Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Free SBR stamp? (Page 13 of 16)
Page / 16
Link Posted: 8/13/2023 6:08:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ian187:


Actually we do know what the answer will be. It is within the Executive branch and ATF purview to create tax free entries into the NFA registry. There have been multiple examples of this over the years (1968 GCA machineguns, street sweepers, Striker 12, etc). No matter what happens with the brace rule, the registered items will stay registered and will be SBR's unless they are removed by the owners. The amnestied SBR's are legally registered SBR's starting the date of F1 approval. No NFA device has ever been removed from the NFA, by the ATF, due to a change in rules.
View Quote



Agree 100%.  I believe that is why the form 1 said "exempt", as opposed to "forbearance".  Additionally, in the exempt block of the form 1, it specially said exempt pursuant to Title 26 USC,  as opposed to the rule. Title 26 USC gives the attorney general authority to exempt most anything he wants.
Link Posted: 8/13/2023 6:32:06 PM EDT
[#2]
I just got back all 9 approvals that I submitted on 5/31 at 11:00pm.  
Link Posted: 8/13/2023 10:16:23 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jtb33:
I just got back all 9 approvals that I submitted on 5/31 at 11:00pm.  
View Quote



Did you get an email when approved?
Link Posted: 8/13/2023 10:18:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stanprophet09:



Did you get an email when approved?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stanprophet09:
Originally Posted By jtb33:
I just got back all 9 approvals that I submitted on 5/31 at 11:00pm.  



Did you get an email when approved?
Yes...  9 of them.
Link Posted: 8/13/2023 10:25:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jtb33:
Yes...  9 of them.
View Quote


Tnx

Link Posted: 8/14/2023 10:59:27 AM EDT
[#6]
I sent all four on the same day in May and have three of them back.  Approaching 90 days on it.
Link Posted: 8/15/2023 1:37:17 AM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ian187:


Actually we do know what the answer will be. It is within the Executive branch and ATF purview to create tax free entries into the NFA registry. There have been multiple examples of this over the years (1968 GCA machineguns, street sweepers, Striker 12, etc). No matter what happens with the brace rule, the registered items will stay registered and will be SBR's unless they are removed by the owners. The amnestied SBR's are legally registered SBR's starting the date of F1 approval. No NFA device has ever been removed from the NFA, by the ATF, due to a change in rules.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ian187:


Actually we do know what the answer will be. It is within the Executive branch and ATF purview to create tax free entries into the NFA registry. There have been multiple examples of this over the years (1968 GCA machineguns, street sweepers, Striker 12, etc). No matter what happens with the brace rule, the registered items will stay registered and will be SBR's unless they are removed by the owners. The amnestied SBR's are legally registered SBR's starting the date of F1 approval. No NFA device has ever been removed from the NFA, by the ATF, due to a change in rules.

No, we don't know what will happen.
You are arguing about the authority.  That isn't the question.  


None of the examples you mentioned were offered as a forbearance, and none of the examples you mentioned had the underlying "rule" from which forbearance was created, deemed illegal and possibly unconstitutional.  


The approvals LITERALLY SAY "Approval Conditions -  Pursuant to Final Rule 2012R-08F"






It is discussed in the rule itself. Final Rule 2021R-08F magically determined your braced pistol is, and had always been, an SBR.  The FreBR offer is a remedy offered by the ATF.



This revised definition reflects the Department's understanding of the best interpretation of the statute, and it is immediately effective.

See5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2). In addition, because prior ATF classifications of firearms equipped with a “brace” device did not all employ this correct understanding of the statutory terms, all such prior classifications are no longer valid as of January 31, 2023. While firearms equipped with “stabilizing braces” or other rearward attachments may be submitted to ATF for a new classification determination, a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” are likely to be classified as “rifles” because they are configured for shoulder fire based on the factors described in this rule. Because many of these firearms generally have a barrel of less than 16 inches, they are likely to be classified as short-barreled rifles subject to regulation and registration under the NFA and GCA.

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 May 31, 2023 to comply with the statutory requirements. For example, possessors of such weapons, whether an unlicensed individual or an FFL (regardless of SOT status), may register the firearms to comply with the statutory requirements. As discussed in section V.B of this preamble, ATF strongly encourages affected parties to use the eForms system (https://eforms.atf.gov) to submit an electronic version of the appropriate NFA forms. Any penalties for failure to take the necessary action for these existing firearms to comply with Federal law would result only from conduct occurring after this time period to take action ends.

Provided the registration form is properly submitted and documented within the defined time period, the Department will consider individuals to be in compliance with the statutory requirements between the date on which a person's application is filed and the date a person receives ATF approval or disapproval of the application. After the 120-day registration period following publication of this rule, registration of previously made or manufactured weapons with a “stabilizing brace” that constitute NFA firearms will not be permitted. The Department at that time may take enforcement action against any person in possession of an affected firearm that is a short-barreled rifle for which a registration has not been submitted.

Apart from registration, there are other options that are set out in section V.B. of this preamble that include modifying affected weapons to remove them from the definition of a short-barreled rifle, destroying the firearm, or surrendering the firearm to law enforcement. Registering the firearm or modifying the configuration of such a firearm within the defined time period will enable affected persons to lawfully retain possession of their firearm under Federal law. While possessors of such weapons will themselves be able to apply the factors outlined in the amended regulatory text, ATF is publishing information simultaneously with this rule that will inform the public of both (1) common weapon platforms with attached “stabilizing brace” designs and (2) examples of commercially available firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” that are short-barreled rifles. Additionally, an individual may contact ATF to receive a determination of whether their firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” is a rifle as defined by the GCA and NFA.

The Department has determined that, as a matter of its own enforcement discretion, it will not, as the NPRM suggested as an option, require individuals and FFLs without an SOT that timely register their affected weapons with a “stabilizing brace,” which are in their possession as of the date this rule is published, to pay the $200 making tax usually due upon submission of such an application to register. Likewise, Type 7 FFLs (regardless of SOT status) that timely register the weapons with a “stabilizing brace” that qualify as an NFA firearm and that are still in their inventory—

i.e.,

that have not been sold or otherwise transferred—will not owe any making tax for these weapons. Furthermore, the Department has determined that, as a matter of its own enforcement discretion, it will not seek to collect retroactive taxes (

i.e.,

$200 making or $200 transfer tax) typically required for each weapon with a “stabilizing brace” that qualifies as an NFA firearm that was manufactured or transferred at any time prior to the date of the publication of this final rule.

See

section V.C.


1. The ATF has discretion to do what they want regarding the tax, including to go after it retroactively if they so choose.
2. If there is no rule, because it was deemed illegal and possibly unconstitutional, it would mean that your braced pistol was never an illegal SBR, thus there was nothing to remedy.  There would be no need for a FreeBR.


Now the question no one actually knows, is what will happen if/when this thing gets tossed.  Will the ATF try again with a new rule?  Will the say F it and let you keep it?  Will they send a letter that says "Due to the rule being tossed, the forbearance that was pursuant to that rule has been dissolved.  Your firearms must be returned to a non-NFA status or you must send us some pics and a couple of C-notes to complete a standard Form 1."?  Will they not say anything, and no one will be sure what will happen until some gun-grabber comes along and says...."250,000 FreeBR's at 200 bucks a pop is $50,00,000 that could be used Covid/Migrants/drag-queen shows in school/ect..."    

No one knows...
If the ATF comes back and asks you for $200, what are you going to to do?  Point to Final Rule 2012R-08F that said you would not be charged?  They are going to say that Final Rule 2012R-08F was rejected by the courts and does not exist.  
Are you gong to point the laws that allow them to Forbear the tax?  They are going to say "Yeah, and we did that in Pursuant to Final Rule 2012F-08F that was noted as a condition of approval, which was rejected by the courts and no longer exists."  It will be up to the AG and ATF to decide how they want to proceed after that.
Link Posted: 8/16/2023 1:14:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: EDL] [#8]
Well said.  It's kind of hilarious though as the ATF will have a lot of egg on their faces and a conundrum.  "They" view braced pistols as SBR's, it just makes me giggle a little that IF the rule is tossed and they say you no longer have a legal SBR and you either put a brace back on it or pay up, then we go back to our braced pistols which are still SBR's in their minds.  That thought has to make some of them squirm.

IF it's tossed and IF they say I have to pay up to keep an SBR, I will do so as I was planning to make an SBR before all this crap kicked in any way,  but it would be nice if all I had to do was send them $200 and get the lower engraved without having to go through all the resubmittal of another form 1..I mean, they already have the lower in the registry and it's approved (even if it is pursuant to their stupid rule).

I have no illusions that they'd do something that simple though.  If they lose this case, they're gonna do everything in their power to make this as big of a pain in the ass as they possibly can.  I'm still hopeful that in all this wrangling combined with other, not necessarily gun related cases recently, that somewhere, somehow some lawyers can go after barrel length restrictions and suppressors and get that shit tossed from the NFA completely.  Neither of those make any sense whatsoever.  I also have a pipe dream where the entire NFA gets tossed, but at the very least, I'd accept machine guns stay in the NFA, but the stupid "manufactured prior to 1986" rule gets tossed.  The end result would mean more affordable full auto firearms, and for that, I'd pay $200 and wait.
Link Posted: 8/21/2023 5:23:49 PM EDT
[#9]
The rest of mine are trickling in.
Link Posted: 8/21/2023 5:49:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GLOCKshooter:
The rest of mine are trickling in.
View Quote
I got my 27th (and last) approval about a week ago.
Link Posted: 8/22/2023 6:57:38 PM EDT
[#11]
What is the general time frame for one’s filed under trusts. I see individuals are coming back sooner it appears.
I know it is still all over the place and just a roll of the dice.
Link Posted: 8/23/2023 1:23:30 PM EDT
[#12]
I filed 2 under a trust back on 3/18.  One was approved on 5/16, the other I'm still waiting.  The one I'm waiting on was stuck in Pending Research for 6 weeks just because the caliber wasn't in their drop down options.
Link Posted: 8/26/2023 12:03:07 AM EDT
[#13]
I had one take 4 weeks and another took 5 months - go figure.
Link Posted: 8/28/2023 4:12:34 PM EDT
[#14]
I got 5 of 8 on 6/22. Submitted on 5/5. Still waiting on the other 3. So weird that they'd batch approve 5 and not all 8.
Link Posted: 8/28/2023 5:56:33 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panthermark:

No one knows...
If the ATF comes back and asks you for $200, what are you going to to do?  
View Quote


Dear ATF, since your unconstitutional rule was overturned, by the judiciary, and you have subsequently renigged on your freebr; I no longer wish to participate in the schnanighans you initiated, nor convert my legal pistol to an SBR. I will not be paying the $200 tax, and you can rip up my application.

K thnx bye
Link Posted: 8/30/2023 6:46:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: carbineone1964] [#16]
Question, do you have to keep the Brace on after the "free" approval? Or can the Brace be swapped out for a regular stock and the brace discarded into the trash can?
Link Posted: 8/30/2023 6:56:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Glocked] [#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By carbineone1964:
Question, do you have to keep the Brace after the "free" approval? Or can the Brace be swapped out for a regular stock and the brace discarded into the trash can?
View Quote

In their eyes, the brace was a regular stock all along. So you can leave it on, toss it, sell it, give it away, or use it on a 16”+ gun.
Link Posted: 8/30/2023 6:57:43 PM EDT
[#18]
Thanks
Link Posted: 8/30/2023 7:28:49 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By carbineone1964:
Question, do you have to keep the Brace on after the "free" approval? Or can the Brace be swapped out for a regular stock and the brace discarded into the trash can?
View Quote



It is written in the rule. Once approved a stock.
Link Posted: 8/30/2023 7:51:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Stowe] [#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MAZDOG:



It is written in the rule. Once approved a stock.
View Quote

They view the brace as a stock. If you go to the ATF website and look at the FAQ section it specifically says that you can put a stock on it. It's a registered SBR. Not different than any other.
Edit: I wouldn't throw away the brace. Until all this shit irons out you never know, you might need it again.
Link Posted: 8/30/2023 9:43:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Never thought of that.. But if the rules change again, and the Courts say the Brace is OK again. I would still not put it back on..I would then just pay the 200.00 to use a regular stock as I did with my Berettta.. But I think if a Court ends up saying Braces are OK again, I do not think the same Court will let them take the Registered Forms back. Those that got in will be Grandfathered in with the Paperwork they already received. But who knows, maybe not..Just my thought on it..Your thoughts may vary..
Link Posted: 8/30/2023 11:22:06 PM EDT
[#22]
If you’re on the list, you’re never coming off.
Braces are done, like it or not, it’s really not going to matter what the court says.
You got a free one or you pay $200.
Link Posted: 8/31/2023 12:26:37 AM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 3-gun:
If you’re on the list, you’re never coming off.
Braces are done, like it or not, it’s really not going to matter what the court says.
You got a free one or you pay $200.
View Quote


Put me at the top of the list.

My goal is to be first on all the Communists Unconstitutional lists.
Link Posted: 8/31/2023 9:42:14 AM EDT
[#24]
I would have to wander how many that oppose the free stamps, would not jump at the chance at another Machine Gun Amnesty? I am guessing near all of them would..
Link Posted: 8/31/2023 10:23:02 AM EDT
[#25]
No one knows exactly how any of this will play out if the brace ban is vacated by the court.  At this point all we know is that the 5th Circuit has sent the Mock v. Garland case back down to the District (Judge O'Conner), for him to look at again.  It's important as O'Conner initially denied an injunction to the plaintiffs (he did not believe the plaintiffs would win their case based on its merits).  The 5th decided otherwise and basically said the plaintiffs would probably win their case on its merits....and that's a huge distinction.  Typically, when a court believes a case will be won on merit, it's almost a slam dunk the injunction will be granted as that is typically the most difficult hurdle.  O'Conner won't be considering that portion of the case as the 5th has already ruled on that part.  At this point, O'Conner will look at the level of damages being claimed in the case, so at this point it's more of a question as to whether the injunction will be granted only to the plaintiffs, or if it will be a nationwide injunction.

Of course, the ATF is going to probably file an emergency appeal and ultimately this will most likely make it to the SCOTUS. How long that's going to take, we don't know.

Either way, under the assumption the case does go to the SCOTUS and IF they rule the ban is unconstitutional,  the question is what happens with the approvals granted under condition?  The approvals hinge on the condition, since the condition would no longer apply, and the fact no tax was paid and no engraving was required on the lower, logically then, you'd have two choices:  pay $200, engrave the lower and make it an SBR under the standard rules, or return the firearm back to pre-ban "pistol" configuration.  Under law, if the ban is over turned, it's as if it never existed.

As for your firearm being in the registry, that's a simple administrative issue.  The ATF may be directed to remove them, or to recategorize them outside the NFA (think what happens if you were to return an SBR to rifle config and notify them it is no longer an SBR and never will be again).

Is it possible we may be able to keep our conditionally approved SBR's as SBR's?  It's possible, but my money is on us having to revert them back to pistols, with the same pre-ban "rules for pistols", or pay up and engrave.
Link Posted: 8/31/2023 3:19:41 PM EDT
[#26]
I myself doubt the SCOTUS will ever agree to hear the case at all. They take very few 2nd Amendment cases on, and I do not see that they will consider this issue to be very important to them, To us yes, to them, no.  It is a somewhat friendlier SCOTUS now, but they are still not going to take on 2nd Amendment cases in mass anymore than did before. I do not even think this is one to hang much hope on at the SCOTUS myself, much more important 2nd Amendment concerns need to have priority over this Brace thing in my opinion anyway..

Knowing they shy away from 2nd cases, I would much rather see something different be heard than this on a priority basis. Yes it would be nice to have em all heard, that is not going to happen though.. And even when they agree to hear a 2nd Amendment case, they screw it up anyway.. They squandered away a great opportunity last year that could have resolved the whole Constitutional Carry thing. But they failed.  On that thought, our CC goes into effect here in NE in just 9 short days, finally..  I actually put in alot of behind the scenes time, and effort to see that through and getting it passed....

Link Posted: 8/31/2023 9:40:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Stowe:

They view the brace as a stock. If you go to the ATF website and look at the FAQ section it specifically says that you can put a stock on it. It's a registered SBR. Not different than any other.
Edit: I wouldn't throw away the brace. Until all this shit irons out you never know, you might need it again.
View Quote



In the FAQ on page 5 it says once it’s registered u can put on a stock. Not until u have an APPROVED form 1 u can remove brace and install stock.
I’m saying u can’t till u have approved form 1. Which is what it states
Link Posted: 8/31/2023 11:46:46 PM EDT
[#28]
I dunno, the chance this brace thing makes it to SCOTUS is 50/50.  It's possible a federal appeals court could end the entire thing if/when the ATF does appeal (you know they're going to), but given the current political climate, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.  If the district does grant the injunction, it'll only be good for something like 60 days.
Link Posted: 9/1/2023 2:48:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Jodan1776] [#29]
I no longer give a fuck about any of it.   I submitted 2 as individual with EFTs back in mid-January.   Other than an emailed acknowledgement of receipt, nothing since.    By now I have completely lost interest in the stupid mess and have dismantled everything, so I no longer have any of it.  Fuck those idiots.
Link Posted: 9/1/2023 6:44:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CJofFL] [#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MAZDOG:
In the FAQ on page 5 it says once it’s registered u can put on a stock. Not until u have an APPROVED form 1 u can remove brace and install stock.
I’m saying u can’t till u have approved form 1. Which is what it states
View Quote


That’s not what the Final Register states. It is supposedly the “law” that people should follow, not some or many, FAQs or webpages. It says they’re illegal SBRs as of publication and the remedy they offer to keep them SBRs is to apply, nothing more. It doesn’t even state they need to be approved, only that one apply.

Not saying anyone should do anything different than they are now, just that the ATF makes up stuff all the time. They went through the trouble of doing all this via the Final Register and that’s what it says.

ETA: considering the register is about 100 pages long already, you’d think they would have some short verbiage from a FAQ . Also, not sure what someone that reads and follows the register is supposed to do if they later, or never, see the FAQ.
Link Posted: 9/1/2023 7:34:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jodan1776:
I no longer give a fuck about any of it.   I submitted 2 as individual with EFTs back in mid-January.   Other than an emailed acknowledgement of receipt, nothing since.    By now I have completely lost interest in the stupid mess and have dismantled everything, so I no longer have any of it.  Fuck those idiots.
View Quote

So you got the submitted email and you still dismantled everything?
That makes no sense
What you going to do when it’s approved?
Damn you’re really showing them
Link Posted: 9/5/2023 10:02:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By carbineone1964:
I myself doubt the SCOTUS will ever agree to hear the case at all.
View Quote

Why wouldn't they... it goes against Bruen and it's govt overreach by an agency ala EPA.

Both cases they have already settled that are being ignored by an agency of the executive branch. To further exacerbate the issue there is an injunction against the ATF (Mock in the 5th circuit) that the ATF are just ignoring and approving amnesty sbrs as if it didn't exist.

Doesn't sound like a better case for SCOTUS to take up.
Link Posted: 9/5/2023 10:05:33 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By EDL:
No one knows exactly how any of this will play out if the brace ban is vacated by the court.  At this point all we know is that the 5th Circuit has sent the Mock v. Garland case back down to the District (Judge O'Conner), for him to look at again.  It's important as O'Conner initially denied an injunction to the plaintiffs (he did not believe the plaintiffs would win their case based on its merits).  The 5th decided otherwise and basically said the plaintiffs would probably win their case on its merits....and that's a huge distinction.  Typically, when a court believes a case will be won on merit, it's almost a slam dunk the injunction will be granted as that is typically the most difficult hurdle.  O'Conner won't be considering that portion of the case as the 5th has already ruled on that part.  At this point, O'Conner will look at the level of damages being claimed in the case, so at this point it's more of a question as to whether the injunction will be granted only to the plaintiffs, or if it will be a nationwide injunction.

Of course, the ATF is going to probably file an emergency appeal and ultimately this will most likely make it to the SCOTUS. How long that's going to take, we don't know.

Either way, under the assumption the case does go to the SCOTUS and IF they rule the ban is unconstitutional,  the question is what happens with the approvals granted under condition?  The approvals hinge on the condition, since the condition would no longer apply, and the fact no tax was paid and no engraving was required on the lower, logically then, you'd have two choices:  pay $200, engrave the lower and make it an SBR under the standard rules, or return the firearm back to pre-ban "pistol" configuration.  Under law, if the ban is over turned, it's as if it never existed.

As for your firearm being in the registry, that's a simple administrative issue.  The ATF may be directed to remove them, or to recategorize them outside the NFA (think what happens if you were to return an SBR to rifle config and notify them it is no longer an SBR and never will be again).

Is it possible we may be able to keep our conditionally approved SBR's as SBR's?  It's possible, but my money is on us having to revert them back to pistols, with the same pre-ban "rules for pistols", or pay up and engrave.
View Quote

Is the ATF going to recompense individuals for costs incurred? Fingerprints and postage come immediately to mind.
Link Posted: 9/6/2023 12:25:21 AM EDT
[#34]
Probably not, not everyone had to pay anything.  It would have cost me zero dollars, but I voluntarily paid $50 to the Silencer Shop to process my form for me.  All I had to do was to go to my local SOT and have him update my photo in the SS kiosk and I went to SS's sight, paid for the processing and sent them the required photos of my lower.  My prints were already in their system from back when I bought my SiCo suppressor.  Only other thing I had to do was create my account with ATF and link it to the SS paperwork and then wait.  Yeah, I could have probably managed it all on my own, but for $50 it was worth them handling everything to ensure all the T's were crossed and the I's dotted.   I didn't want to have the hassle of a rejection for something stupid (which the entire thing is to begin with).  I guess my point is, there was no required money for me to do this, the $50 was totally voluntary on my part.  I would assume that's how they'll view it because it's not like you HAD to register, you had other options, just maybe not the ones you wanted.

I could be wrong, who knows at this point, a lot of different things could happen, but I just think from a logical legal point, if the ban is vacated, the conditions no longer exist.  They'll have to do something.  What that will be remains to be seen if/when the ban is over turned.
Link Posted: 9/6/2023 6:54:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Your time has no value? I know what my employer charges for an hour of my time... it's shocking.
Link Posted: 9/7/2023 1:36:10 AM EDT
[#36]
You really think the ATF/government is going to pay you back for your time to register?
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 9:52:50 AM EDT
[#37]
Maybe they just admit they fucked up and all the registered braced pistol things become a special class on their own. Supreme Court is too busy to ear bullshit nonsense like this. No one is impacted by the lawsuit not going anywhere.  Millions of braces aren’t being seized by the authorities.  Felons aren’t filling up the jails over it. No one is being hurt except on the internet.
Link Posted: 9/10/2023 10:52:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: EDL] [#38]
The reasons given have nothing to do with whether the SCOTUS will hear it or not.  When/if the ATF files an appeal (which they will certainly do if the ban is vacated by a lower court), very well could go to them depending what the appellate court decides.  Once directed to the SCOTUS, they'd have to make cert on the case and then they'd rule, or they might decide not to hear it and remand it back down.  With all the BS rules the ATF and Garland are throwing around, the impetus of the big picture may cause them to decide to weigh in.  We'll just have to see.

You do know the forced reset trigger thing is back in the courts again now too.  It's in an interesting predicament at the moment as a district court in Texas has granted a TRO for the plaintiffs, but another district court in New York has struck down a similar suit.  I wouldn't be surprised if that one goes to SCOTUS for a final yay or nay on whether FRT's are machine guns or not.  By the very definition given in law, it is not, but the ATF has said they are, so we'll see what happens there.

I doubt braced pistols will become their own category.  What would it become?  By our laws it's either going to be a pistol or a short barrel rifle.  ATF might want to make it something else, but there are no laws describing such a thing.  The ATF doesn't have the authority to create a new category because that would require a law, which they can't create.  I know, I know, they make all sorts of rules that carry the full force of law, but they don't, and can't actually create laws.  In this case, a law would have to exist, including the definitions to go with it before "braced pistols" could be something other than pistol or SBR.  They could perhaps, petition congress to create such, but it isn't going to happen, it wouldn't be successful, especially if the new category maintained an NFA affiliation as that would circumvent the ruling that braces don't make pistols into SBR's (assuming the ban is struck down).  An additional law, or change to an existing law would require a bill that would in turn require a majority vote in both the house and senate to pass for presidential signature.  I seriously doubt they'd get the majority vote for such a new law in both houses.
Link Posted: 9/12/2023 8:29:26 AM EDT
[#39]
They could make all the registered braced pistols a short barreled rifle, say amnesty is the reason and the fee was not required.  Then people without free SBRs can sue and say ‘well I didn’t get mine. You don’t have the authority…’
Link Posted: 9/12/2023 8:35:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: durtychemist] [#40]
Double tap
Link Posted: 9/12/2023 1:16:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By EDL:
You really think the ATF/government is going to pay you back for your time to register?
View Quote

Pretty sure it should have been a consideration in the cost impact of the rule that they did.

If I were suing an individual I'd have an expectation of being able to claim lost earnings, so why not.
Link Posted: 9/13/2023 1:56:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: EDL] [#42]
IF you sue for it.  I highly doubt there'll be any consideration for it without specific language in the suit seeking to over turn the ban.  I'm definitely NOT a lawyer, but over the years as I started paying attention to cases and the outcomes, one thing I've learned is that NOTHING is ever considered on implication or "common sense."  EVERYTHING has to be spelled out to a T. That's why a lot of disclaimers, for example, are often long winded and seem to be repetitive, it's "legaleze."  Ever run into one of those people who just never seem to "get it" and you have to literally spell everything out for them?  Yeah, courts and cases are kind like that.  I've even seen cases where the plaintiffs were denied, even though you know the judge wanted to side with them, simply because the claims in the suit weren't the correct wording.  They just didn't use the right precedent or sue for the right reason.

IF such recompense is not part of the suit, the question then is, how much "value" do you feel you expended in filing your form, and is spending several thousand dollars for a lawyer to try to get it back going to net you any gain in that respect?  Unless of course, you're willing to spend more than what you'll get back.
Link Posted: 9/13/2023 2:22:21 AM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By durtychemist:
They could make all the registered braced pistols a short barreled rifle, say amnesty is the reason and the fee was not required.  Then people without free SBRs can sue and say ‘well I didn’t get mine. You don’t have the authority…’
View Quote


If that's what happens, sure, people who didn't get theirs can sue if they want to.  But, if the ban (the conditions for the FreeBR) are removed, then it's as if they never existed.  Having the amnesty and the FreeBR are completely based on the existence of that rule (which no longer exists at that point).  What are the options at that point:

The AG may waive his hand and say that everyone who filed under amnesty may keep their SBR's since they are registered under the NFA, but from that point on, everyone has to file through the standard process (i.e. $200 tax and lower engraving). - The potential issue here, is as you said, a lawsuit.  That suit might have some standing in that without the conditions there is no reason for anyone to have or keep those "special" SBR's if no one else can have one (yes, a lot of crying will ensue because people don't like it when someone else has something they can't).

The AG may say that since the conditions for the amnesty no longer exist, those with FreeBR's must revert their firearms back to pistol configuration.  If they wish to keep the SBR, then pay $200 and engrave the lower. - potential lawsuit as well.  However, due to the laws, the chances of losing this avenue of approach is less than the one above.  This provides the "cleanest" retro overall.  No "special untaxed, unengraved "SBR's" out there (which technically at that point would be a special firearm different from all other NFA firearms in the absence of the very condition that they were created).
Link Posted: 9/18/2023 6:30:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Bishop3] [#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 3-gun:
If you’re on the list, you’re never coming off.
Braces are done, like it or not, it’s really not going to matter what the court says.
You got a free one or you pay $200.
View Quote


Read this excellent synopsis & non-lawyer accurate opinion easy and not complicated

'We the people' must have SBRs & suppressors removed from NFA registry & ATF purview all together. SBRs, AOWs, Silencers, Machine guns should all be over the counter items.

Currently, free or 'tax exempt' is better than paying a $200 tax.
Link Posted: 9/18/2023 1:41:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panthermark:

No, we don't know what will happen.
You are arguing about the authority.  That isn't the question.  


None of the examples you mentioned were offered as a forbearance, and none of the examples you mentioned had the underlying "rule" from which forbearance was created, deemed illegal and possibly unconstitutional.  


The approvals LITERALLY SAY "Approval Conditions -  Pursuant to Final Rule 2012R-08F"


https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1696/0313/files/approval-w-conditions_1024x1024.jpg?v=1678486345

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1696/0313/files/approval-w-conditions1_1024x1024.jpg?v=1678486379

It is discussed in the rule itself. Final Rule 2021R-08F magically determined your braced pistol is, and had always been, an SBR.  The FreBR offer is a remedy offered by the ATF.





1. The ATF has discretion to do what they want regarding the tax, including to go after it retroactively if they so choose.
2. If there is no rule, because it was deemed illegal and possibly unconstitutional, it would mean that your braced pistol was never an illegal SBR, thus there was nothing to remedy.  There would be no need for a FreeBR.


Now the question no one actually knows, is what will happen if/when this thing gets tossed.  Will the ATF try again with a new rule?  Will the say F it and let you keep it?  Will they send a letter that says "Due to the rule being tossed, the forbearance that was pursuant to that rule has been dissolved.  Your firearms must be returned to a non-NFA status or you must send us some pics and a couple of C-notes to complete a standard Form 1."?  Will they not say anything, and no one will be sure what will happen until some gun-grabber comes along and says...."250,000 FreeBR's at 200 bucks a pop is $50,00,000 that could be used Covid/Migrants/drag-queen shows in school/ect..."    

No one knows...
If the ATF comes back and asks you for $200, what are you going to to do?  Point to Final Rule 2012R-08F that said you would not be charged?  They are going to say that Final Rule 2012R-08F was rejected by the courts and does not exist.  
Are you gong to point the laws that allow them to Forbear the tax?  They are going to say "Yeah, and we did that in Pursuant to Final Rule 2012F-08F that was noted as a condition of approval, which was rejected by the courts and no longer exists."  It will be up to the AG and ATF to decide how they want to proceed after that.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By panthermark:
Originally Posted By ian187:


Actually we do know what the answer will be. It is within the Executive branch and ATF purview to create tax free entries into the NFA registry. There have been multiple examples of this over the years (1968 GCA machineguns, street sweepers, Striker 12, etc). No matter what happens with the brace rule, the registered items will stay registered and will be SBR's unless they are removed by the owners. The amnestied SBR's are legally registered SBR's starting the date of F1 approval. No NFA device has ever been removed from the NFA, by the ATF, due to a change in rules.

No, we don't know what will happen.
You are arguing about the authority.  That isn't the question.  


None of the examples you mentioned were offered as a forbearance, and none of the examples you mentioned had the underlying "rule" from which forbearance was created, deemed illegal and possibly unconstitutional.  


The approvals LITERALLY SAY "Approval Conditions -  Pursuant to Final Rule 2012R-08F"


https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1696/0313/files/approval-w-conditions_1024x1024.jpg?v=1678486345

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1696/0313/files/approval-w-conditions1_1024x1024.jpg?v=1678486379

It is discussed in the rule itself. Final Rule 2021R-08F magically determined your braced pistol is, and had always been, an SBR.  The FreBR offer is a remedy offered by the ATF.



This revised definition reflects the Department's understanding of the best interpretation of the statute, and it is immediately effective.

See5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2). In addition, because prior ATF classifications of firearms equipped with a “brace” device did not all employ this correct understanding of the statutory terms, all such prior classifications are no longer valid as of January 31, 2023. While firearms equipped with “stabilizing braces” or other rearward attachments may be submitted to ATF for a new classification determination, a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” are likely to be classified as “rifles” because they are configured for shoulder fire based on the factors described in this rule. Because many of these firearms generally have a barrel of less than 16 inches, they are likely to be classified as short-barreled rifles subject to regulation and registration under the NFA and GCA.

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 May 31, 2023 to comply with the statutory requirements. For example, possessors of such weapons, whether an unlicensed individual or an FFL (regardless of SOT status), may register the firearms to comply with the statutory requirements. As discussed in section V.B of this preamble, ATF strongly encourages affected parties to use the eForms system (https://eforms.atf.gov) to submit an electronic version of the appropriate NFA forms. Any penalties for failure to take the necessary action for these existing firearms to comply with Federal law would result only from conduct occurring after this time period to take action ends.

Provided the registration form is properly submitted and documented within the defined time period, the Department will consider individuals to be in compliance with the statutory requirements between the date on which a person's application is filed and the date a person receives ATF approval or disapproval of the application. After the 120-day registration period following publication of this rule, registration of previously made or manufactured weapons with a “stabilizing brace” that constitute NFA firearms will not be permitted. The Department at that time may take enforcement action against any person in possession of an affected firearm that is a short-barreled rifle for which a registration has not been submitted.

Apart from registration, there are other options that are set out in section V.B. of this preamble that include modifying affected weapons to remove them from the definition of a short-barreled rifle, destroying the firearm, or surrendering the firearm to law enforcement. Registering the firearm or modifying the configuration of such a firearm within the defined time period will enable affected persons to lawfully retain possession of their firearm under Federal law. While possessors of such weapons will themselves be able to apply the factors outlined in the amended regulatory text, ATF is publishing information simultaneously with this rule that will inform the public of both (1) common weapon platforms with attached “stabilizing brace” designs and (2) examples of commercially available firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” that are short-barreled rifles. Additionally, an individual may contact ATF to receive a determination of whether their firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” is a rifle as defined by the GCA and NFA.

The Department has determined that, as a matter of its own enforcement discretion, it will not, as the NPRM suggested as an option, require individuals and FFLs without an SOT that timely register their affected weapons with a “stabilizing brace,” which are in their possession as of the date this rule is published, to pay the $200 making tax usually due upon submission of such an application to register. Likewise, Type 7 FFLs (regardless of SOT status) that timely register the weapons with a “stabilizing brace” that qualify as an NFA firearm and that are still in their inventory—

i.e.,

that have not been sold or otherwise transferred—will not owe any making tax for these weapons. Furthermore, the Department has determined that, as a matter of its own enforcement discretion, it will not seek to collect retroactive taxes (

i.e.,

$200 making or $200 transfer tax) typically required for each weapon with a “stabilizing brace” that qualifies as an NFA firearm that was manufactured or transferred at any time prior to the date of the publication of this final rule.

See

section V.C.


1. The ATF has discretion to do what they want regarding the tax, including to go after it retroactively if they so choose.
2. If there is no rule, because it was deemed illegal and possibly unconstitutional, it would mean that your braced pistol was never an illegal SBR, thus there was nothing to remedy.  There would be no need for a FreeBR.


Now the question no one actually knows, is what will happen if/when this thing gets tossed.  Will the ATF try again with a new rule?  Will the say F it and let you keep it?  Will they send a letter that says "Due to the rule being tossed, the forbearance that was pursuant to that rule has been dissolved.  Your firearms must be returned to a non-NFA status or you must send us some pics and a couple of C-notes to complete a standard Form 1."?  Will they not say anything, and no one will be sure what will happen until some gun-grabber comes along and says...."250,000 FreeBR's at 200 bucks a pop is $50,00,000 that could be used Covid/Migrants/drag-queen shows in school/ect..."    

No one knows...
If the ATF comes back and asks you for $200, what are you going to to do?  Point to Final Rule 2012R-08F that said you would not be charged?  They are going to say that Final Rule 2012R-08F was rejected by the courts and does not exist.  
Are you gong to point the laws that allow them to Forbear the tax?  They are going to say "Yeah, and we did that in Pursuant to Final Rule 2012F-08F that was noted as a condition of approval, which was rejected by the courts and no longer exists."  It will be up to the AG and ATF to decide how they want to proceed after that.


Have you ever seen a published rule get unpublished? Not once in the history of the ATF.
Link Posted: 9/19/2023 10:47:26 PM EDT
[#46]
Approved today! 4/5/23 -9/19/23! Pics will be coming!

Don't give up hope, its coming fellow patience seekers!
Link Posted: 9/21/2023 12:08:39 PM EDT
[#47]
Last Form 1 finally approved this morning.

All of them were submitted the week prior to the deadline.
Link Posted: 9/21/2023 2:26:40 PM EDT
[#48]
My last one was approved today.  I had submitted 4 total SBR forms on 5/28:  1 paid, 3 free.

They were approved as follows:
Paid Form1:  7/10/23
Brace Form1:  8/17/23
Brace Form1:  8/24/23
Brace Form1:  9/21/23

Rob
Link Posted: 9/21/2023 3:02:43 PM EDT
[#49]
Applied 4/5/23. Just got approval today, 9/21/23. Bout time! Wasn't worried about how fast I got it, but it's nice that the wait is over.
Link Posted: 9/21/2023 9:53:31 PM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GySgt_D:
Last Form 1 finally approved this morning.

All of them were submitted the week prior to the deadline.
View Quote


Same here, 4 submitted last week of May, last one approved today.
Page / 16
Free SBR stamp? (Page 13 of 16)
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top