get the tax stamp. So its moot to me. I have no need or want for a pistol. I could care less about the braces. So yeah, if I can get 2 free tax stamps for something I was already going to do then why not? I already have my fingerprint cards done and was just waiting till after Christmas to submit my form 1's. I guess I timed that right. So I guess its wrong for me to Buy a silencer and get a tax stamp for that also? LOL I better not ever shop for a MG either I guess.... I will do me and you can do you. I am not afraid of the government nor am I into conspiracy theories. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 3:21:01 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: Because some fools will destroy. They give that option because they do not want braces out there. Its gun owners own fault for all of this. If idiots would stop posting pics and videos all over the internet of a brace being shouldered this would not be that big of an issue. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: Originally Posted By evlblkwpnz: I wouldn't. I've had SBRs for a really long time. There's this alleged 'option' of destroying the brace. I am merely pointing out that it makes no sense at all to tell people they have the 'option' to destroy a brace when the same people who own the brace probably have at least one spare stock rattling around in a parts box somewhere. Because some fools will destroy. They give that option because they do not want braces out there. Its gun owners own fault for all of this. If idiots would stop posting pics and videos all over the internet of a brace being shouldered this would not be that big of an issue. No, it's Congress and the ATF's fault. It is in no way the fault of gun owners when they find workarounds to an unconstitutional law. Stop blaming gun owners (including many of us on this very forum) and lay the blame with who it really belongs with, our federal government which is on a power trip. |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 3:44:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: I think your tin foil may be a bit tight... How could a SBR be subject to another tax stamp? That makes no sense. I am willing to say that if nobody shouldered a brace there would be no issue with them today. We are our worst enemy. I think he is implying that they are gonna drag feet past the 120 days of free tax stamps and then charge afterwards. While I agree that all these infringements suck balls. I also agree with you that the gun community just loves to thumb its nose at the rule makers when they find a workaround to those infringements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 4:08:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: They aren’t banning braces or declaring them to be firearms. They declaring them definitely to be stocks. Exactly - but in a roundabout way. The rule addresses what makes a firearm subject to SBR rules. In this case they're saying "anything that makes the firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder." Pretty much anything but a bare sub-6.5" buffer tube makes it so. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 4:13:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eracer]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mikec3500nc: Glad this is my first thread read as an official member of the forum (I've been around for years.) I am going to go tomorrow and add my 3 braced pistols to my trust, at least if this thing sticks, which I don't think it will, but if it does then my Son can be in possession and won't have to pay taxes on the weapons down the road. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mikec3500nc: Glad this is my first thread read as an official member of the forum (I've been around for years.) I am going to go tomorrow and add my 3 braced pistols to my trust, at least if this thing sticks, which I don't think it will, but if it does then my Son can be in possession and won't have to pay taxes on the weapons down the road. Originally Posted By Oldgold: I don’t think you can add to trust. I believe the gun must be in the trust before the rule is published. It was signed by the AG January 13th, but has not been published yet. I'm going to add mine to my Schedule A tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 8:47:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: No, it's Congress and the ATF's fault. It is in no way the fault of gun owners when they find workarounds to an unconstitutional law. Stop blaming gun owners (including many of us on this very forum) and lay the blame with who it really belongs with, our federal government which is on a power trip. If your shouldering a arm brace that is making it a stock plain and simple. You can’t argue facts, the workaround is not a work around, it’s a reason to shoulder. When millions of videos show that, they see the truth. I agree that they are overstepping and a SBR should not be on a list, but it is and here we are. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 9:14:23 PM EDT
[#12]
“While I agree that all these infringements suck balls. I also agree with you that the gun community just loves to thumb its nose at the rule makers when they find a workaround to those infringements.”
What about when Congress makes the loopholes in their own laws so they can profit such as their insider trading? It’s always for thee and never them. They enjoy freedoms we used to have but they slowly erode our freedoms while expanding theirs. It all boils down to “shall not be infringed”. If someone can afford to own a howitzer then they should. If they fire that howitzer in to public then the victims families should have the freedom to rip them apart limb by limb. We have an immoral society at this point run by crooks and thieves. Our politicians embolden criminals by not prosecuting them and bending over backwards for them, all while throwing the book at good Americans that try and defend themselves and their rights. This conversation shouldn’t even be happening but since we live an a USSA, we are having it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 9:37:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: If your shouldering a arm brace that is making it a stock plain and simple. You can’t argue facts, the workaround is not a work around, it’s a reason to shoulder. When millions of videos show that, they see the truth. I agree that they are overstepping and a SBR should not be on a list, but it is and here we are. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: No, it's Congress and the ATF's fault. It is in no way the fault of gun owners when they find workarounds to an unconstitutional law. Stop blaming gun owners (including many of us on this very forum) and lay the blame with who it really belongs with, our federal government which is on a power trip. If your shouldering a arm brace that is making it a stock plain and simple. You can’t argue facts, the workaround is not a work around, it’s a reason to shoulder. When millions of videos show that, they see the truth. I agree that they are overstepping and a SBR should not be on a list, but it is and here we are. If I put a beer on the hood of my car, it doesn’t turn my car into a coffee table If I touch a braced pistol to my shoulder, it does not transform it into a rifle. Pounding a nail into a board with a rifle doesn’t make it a hammer. You do not change the design of an object by using it in a different manner than was intended. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 9:58:51 PM EDT
[#14]
 Why Are Short Barreled Rifles Actually Regulated in the US? Interesting video on the history of the NFA and some commentary within the current context. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2023 11:03:14 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: If I touch a braced pistol to my shoulder, it does not transform it into a rifle. If it the only way you use it and it’s the intended purpose then yes it does. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 3:45:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Z09SS]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: If I put a beer on the hood of my car, it doesn’t turn my car into a coffee table If I touch a braced pistol to my shoulder, it does not transform it into a rifle. Pounding a nail into a board with a rifle doesn’t make it a hammer. You do not change the design of an object by using it in a different manner than was intended. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By bigern26: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: No, it's Congress and the ATF's fault. It is in no way the fault of gun owners when they find workarounds to an unconstitutional law. Stop blaming gun owners (including many of us on this very forum) and lay the blame with who it really belongs with, our federal government which is on a power trip. If your shouldering a arm brace that is making it a stock plain and simple. You can’t argue facts, the workaround is not a work around, it’s a reason to shoulder. When millions of videos show that, they see the truth. I agree that they are overstepping and a SBR should not be on a list, but it is and here we are. If I put a beer on the hood of my car, it doesn’t turn my car into a coffee table If I touch a braced pistol to my shoulder, it does not transform it into a rifle. Pounding a nail into a board with a rifle doesn’t make it a hammer. You do not change the design of an object by using it in a different manner than was intended. Shouldering your short barreled rifle didn't change anything. Your braced "pistol" has been an SBR since day one. The ATF exceeding their authority and claiming you could own it without registration didn't transform it into a pistol. They changed the law in 2012 via their letters to manufacturers and responses to inquires. Should they have? No. Does it change that you have had an SBR all along? No. By the law and its definitions, a braced pistol is an SBR. We're not talking about English or common sense; we're talking about the law, legal terminology and legal definitions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 8:36:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Cincinnatus]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Z09SS: Shouldering your short barreled rifle didn't change anything. Your braced "pistol" has been an SBR since day one. The ATF exceeding their authority and claiming you could own it without registration didn't transform it into a pistol. They changed the law in 2012 via their letters to manufacturers and responses to inquires. Should they have? No. Does it change that you have had an SBR all along? No. By the law and its definitions, a braced pistol is an SBR. We're not talking about English or common sense; we're talking about the law, legal terminology and legal definitions. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Z09SS: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By bigern26: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: No, it's Congress and the ATF's fault. It is in no way the fault of gun owners when they find workarounds to an unconstitutional law. Stop blaming gun owners (including many of us on this very forum) and lay the blame with who it really belongs with, our federal government which is on a power trip. If your shouldering a arm brace that is making it a stock plain and simple. You can’t argue facts, the workaround is not a work around, it’s a reason to shoulder. When millions of videos show that, they see the truth. I agree that they are overstepping and a SBR should not be on a list, but it is and here we are. If I put a beer on the hood of my car, it doesn’t turn my car into a coffee table If I touch a braced pistol to my shoulder, it does not transform it into a rifle. Pounding a nail into a board with a rifle doesn’t make it a hammer. You do not change the design of an object by using it in a different manner than was intended. Shouldering your short barreled rifle didn't change anything. Your braced "pistol" has been an SBR since day one. The ATF exceeding their authority and claiming you could own it without registration didn't transform it into a pistol. They changed the law in 2012 via their letters to manufacturers and responses to inquires. Should they have? No. Does it change that you have had an SBR all along? No. By the law and its definitions, a braced pistol is an SBR. We're not talking about English or common sense; we're talking about the law, legal terminology and legal definitions. But I have a letter from the Technical Division of the ATF that states in no uncertain terms that my braced weapon is a pistol. It adheres to the letter of the law that defines pistols vs rifles. The ATF did not exceed their authority when they wrote that letter. That letter recognized the “letter” of the Law. Ex post facto won’t fly. They exceeded their authority when they changed their mind. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 9:07:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: But I have a letter from the Technical Division of the ATF that states in no uncertain terms that my braced weapon is a pistol. It adheres to the letter of the law that defines pistols vs rifles. The ATF did not exceed their authority when they wrote that letter. That letter recognized the “letter” of the Law. Ex post facto won’t fly. They exceeded their authority when they changed their mind. Yeah, after they seen everybody using the brace as a stock. LOL |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 11:08:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: Yeah, after they seen everybody using the brace as a stock. LOL Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigern26: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: But I have a letter from the Technical Division of the ATF that states in no uncertain terms that my braced weapon is a pistol. It adheres to the letter of the law that defines pistols vs rifles. The ATF did not exceed their authority when they wrote that letter. That letter recognized the “letter” of the Law. Ex post facto won’t fly. They exceeded their authority when they changed their mind. Yeah, after they seen everybody using the brace as a stock. LOL If I use a frying pan to drive a nail into a board, it doesn't change it to a hammer. They USED TO say that shouldering the brace turns the pistol into a rifle. They realized that legally, that logic won't fly, so they cancelled that line of reasoning. So NOW they are trying to say that the things they once acknowledged (in writing and ruling) as pistols, were rifles the entire time (ex post facto no-no). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 11:11:07 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eracer: I believe the gun must be in the trust before the rule is published. It was signed by the AG January 13th, but has not been published yet. I'm going to add mine to my Schedule A tomorrow. Now I don't WTF the rule is! When starting my Form 1 eForm, I selected 'Trust' and this popped up:  And this is from another ATF page: This rule is effective the date it is published in the Federal Register. Any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register; or the short barrel removed and a 16-inch or longer rifle barrel attached to the firearm; or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; or the firearm is turned in to your local ATF office. Or the firearm is destroyed. Please note that this is the text of the final rule as signed by the Attorney General, but the official version of the final rule will be as it is published in the Federal Register. The rule will go into effect once it is published in the Federal Register. Which is it? Can I transfer my braced pistol to my Trust today, considering the new rule hasn't been published yet? Apparently not. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 11:18:10 AM EDT
[#21]
Is anyone else having trouble with the e-forms registration website at ATF -
I've been getting a message each time that says Network Error (gateway_error) An error occurred attempting to communicate with an HTTP or SOCKS gateway. The gateway may be temporarily unavailable, or there could be a network problem. For assistance, contact your network support team |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 12:06:16 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cherenkov: Is anyone else having trouble with the e-forms registration website at ATF - I've been getting a message each time that says Network Error (gateway_error) An error occurred attempting to communicate with an HTTP or SOCKS gateway. The gateway may be temporarily unavailable, or there could be a network problem. For assistance, contact your network support team It's generally down on Wednesdays. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 12:25:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Correct me if I'm wrong...
You can't import "Assault Weapons" made from all foreign parts, because that would violate 922r requirements. ATF is responsible for approving/disapproving the importation of of such weapons. Did ATF approve of the importation of foreign braced "pistols" that they NOW are saying were ALWAYS SBRs? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 12:46:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Wags]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: If I use a frying pan to drive a nail into a board, it doesn't change it to a hammer. That’s logical for two distinct items with very different designs. The problem with braces is a lot of them look like stocks and perform like stocks. The stated intent may be to be used as an arm brace, but the ATF will likely claim that wasn’t necessarily the actual intent behind the design. And no, I’m not a fan or proponent of the rule. Just pointing out an issue that will likely need to be addressed at some point. ETA “ATF will likely claim” |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 12:51:07 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fyrpower1972: I think he is implying that they are gonna drag feet past the 120 days of free tax stamps and then charge afterwards. While I agree that all these infringements suck balls. I also agree with you that the gun community just loves to thumb its nose at the rule makers when they find a workaround to those infringements. Correct. No "tin foil" thinking, even though it seems to be a popular generalization on this forum. There is a reason the new "free stamp" database is separate from the current system. It can be easily removed in the case this gets struck down in court or if it truly is an attempt at a national registry and confiscation scheme if you dont pay the $200 tax. I have plenty of SBRs so I am not affected with the exception of a couple lowers I have with braces as spares that I used for interstate travel. I will gladly throw a stock on them and figure the rest out once this shit blows over. Braces are a retarded legal workaround but the NFA is even more retarded. Lawyers walking around using "disabled veterans" as an excuse for the 99.99% non-disabled who use them is mildly cringy. Lets get SBRs and Suppressors removed from the NFA or destroy the NFA altogether. Fuck the flop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 12:57:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wags: That’s logical for two distinct items with very different designs. The problem with braces is a lot of them look like stocks and perform like stocks. The stated intent may be to be used as an arm brace, but the ATF will likely claim that wasn’t necessarily the actual intent behind the design. And no, I’m not a fan or proponent of the rule. Just pointing out an issue that will likely need to be addressed at some point. ETA “ATF will likely claim” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wags: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: If I use a frying pan to drive a nail into a board, it doesn't change it to a hammer. That’s logical for two distinct items with very different designs. The problem with braces is a lot of them look like stocks and perform like stocks. The stated intent may be to be used as an arm brace, but the ATF will likely claim that wasn’t necessarily the actual intent behind the design. And no, I’m not a fan or proponent of the rule. Just pointing out an issue that will likely need to be addressed at some point. ETA “ATF will likely claim” "Intent behind the design" THAT will be an interesting thing to disprove. |
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 1:09:06 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: "Intent behind the design" THAT will be an interesting thing to disprove. Especially since so many man'f have letters from AFT approving their design(s) as pistol braces. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 1:54:19 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eracer: Now I don't WTF the rule is! When starting my Form 1 eForm, I selected 'Trust' and this popped up: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/31267/ATF_Trust_brace_rule_Jan13-2676539.png And this is from another ATF page: This rule is effective the date it is published in the Federal Register. Any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register; or the short barrel removed and a 16-inch or longer rifle barrel attached to the firearm; or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; or the firearm is turned in to your local ATF office. Or the firearm is destroyed. Please note that this is the text of the final rule as signed by the Attorney General, but the official version of the final rule will be as it is published in the Federal Register. The rule will go into effect once it is published in the Federal Register. Which is it? Can I transfer my braced pistol to my Trust today, considering the new rule hasn't been published yet? Apparently not. I tried to add mine to my trust yesterday and the lady at the bank wouldn't notarize the forms. I went back today and had the forms notarized. I understood it's not a rule until it's published in the Federal Register so once we know the date when it's published then we will know if we added to the trust in time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 2:42:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mikec3500nc: I tried to add mine to my trust yesterday and the lady at the bank wouldn't notarize the forms. I went back today and had the forms notarized. I understood it's not a rule until it's published in the Federal Register so once we know the date when it's published then we will know if we added to the trust in time. I was going to add mine to the trust today, based on my understanding that the rule was not yet published, and thus, not yet a rule. The specific verbiage I saw about the deadline of Jan. 13th for transfer to a trust dissuaded me. Good luck. I hope yours goes through. I just didn't want to deal with the contradictory information. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 3:33:19 PM EDT
[#30]
so dumb question and probably answered somewhere
If a person decides to remove the brace, what is a legal pistol buffer tube? im assuming there is a max length? because just taking a brace off, as low recoil as a .223 has, the buffertube is still shouldereable, no? |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 3:40:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: I’m quite aware of the current definition of “firearm.” https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/A78F8387-4441-427C-B65C-81876A355E8A-2671541.jpg I just don’t see anything in the NEW issuance that specifically addresses it. We can extrapolate from how they are addressing the idea of a “brace,” but I see no direct comments about it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I cannot discern their stance on the “firearm” or “other” concept. I've posted this answer to your question 3 times now The only reason a short barreled weapon with a VFG and brace over 26" was a "firearm" is because it did not fit the classification of rifle, pistol or AOW. If the brace is not a stock, it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder - not a rifle It has two pistol grips so no designed to be fired with one hand - not a pistol OAL over 26", so not "concealable" - so not an AOW. That was the original logic trail to determine they were general "firearms" When you removed the VFG, it was a pistol. But now that they consider the brace a stock, then it is "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, so it is a rifle, and with a barrel under 16" it is an SBR. I’m quite aware of the current definition of “firearm.” https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/A78F8387-4441-427C-B65C-81876A355E8A-2671541.jpg I just don’t see anything in the NEW issuance that specifically addresses it. We can extrapolate from how they are addressing the idea of a “brace,” but I see no direct comments about it. Hold up?!?!? My 11.5 inch Colt is over 26 inches. So if I put a VFG on it, I can leave the brace on it? I thought VFG was strictly an No No prior???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 3:41:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Haven’t seen this addressed yet, but I think an interesting discussion.
To keep this short: - ATF has now determined most braces are actually buttstocks. Because of this, anyone in possession of a braced “pistol” with a barrel length of less than 16” is now in possession of an unregistered SBR. Got it. - Per the ATFs rules, one of your options is to submit a F1 to register your gun as the SBR they now claim it to be. After submitting your F1, you can keep your now “unregistered” SBR in its current configuration (apparently an SBR configuration, their words) until you receive the F1 back approved, which given basic math, could be a lonnnggg fucking time. Check. So after filing the F1, you’re free to put any buttstock or VFG you want on the gun? By their own words, a braced pistol is really an SBR. They don’t differentiate between “braced” SBRs or SBRs with traditional stocks made for the express purpose of shouldering, because there is no different legal category to put them in. I realize this is akin to poking a bear, but legally speaking, I don’t see a leg they’d have to stand on in challenging that given the verbal and mental gymnastics they’ve had to employ to change the definition of an item based on how the end user is using it. |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 3:49:22 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: So after filing the F1, you’re free to put any buttstock or VFG you want on the gun? By their own words, a braced pistol is really an SBR. They don’t differentiate between “braced” SBRs or SBRs with traditional stocks made for the express purpose of shouldering, because there is no different legal category to put them in. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. You are allowed to keep the brace mounted until the Form 1 comes back. It is evidence that registration is pending. A stock is 100% an SBR, no question. I would be cautious to convert anything or change anything until the form 1 comes back. Normally it's illegal to possess an NFA item until the paperwork is approved. In this case, they are allowing braces to remain in place while the registration is pending. I would be concerned that replacing with a stock immediately (before receiving the approved form 1) could open one up to liability for possessing an SBR, as their "amnesty" (not really) only addresses braces that were previously not considered stocks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 3:51:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: WUPHF]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mickeydunn: Hold up?!?!? My 11.5 inch Colt is over 26 inches. So if I put a VFG on it, I can leave the brace on it? I thought VFG was strictly an No No prior???? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mickeydunn: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By JohnClarkUSN: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: I cannot discern their stance on the “firearm” or “other” concept. I've posted this answer to your question 3 times now The only reason a short barreled weapon with a VFG and brace over 26" was a "firearm" is because it did not fit the classification of rifle, pistol or AOW. If the brace is not a stock, it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder - not a rifle It has two pistol grips so no designed to be fired with one hand - not a pistol OAL over 26", so not "concealable" - so not an AOW. That was the original logic trail to determine they were general "firearms" When you removed the VFG, it was a pistol. But now that they consider the brace a stock, then it is "designed" to be fired from the shoulder, so it is a rifle, and with a barrel under 16" it is an SBR. I’m quite aware of the current definition of “firearm.” https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/285/A78F8387-4441-427C-B65C-81876A355E8A-2671541.jpg I just don’t see anything in the NEW issuance that specifically addresses it. We can extrapolate from how they are addressing the idea of a “brace,” but I see no direct comments about it. Hold up?!?!? My 11.5 inch Colt is over 26 inches. So if I put a VFG on it, I can leave the brace on it? I thought VFG was strictly an No No prior???? No. Per the ATF, braces are now buttstocks because everyone shoulders them. Buttstock and barrel length <16” is a short barreled rifle. The “firearm” being discussed is a firearm with an OAL of 26” or greater, which can be legally built for “two handed firing” (VFGs are OK), but not designed to be shouldered while firing. Under 26” OAL with “two handed firing” and it would meet the definition of an AOW, IIRC. Braces used to be OK here because ATF viewed them as devices not intended to be shouldered, so they met the criteria of a “firearm.” Now that ATF says braces are buttstocks because a bunch of people shoulder them, adding a brace (buttstock) to a “firearm” would make it an SBR requiring registration. I think I got that all right. Make sense? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 3:55:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: WUPHF]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NAM: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. You are allowed to keep the brace mounted until the Form 1 comes back. It is evidence that registration is pending. A stock is 100% an SBR, no question. I would be cautious to convert anything or change anything until the form 1 comes back. Normally it's illegal to possess an NFA item until the paperwork is approved. In this case, they are allowing braces to remain in place while the registration is pending. I would be concerned that replacing with a stock immediately (before receiving the approved form 1) could open one up to liability for possessing an SBR, as their "amnesty" (not really) only addresses braces that were previously not considered stocks. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NAM: Originally Posted By WUPHF: So after filing the F1, you’re free to put any buttstock or VFG you want on the gun? By their own words, a braced pistol is really an SBR. They don’t differentiate between “braced” SBRs or SBRs with traditional stocks made for the express purpose of shouldering, because there is no different legal category to put them in. I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. You are allowed to keep the brace mounted until the Form 1 comes back. It is evidence that registration is pending. A stock is 100% an SBR, no question. I would be cautious to convert anything or change anything until the form 1 comes back. Normally it's illegal to possess an NFA item until the paperwork is approved. In this case, they are allowing braces to remain in place while the registration is pending. I would be concerned that replacing with a stock immediately (before receiving the approved form 1) could open one up to liability for possessing an SBR, as their "amnesty" (not really) only addresses braces that were previously not considered stocks. It’s more of a thought exercise than anything else. I would just like to see what argument they could produce to explain the difference between a brace and a buttstock, given their 293 page document explaining in excruciating detail why braces are the same thing as buttstocks. I think there’s a reason their enormous justification letter didn’t touch on this issue even though it’s a big obvious gaping hole once you start thinking about it. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 4:01:29 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: Haven’t seen this addressed yet, but I think an interesting discussion. To keep this short: - ATF has now determined most braces are actually buttstocks. Because of this, anyone in possession of a braced “pistol” with a barrel length of less than 16” is now in possession of an unregistered SBR. Got it. - Per the ATFs rules, one of your options is to submit a F1 to register your gun as the SBR they now claim it to be. After submitting your F1, you can keep your now “unregistered” SBR in its current configuration (apparently an SBR configuration, their words) until you receive the F1 back approved, which given basic math, could be a lonnnggg fucking time. Check. So after filing the F1, you’re free to put any buttstock or VFG you want on the gun? By their own words, a braced pistol is really an SBR. They don’t differentiate between “braced” SBRs or SBRs with traditional stocks made for the express purpose of shouldering, because there is no different legal category to put them in. I realize this is akin to poking a bear, but legally speaking, I don’t see a leg they’d have to stand on in challenging that given the verbal and mental gymnastics they’ve had to employ to change the definition of an item based on how the end user is using it. The link is an excerpt from FAQ stating, (Paraphrase) "Firearm designed to be fired with 2 hands (vertical fore grip) and not designed to be fired from the shoulder (no buttstock), braces are permitted. Must have overall length greater than 26 inches." If I am reading that correctly, I can add VFG and I no longer have a rifle, SBR, or pistol but a "firearm". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 4:07:59 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mickeydunn: The link is an excerpt from FAQ stating, (Paraphrase) "Firearm designed to be fired with 2 hands (vertical fore grip) and not designed to be fired from the shoulder (no buttstock), braces are permitted. Must have overall length greater than 26 inches." If I am reading that correctly, I can add VFG and I no longer have a rifle, SBR, or pistol but a "firearm". Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mickeydunn: Originally Posted By WUPHF: Haven’t seen this addressed yet, but I think an interesting discussion. To keep this short: - ATF has now determined most braces are actually buttstocks. Because of this, anyone in possession of a braced “pistol” with a barrel length of less than 16” is now in possession of an unregistered SBR. Got it. - Per the ATFs rules, one of your options is to submit a F1 to register your gun as the SBR they now claim it to be. After submitting your F1, you can keep your now “unregistered” SBR in its current configuration (apparently an SBR configuration, their words) until you receive the F1 back approved, which given basic math, could be a lonnnggg fucking time. Check. So after filing the F1, you’re free to put any buttstock or VFG you want on the gun? By their own words, a braced pistol is really an SBR. They don’t differentiate between “braced” SBRs or SBRs with traditional stocks made for the express purpose of shouldering, because there is no different legal category to put them in. I realize this is akin to poking a bear, but legally speaking, I don’t see a leg they’d have to stand on in challenging that given the verbal and mental gymnastics they’ve had to employ to change the definition of an item based on how the end user is using it. The link is an excerpt from FAQ stating, (Paraphrase) "Firearm designed to be fired with 2 hands (vertical fore grip) and not designed to be fired from the shoulder (no buttstock), braces are permitted. Must have overall length greater than 26 inches." If I am reading that correctly, I can add VFG and I no longer have a rifle, SBR, or pistol but a "firearm". Under the older ATF determination on braces, yes. Braces are now buttstocks, though (per the ATF), so a buttstock (brace) and a barrel less than 16” is an SBR, regardless of what other accessories or OAL are involved. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 4:14:24 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: Under the older ATF determination on braces, yes. Braces are now buttstocks, though (per the ATF), so a buttstock (brace) and a barrel less than 16” is an SBR, regardless of what other accessories or OAL are involved. So no there is no such thing as a brace? They are all redefined as buttstocks? Did it really take 293 pages for them to say, "Hey all you guys with unregistered SBRs! Yeah you 10 to 40 million over there. If you would go ahead and register those it'd be great." My 11.5 inch with Flaming Pig is already 14.7 inches. I am personally going to pin and weld a longer flash can on to reach 16.1 and add a stock. |
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 4:16:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: entropy]
[#39]
OK, I'm dense here.
So what are the dates for compliance etc? Like I have a pistol with a brace I made 3 years ago. When does the clock start for creating a form 1? When is the last day to make a braced pistol to register? What documentation do you have to supply with the form 1 on the dates that these were built? Is there a "Brace to SBR for dummies" FAQ anywhere? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 4:52:41 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mickeydunn: So no there is no such thing as a brace? They are all redefined as buttstocks? Did it really take 293 pages for them to say, "Hey all you guys with unregistered SBRs! Yeah you 10 to 40 million over there. If you would go ahead and register those it'd be great." My 11.5 inch with Flaming Pig is already 14.7 inches. I am personally going to pin and weld a longer flash can on to reach 16.1 and add a stock. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mickeydunn: Originally Posted By WUPHF: Under the older ATF determination on braces, yes. Braces are now buttstocks, though (per the ATF), so a buttstock (brace) and a barrel less than 16” is an SBR, regardless of what other accessories or OAL are involved. So no there is no such thing as a brace? They are all redefined as buttstocks? Did it really take 293 pages for them to say, "Hey all you guys with unregistered SBRs! Yeah you 10 to 40 million over there. If you would go ahead and register those it'd be great." My 11.5 inch with Flaming Pig is already 14.7 inches. I am personally going to pin and weld a longer flash can on to reach 16.1 and add a stock. To answer your main (and first) question, yes, no such thing as a “brace” anymore. There may be some configuration ATF would say is OK, but they can’t tell you what that would be, so it’s up to you to build it and wait until the ATF decides if they’d like to arrest you or not. They did away with the only thing that could provide you some level of objective data to determine if what you own is kosher or not in the “points” worksheet they initially disseminated earlier this year. This new 293 page doc references that worksheet in a few places, but completely deletes the “point” system altogether. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 4:58:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By entropy: OK, I'm dense here. So what are the dates for compliance etc? Like I have a pistol with a brace I made 3 years ago. When does the clock start for creating a form 1? When is the last day to make a braced pistol to register? What documentation do you have to supply with the form 1 on the dates that these were built? Is there a "Brace to SBR for dummies" FAQ anywhere? Doesn’t matter when it was built (in the past) so long as it was built prior to the publication of this new rule (which was either this past weekend or at some point this week, I’ve heard both). Anything built after the publication date is both an unregistered SBR and not eligible for the “amnesty” or waived $200 F1 tax. Deadline to file a F1 is 120 days from the date of publication. I have not seen any reference to supporting documentation for build date of the pistol (and I’ve read through the doc a few times), except for if you’re trying to register to a trust. ATF is requiring documentation (a notarized copy of the trust’s schedule) proving the weapon was owned by the trust prior to the publication date. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 5:45:18 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: Doesn’t matter when it was built (in the past) so long as it was built prior to the publication of this new rule (which was either this past weekend or at some point this week, I’ve heard both). Anything built after the publication date is both an unregistered SBR and not eligible for the “amnesty” or waived $200 F1 tax. Deadline to file a F1 is 120 days from the date of publication. I have not seen any reference to supporting documentation for build date of the pistol (and I’ve read through the doc a few times), except for if you’re trying to register to a trust. ATF is requiring documentation (a notarized copy of the trust’s schedule) proving the weapon was owned by the trust prior to the publication date. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: Originally Posted By entropy: OK, I'm dense here. So what are the dates for compliance etc? Like I have a pistol with a brace I made 3 years ago. When does the clock start for creating a form 1? When is the last day to make a braced pistol to register? What documentation do you have to supply with the form 1 on the dates that these were built? Is there a "Brace to SBR for dummies" FAQ anywhere? Doesn’t matter when it was built (in the past) so long as it was built prior to the publication of this new rule (which was either this past weekend or at some point this week, I’ve heard both). Anything built after the publication date is both an unregistered SBR and not eligible for the “amnesty” or waived $200 F1 tax. Deadline to file a F1 is 120 days from the date of publication. I have not seen any reference to supporting documentation for build date of the pistol (and I’ve read through the doc a few times), except for if you’re trying to register to a trust. ATF is requiring documentation (a notarized copy of the trust’s schedule) proving the weapon was owned by the trust prior to the publication date. Thanks, is there an how to efile a form1 for dummies? |
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 5:53:34 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: Doesn’t matter when it was built (in the past) so long as it was built prior to the publication of this new rule (which was either this past weekend or at some point this week, I’ve heard both). It has not yet been published in the Federal Register. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 6:06:53 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By entropy: Thanks, is there an how to efile a form1 for dummies? https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/General-NFA-Questions/17/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 6:19:48 PM EDT
[#45]
The Form 1s I just did for SBRs previously known as braced pistols, you only have to include a close up of the lower's information, same as usual, but they do say they can ask for further information, what ever that might be.
|
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 6:29:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WUPHF: It’s more of a thought exercise than anything else. I would just like to see what argument they could produce to explain the difference between a brace and a buttstock, given their 293 page document explaining in excruciating detail why braces are the same thing as buttstocks. I think there’s a reason their enormous justification letter didn’t touch on this issue even though it’s a big obvious gaping hole once you start thinking about it. I always wondered why the whole issue of a buttstock was never defined as a specifically allowed as an area in the NFA. I mean a 16-inch barrel is at least a defined numerical length. Give an allowable maximum area like 4 square inches. No lawyer but I argue the definition is unconstitutionally vague and it's up to Congress to decide what that area is. To the legal types is unconstitutionally vague a valid argument? |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 7:05:27 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Z09SS: Shouldering your short barreled rifle didn't change anything. Your braced "pistol" has been an SBR since day one. The ATF exceeding their authority and claiming you could own it without registration didn't transform it into a pistol. They changed the law in 2012 via their letters to manufacturers and responses to inquires. Should they have? No. Does it change that you have had an SBR all along? No. By the law and its definitions, a braced pistol is an SBR. We're not talking about English or common sense; we're talking about the law, legal terminology and legal definitions. Sigh. Yeah, I gotta say this is correct. And we’re kidding ourselves by claiming the brace has ever been anything but a stock. I’ve tried mine as a brace. You’d have to be double-jointed to actually shoot & hit anything that way. I built mine as a PDW, knowing full well just one bureaucratic decision could render it illegal. Unlike the bump stock, there is a legal statute prohibiting SBRs, so I doubt there’ll be any relief from the courts. Still up in the air about what I’ll do. Either convert to carbine or get the stamp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 7:05:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NAM: It has not yet been published in the Federal Register. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NAM: Originally Posted By WUPHF: Doesn’t matter when it was built (in the past) so long as it was built prior to the publication of this new rule (which was either this past weekend or at some point this week, I’ve heard both). It has not yet been published in the Federal Register. Or that. There’s been a whole lot of shit flying around about this stuff and some of the finer points become a bit hard to decipher. Good to know, though. Have they stated when it will be published? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 9:52:25 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: But I have a letter from the Technical Division of the ATF that states in no uncertain terms that my braced weapon is a pistol. It adheres to the letter of the law that defines pistols vs rifles. The ATF did not exceed their authority when they wrote that letter. That letter recognized the “letter” of the Law. Ex post facto won’t fly. They exceeded their authority when they changed their mind. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By Z09SS: Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Originally Posted By bigern26: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: No, it's Congress and the ATF's fault. It is in no way the fault of gun owners when they find workarounds to an unconstitutional law. Stop blaming gun owners (including many of us on this very forum) and lay the blame with who it really belongs with, our federal government which is on a power trip. If your shouldering a arm brace that is making it a stock plain and simple. You can’t argue facts, the workaround is not a work around, it’s a reason to shoulder. When millions of videos show that, they see the truth. I agree that they are overstepping and a SBR should not be on a list, but it is and here we are. If I put a beer on the hood of my car, it doesn’t turn my car into a coffee table If I touch a braced pistol to my shoulder, it does not transform it into a rifle. Pounding a nail into a board with a rifle doesn’t make it a hammer. You do not change the design of an object by using it in a different manner than was intended. Shouldering your short barreled rifle didn't change anything. Your braced "pistol" has been an SBR since day one. The ATF exceeding their authority and claiming you could own it without registration didn't transform it into a pistol. They changed the law in 2012 via their letters to manufacturers and responses to inquires. Should they have? No. Does it change that you have had an SBR all along? No. By the law and its definitions, a braced pistol is an SBR. We're not talking about English or common sense; we're talking about the law, legal terminology and legal definitions. But I have a letter from the Technical Division of the ATF that states in no uncertain terms that my braced weapon is a pistol. It adheres to the letter of the law that defines pistols vs rifles. The ATF did not exceed their authority when they wrote that letter. That letter recognized the “letter” of the Law. Ex post facto won’t fly. They exceeded their authority when they changed their mind. That letter came across as "no uncertain terms" to you? I remember reading the letter. I remember the exuberance over that letter. And I remember saying to myself "I don't really see this letter quite saying what everyone is interpreting", and seeing the very rare other commentator say the same thing, only to be washed out by a crowd swarming the streets chanting YAY! swarming the bars. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2023 9:56:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NAM: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. You are allowed to keep the brace mounted until the Form 1 comes back. It is evidence that registration is pending. A stock is 100% an SBR, no question. I would be cautious to convert anything or change anything until the form 1 comes back. Normally it's illegal to possess an NFA item until the paperwork is approved. In this case, they are allowing braces to remain in place while the registration is pending. I would be concerned that replacing with a stock immediately (before receiving the approved form 1) could open one up to liability for possessing an SBR, as their "amnesty" (not really) only addresses braces that were previously not considered stocks. This is my opinion as well. While you quite probably will get away with it, if it was satisfactory with the brace on before, just keep running the brace until you get your actual stamp. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
