Question about removing a braced pistol-now-SBR from SBR configuration / registry requirements:

Let's say an individual has a Smith & Wesson 15-22P "Braced Pistol' that has now been arbitrarily reclassified by the ATF as a "Short Barrel Rifle".

The following "Compliance Options" are possible and advised by ATF in their guide https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/what-are-compliance-options-individual-non-licensee-possession-firearm-equipped-

Option 1. DO Remove SB Tactical arm brace, and don't register it. it is now a legal "pistol', not a "rifle", according to ATF.
or
Option 2. DON'T remove SB Tactical arm brace, and register it. it is now a legal "SBR", not a "pistol" according to ATF (currently under "tax forbearance" no charge).


But then later, this individual wants to sell it.


If they had gone with Option 1, they may sell the first one (never registered as an SBR) as a pistol, just like always, but with no SB brace included in the sale (as it was removed and disposed of).

If they had gone with Option 2, they may Form 4 transfer it as an SBR.
or alternatively
If they had gone with Option 2, they may   keeping with the normal SBR guidance that has been in effect for years   they may remove the short upper and sell lower and upper to two different buyers with no NFA paperwork, or put on a 16" upper and sell "long" rifle with no NFA paperwork needed.

BUT

If they want to remove the now-SBR from NFA requirements, keeping with the normal SBR guidance that has been in effect for years, is there a new potential option? Can they remove the SB arm brace from the SBR, and sell as a pistol? The 15-22P would be configured EXACTLY like the unregistered, legal, pistol 15-22P in Option 1. Not "similarly"   EXACTLY.

I feel like the legal twist / logic exercise in play here will have people claiming "Once a rifle/SBR it remains a rifle, not a pistol". BUT, according to the Final Rule, the ATF considered it to be an unregistered SBR all along, so it's always been a rifle, uh, unless you make it a pistol by removing the arm brace. (So which is it, ATF?)

The logic of it being a rifle all along fails because someone can take the brace off, no need to NFA register it, ATF says it's a legal pistol. So if it does get registered and it's an SBR for a literal minute, but the individual changes their mind, and takes the arm brace off, is that all that is necessary to "unregister" or "de-SBR" it because it's a pristol / short-sort-of-barrel-rifle-but-not-really-kind-of?

Obligatory Biden boo, ATF sux, etc., but... this goofy Rule that millions won't comply with (rightly) continues to confuse!

Do I have it correct that:

*I* could have a 15-22P, never NFA registered, but brace is permanently removed, that ATF says never became a rifle/SBR and is just a legal pistol that can be sold with no NFA paperwork,

and

*someone else* could have a 15-22P, NFA registered, but brace is permanently removed, that ATF says is *still* a rifle/SBR, even though it is configured exactly the same as the pistol above, and therefore would be guilty of illegal transfer if they sold it without a Form 4?

I don't think there's ever been an NFA classification that allows the same exact firearm configuration to be either "legal" or "not legal", owner's choice.

THAT's going to be even weirder for the government to prosecute and explain than why a May 20, 1986 machinegun is more dangerous than a May 19, 1986 machinegun!

That's not a new option.

You've always been able to remove the stock (or otherwise make a SBR not a SBR) from any SBR that started as either a pistol or a stripped receiver. Once it meets a Title I definition, you can simply transfer it as a Title I (GCA) firearm.

This part:
is not correct.

To confirm: You're saying you can take the buttstock off a 9" SBR AR15 that started life as a pistol, but then ATF says it actually started life / was always a rifle, and it was even "amnesty" NFA *registered as a rifle* to confirm this, and then it's again if you take the brace off, it's no longer a rifle but a pistol? (I know it's no longer an SBR once it loses the short barrel or buttstock, or whatever SBR characteristic).

Copy-pasted from some web understood guidance on rifle vs. pistol: "A factory fresh AR lower receiver that has never been part of a firearm can be used to build a pistol, carbine or rifle. If a lower receiver is built into and registered as a pistol first, it can be stripped down and converted into a rifle in the future. If the receiver built into a carbine or rifle first, it must always remain part of a rifle and cannot ever be used to build a pistol."

It wouldn't be a stripped lower at that point, rather a functional 9" barrel AR15 with just the buffer tube.

Yes.

Right.

You could still have "constructive possession" if you possess the stock and the pistol, with no other long gun that could accept the stock. Add a 16"(+) upper to the pile, and that's no longer a concern. (Per the old T/C case law.)

My understanding from SOTs and FFLs is for Option 1 - just removing the brace is not enough. The receiver extension must round and “smooth” - and not slotted for locking a brace on. May just be an interpretation by someone’s lawyer.

If you remove a brace from a firearm with a milspec receiver extension - it still can accept a brace or stock.

I am seeing the old style round extensions all over the place again.

I don't see where ATF has stated that.
Someone would have to show me.

They published language about it being permanently removed, but I think that was just to satisfy the constructive possession concern.

It was never a problem with Luger pistols having a stock lug (although some fools ground them off anyway). Even the non-C&R repro Lugers were made with stock lugs.

I've seen nothing showing a change in ATF policy regarding that. There are older published opinions from them stating that standard carbine receiver extensions are ok on AR pistols.

FWIW - there are no new rules for how SBRs are treated, all the same rules apply.

Obviously braced pistols are now considered SBRs, but SBR rules themselves are unchanged.

Also two identical firearms, one being Title 1 and the other being Title 2 (NFA), is nothing new and not even uncommon.

I'm drawing a blank: what other firearm examples can be identical but either non NFA or NFA?

And the crux of the original post is that the M&P15-22P is now considered a rifle (a short barrel one), so the question is really "does the once-a-rifle-can't-become-a-pistol" just because the buttstock/brace is removed apply here?
What DOES the 15-22P become if the brace is removed? A pistol? If so, how does that happen if ATF says it was initially a rifle? If I take the buttstock off a Colt 6920, it doesn't become a pistol

I think you are confusing Title I and Title II firearm regs. The point with the new rule to re-classify what a Pistol is. If you remove the brace and put a pistol buffer on it, it still is a Title I pistol.  The brace, or the ability to accept a brace, is what they are going after to force it into the Title II realm.  

Same NFA rules apply; it is all about configuration. Take any SBR and add an upper >16" and poof- just like that - it reverts to a Title I firearm and follows Title I rules.  Still have it in the registry, then just throw on the short upper and then follow Title II rules. Lather-rinse-repeat. Same if it was a pistol to begin with, you can swap configurations across the board.

You can sell it configured as a Title I firearm, but the new buyer wouldn't be able to register that serial # in the NFA Registry unless you notify the ATF/NFA to disassociate your name with that serial #.  Remember once it's in the registry, it never gets removed.  It just updates the registry that that serial is no longer associated as Title II, allowing others to register it as such.

You are probably overthinking it.  Thats what the bureaucrats want.

No, because it started life as a Title I rifle.



Yes. A Title I pistol if a buffer that cannot accept a brace or stock is added before the 120 grace period is over.

At the time the original pistol was sold, it was sold as a pistol given the rules at the time of sale.  If one re-configures the pistol to remove the brace and ability to accept the brace, it will have been a pistol all along and remain as such.

Thats why there is a 120 day window for people to make that decision.  Do you want to keep the brace and convert it to an SBR, or re-configure the pistol to meet the new definition.

The original manufacturer would have listed that pistol on a Form 2. ATF can't say it was originally a rifle.
If it was a lower receiver listed on that Form 2, ATF can't say it was originally a rifle because they have no way to know what the original configuration was.




There is no "amnesty". There is no registration requirement for a rifle. ATF has via the rule determined that pistols with arm braces are now SBR's. Remove the arm brace as described in ATF options and you have a pistol. (or as KitBuilder wrote, having another legal configuration for that armbrace)



Thats correct, except for the bolded portion. There is no "registration" requirement in federal law or the majority of states.

The reason "first a rifle, always a rifle" is incorrect is due to  United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. in 1994. It took ATF a little while to issue Ruling 2011-4 - Pistols Configured from Rifles; Rifles Configured from Pistols which now makes it "first a rifle, always a rifle".
Meaning if a firearm is first assembled as a pistol, it can be assembled as a rifle, then subsequently reassembled as a pistol as often as desired.

There is nothing remotely close to that advice coming from ATF.

You even alluded to it with your post.

Same exact components for an AR15 setup with short barrel:

    1st had a >16" barrel and stock but later changed to a <16" barrel and no stock = SBR

    2nd had a <16" barrel and no stock from the beginning = pistol

Same exact firearms sitting on the table, one is a SBR the other is a pistol

Next example can only be determined by looking at the model: a Rem 870 with a 14" barrel and birdheads grip added, vs. factory Rem 870 Tac-14.

One is a SBS and the other is a Title 1 "firearm"

Now these are just examples that are 2 entirely identical firearms.

If you open it up to the examples that look the same such as a HK 94 with short barrel (SBR) vs. say a Cantury AP5 (pistol), you get a great number more examples