User Panel
|
|
Quoted: If you think this is lawful then go for it, or rid yourself of the offensive items. Registration is support that they can make up any rules/laws they feel like and change them on a whim. View Quote I never said I believed it was lawful, nor that I agree with it, but that isn't going to stop me from being sent to prison if I get caught is it? And they can and do make up whatever rules and laws they feel like and change them on a whim, case in point this whole shitshow |
|
|
|
|
Quoted: I was wrong. You apparently had to know this rule was coming and moved your "brace" gun to the trust prior to today. They know nobody puts non-NFA guns on trust. What a bunch of faggots. ETA: But the FAQ says this! These people have no idea what they're doing. It wasn't published today. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Accordingly, any trust that seeks to register a "stabilizing brace" equipped firearm pursuant to Final Rule 2021R-08F must include with the eForm 1 application evidence that establishes the trust is the current possessor of the "stabilizing brace" equipped firearm, and possessed it before January 13, 2023. This evidence will generally include the signed, dated, and notarized terms of the trust or trust schedules that list or provide a description of the property held in trust. Accordingly, for trust applicants, ATF will perform a thorough review of the trust documents provided with the eForm 1 application to ensure the firearm sought to be registered to the trust was property possessed by the trust before January 13, 2023. Therefore, an eForm 1 application to register a "stabilizing brace" equipped firearm to a trust will be disapproved if the applicant fails to demonstrate the trust possessed the firearm before January 13, 2023. I was wrong. You apparently had to know this rule was coming and moved your "brace" gun to the trust prior to today. They know nobody puts non-NFA guns on trust. What a bunch of faggots. ETA: But the FAQ says this! Answer: In short, a trust may not register a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” that is a short-barreled rifle pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F unless the trust can establish through documentary evidence that the trust possessed the firearm prior to the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register. These people have no idea what they're doing. It wasn't published today. Pretty sure I can append items to my trust without a notary. There is no way to prove / disprove when I appended my trust to include my braced gun. |
|
Quoted: How to "create" a national gun registry, without creating a national gun registry. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Do you think we are going to register them? Do you think we are going to sell them? How to "create" a national gun registry, without creating a national gun registry. You honestly believe they don't already have a registry of every 4473 you've ever filled out? |
|
View Quote If the standard length buffer tube "allows enough surface area to shoulder" or whatever TF the verbiage is, I'm looking for an essentially "non shoulderable" option. I already have what is essentially that buffer tube. |
|
Quoted: There’d be no classification to register it under that would only allow usage of the brace. An SBR is an SBR. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So… free form 1s for the next 4 months? Lol Not exactly. Don't you have to keep the gay brace on it? There’d be no classification to register it under that would only allow usage of the brace. An SBR is an SBR. Thank you this was my question I was going to ask. This entire BS is just a scheme to create gun laws they do not have the authority to do and turn innocent people into criminals. None of this makes absolutely no sense. This is all BS and over steps the authority of the atfe. With the swipe of a pen to automatically create millions of felons on something that's been legal for years. They are writing gun laws and by passing the congress. Fuck them and their unconstitutional BS. I'm glad I live in Florida because a lot of officer and county sheriff's will not abide by this. This is just like bump stock and triggers. The atfe basically writing law and calling them machine-guns The federal government is not just trying to turn innocent Americans into criminals. They are creating an enemy of the people that will bite them in their ass. They are trying to regulate the Bill of Rights out of existence weather it be not just the 1st but the 2nd, 4th, 5th ect.... and that's not how it's suppose to work. You cannot regulate protected rights. There is a process for that if America wants to change the BORs and this is not one of them. These dumb asses better be careful because America is at a point in time of being very volatile towards a government that no longer operates for the people. Instead they work to strip away protected rights by unconstitutional regulations not laws to gain power. The moment this Democratic Socialists extremist party siezed power the entire nation has gone to shit. Gas, food, medications, baby food everything has been reduced or just plain disappeared because of the direct actions of this Socialist threat. But they fear an armed America because they know they are just mere steps from being held accountable by the American people. Our government is not absolute. The American people are because the very first line of out founding papers this party of treason called the Democratic Socialists Party want to trash and used for toilet paper says WE THE PEOPLE not we the government. I will not comply any longer. I will not register another item. I am not a threat to my country. But this Democratic Socialists Party is a domestic terrorist group that is a danger to the very existence of America |
|
|
Quoted: If the standard length buffer tube "allows enough surface area to shoulder" or whatever TF the verbiage is, I'm looking for an essentially "non shoulderable" option. I already have what is essentially that buffer tube. View Quote I have a feeling "spiked" buffer tubes will be the next big thing... |
|
Quoted: Was it published in the register today though? View Quote So what they are saying is that if your braced gun wasn’t listed as a trust asset on your schedule A prior to the date of the publishing of the rule that they don’t accept that as proof you owned it by then? If you want to make criminals, this is how you make criminals. |
|
Quoted: . I will comply. I have wife and a family and a dog. A $700 AR pistol is not worth risking a felony charge. Anyone want to buy it? I figure I have 90 days to sell it. View Quote Why sell it? If you're worried about legal issues just put a 14.5 p/w barrel on it till this shit gets overturned. |
|
Quoted: Funny, I'm pretty sure they don't have the authority to create definitions for things that are already defined in statute. View Quote Congress has already defined what a rifle is, and not even an AR15 meets the definition. ATF can go piss up a rope as far as redefining for the public what a rifle is. |
|
Quoted: Aaaand it’ll be at least three years before any court case gets up to the USSC. Historically, there were zero restrictions on firearm length, weight, construction, barrel count or rate of fire at the time of the country’s founding. Fuck the gayTF. View Quote We can have an injunction next week if 40 million people are about to be made felons. |
|
|
Phew.. just finished reading. That is the most vague, subjective, shitty bit of administration that I have seen in a while. I've seen better out of ambulance chaser law firms.
BATFE is gonna get their shit pushed in like with bump stocks.. this makes that law look well written. |
|
On the plus side just think of all the weapons we give every terrorist group and nazi govt around the world
|
|
|
Quoted: Does this say a brace that can encompass the arm and has some type of attaching device ie: velcro strap that it is legal as is? Do you have to be a certified handicapped person to posess such a dangerous device? View Quote Pretty sure it's a HIPAA violation to ask what your disability is |
|
|
I have been printing lower receivers and braces since I got my 3D printer last year. I have several pistols in various calibers. I think I will submit a couple just to help overwhelm the system. I wonder what the marking requirements will be for a homemade firearm?
|
|
Quoted: No local LEO sign-off requirement? No engraving requirements? After "registering", do we have a legal SBR and can replace pistol brace with a real stock? This seems like one huge, setup by the ATF/AG. View Quote I read through the included eForm 1 how-to instructions and it indicates engraving and CLEO are required. |
|
Quoted: I read through the included eForm 1 how-to instructions and it indicates engraving and CLEO are required. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Hopefully? They said to document the application so provided you do that and keep it on hand, federally I don't see the issue. For me though, SBRs are apparently illegal in my state unless they're registered with the federal government, so would I chance showing one off to a state trooper without the actual stamp in hand? Probably not. Think about manufacturers like PSA. They're about to be left holding the bag of a bunch of worthless shit. It wouldn't surprise me if this caused bankruptcies. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: If that's the case, is there anything stopping us from legally removing a brace and replacing with a stock during the 120 day "amnesty" period? Quoted: So just like that, they put all the brace makers out of business.. Financial impact is a big help towards getting an injunction, especially a company that will be driven out of business and can point to their products being called out multiple times on nearly every page of the regulation. Kharn |
|
Quoted: I was wrong. You apparently had to know this rule was coming and moved your "brace" gun to the trust prior to today. They know nobody puts non-NFA guns on trust. What a bunch of faggots. ETA: But the FAQ says this! These people have no idea what they're doing. It wasn't published today. View Quote |
|
Yfw Sig, being the forward thinking proactive industry leaders that they are, ceased shipping illegal “braces” with their firearms months ago. Allowing them to divest from immovable inventory and streamline their product offerings, ensuring they would see continuous un-interrupted deliveries despite the disruptive regulatory fiasco affecting all other manufacturers presently. Simultaneously, they have protected their pistol purchasing customers from potential inadvertent violations of federal law. As such I would just like to take this moment once again to appreciate Sig Sauer USA and their steadfast commitment to both consumers and shooters alike. Their innovative approach has no equal and they truly never settle.
|
|
Quoted: Better to use serialized firearms and save the 80s for something you won't tell the government about. View Quote Funny thing about Form 1 80’s - as long as they are engraved, you can’t tell two apart. So if it gets damaged in Minecraft, you just craft another. In the real world, that’s not legal. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Nothing in the FINAL ruling starting on Pg 268 mention a "Pistol Buffer." However, there is discussion where they say they, "may consider the requirement for cycling" Discussion page 162-163 One objective design feature ATF may consider is whether the attachment is required for the cycle of operations of the weapon, which could indicate the firearm is not designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. For example, an AR-type pistol with a standard 6- to 6-1/2-inch buffer tube may not be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder even if the buffer tube provides surface area that allows the firearm to be shoulder fired. On an AR-type pistol, the buffer tube encases a spring that drives the bolt forward when the bolt is driven into the buffer tube by the gas from the initial shot. The picture below displays the internal function of an AR-15 type rifle. The AR-type pistol is a variant of the rifle with the stock removed and has the same receiver and buffer tube function of the rifle version. View Quote I see so many here glancing at a snippet of a 293 page document and concluding that all AR15 pistols will be SBRs now because they have a buffer tube. If you read the entire (often poorly worded) document, that's not what it says. If the buffer tube is there because it is a functional part of the pistol's operation, it appears fine. It's when it's not a functional part and only there to create the ability to shoulder that it's a problem and contributes to definition as an SBR. They even give the example of a Glock put into an apparatus that gives it an AR buffer tube like extension that serves no functional purpose. I'm not a lawyer but I write and interpret a ton of legal documents and I'm pretty confident this is what is written. Not to be misconstrued that I agree with anything they are doing here. View Quote Great first post. I posting page numbers to get other points of views like yours. If Pistol Tube are still allow then why the "may consider" wiggle room. They state a length of 6 to 6-1/2" for a pistol tube, does that mean that is the max length allowed? ( at least they didn't say longer is an SBR). The ruling calls out "Stabilized- Braces", but the new "rifle definition" pretty much allows the ATF to declare what you think is a pistol, a rifle based on other factors. The problem is we (gun owners) don't know if our "pistol buffer tubed pistol" is still a pistol until the ATF evaluates it based on the new rifle definition. My view is anything before the "FINAL Ruling" means very little, but it gives a lot of information to argue in court. |
|
Quoted: http://mobileimages.lowes.com/productimages/09afe9ae-7736-4127-af4c-44cbe24d7975/02848677.jpg View Quote What do silencer parts have to do with this? |
|
|
Quoted: No local LEO sign-off requirement? No engraving requirements? After "registering", do we have a legal SBR and can replace pistol brace with a real stock? This seems like one huge, setup by the ATF/AG. View Quote Yeah exactly. What if your at the range and Mr. AFT comes by looks at your stamp and asks why your pew pew is not engraved? I can see that going well. |
|
What’s the thing about the tree and blood and refreshment every so often?
|
|
Thanks, see it now. Allows for adoption of original markings. I wonder if this could be applied to any SBR given not doing so would make the instructions inconsistent and the fact that the maker marking is redundant. Could the fatf be changing this for all SBRs, or only for this special case? Of course inconsistencies will never cause confusion down the road (purposeful sarcasm.) |
|
|
So if I understand this correctly....you only need the email showing you are registering and you don't need engraving. How long before someone sends in an email, posts the response on reddit and then it get photoshopped for folks that don't even want to go through the process? In mine craft, of course.
|
|
Quoted: From what I understand, you can use the manufacturer's engravings in this case. I don't think the FAQ mentioned CLEO. To be honest I hope it is required, just to cause more chaos. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I read through the included eForm 1 how-to instructions and it indicates engraving and CLEO are required. FAQ 20 indicates CLEO required. I plan to read the rule itself to find text IRT engraving; FAQs typically not legally binding. |
|
Quoted: If an Entry stock is usable, what prevents the ATF from claiming anything stuck to a carbine tube can be shouldered? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/195/20230113_175808_jpg-2670952.JPG Kharn View Quote We don't know yet. Their general rhetoric indicates that braced pistols are still ok. The existence of criteria clearly implies that it is possible for a braced gun to pass and be a pistol and not an sbr. They absolutely did not simply say all braces make sbrs. The new criteria says length of pull 'typical' of a rifle. So entry stock or fully collapsed m4 is right at the bottom end of that. the 4999 numbers are not official now but probably still indicative. I think 13.5 was auto-fail and 10.5 zero points. |
|
Quoted: orly?!?!?!!? LOL https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/185314/Screenshot_2023-01-13_at_16-14-40_Freque-2670888.JPG View Quote Attached File I'm not a lawyer. I'm halfway drunk sitting in sweatpants. I have not read the whole proposal yet. But I could probably |
|
Quoted: From what I understand, you can use the manufacturer's engravings in this case. I don't think the FAQ mentioned CLEO. To be honest I hope it is required, just to cause more chaos. View Quote It says if you bought the gun as a factory assembled pistol you can use the manufacturer’s engraving. If you built it yourself you have to engrave your info as the maker. For fucks sake people, read the fucking document or stfu. |
|
Quoted: Great first post. I posting page numbers to get other points of views like yours. If Pistol Tube are still allow then why the "may consider" wiggle room. They state a length of 6 to 6-1/2" for a pistol tube, does that mean that is the max length allowed? ( at least they didn't say longer is an SBR). The ruling calls out "Stabilized- Braces", but the new "rifle definition" pretty much allows the ATF to declare what you think is a pistol, a rifle based on other factors. The problem is we (gun owners) don't know if our "pistol buffer tubed pistol" is still a pistol until the ATF evaluates it based on the new rifle definition. My view is anything before the "FINAL Ruling" means very little, but it gives a lot of information to argue in court. View Quote The upshot is that there isn't a bright line rule or straightforward test to assist the public with compliance. The ATF intends to make each determination on a case by case basis. If history is an indication, enforcement will vary widely in different jurisdictions. |
|
Quoted: Yfw Sig, being the forward thinking proactive industry leaders that they are, ceased shipping illegal “braces” with their firearms months ago. Allowing them to divest from immovable inventory and streamline their product offerings, ensuring they would see continuous un-interrupted deliveries despite the disruptive regulatory fiasco affecting all other manufacturers presently. Simultaneously, they have protected their pistol purchasing customers from potential inadvertent violations of federal law. As such I would just like to take this moment once again to appreciate Sig Sauer USA and their steadfast commitment to both consumers and shooters alike. Their innovative approach has no equal and they truly never settle. View Quote I’m embarrassed for you at this point. Can’t imagine living life clinging to someone’s nuts the way you do. |
|
Free stamp???? Time to register 10 or 20 lowers. We should flood them with applications. I have a pistol that I form 1d years ago, then I removed it via a letter. Time to put it back for free.
|
|
Quoted: This is going to be one of the most epic ATF shit shows ever. The pistol brace has been around since 2012 when Alex Bosco sent the brace to the ATF for approval and it was granted. 10 years. It would be interesting to know how many braces have been manufactured, sold in kits and installed on factory produced firearms. View Quote I know right? My shooting over the past decade+ is about 98% encompassed by the FUDD portion of a venn diagram, but even I own a braced AR pistol. |
|
ATF cannot make new rules that result in people becoming criminals. Only Congress can do that. I've read that elsewhere, maybe in this forum.
|
|
Quoted: We can have an injunction next week if 40 million people are about to be made felons. View Quote ATF Pg 209-210 Department Response The Department disagrees with the assertions that this rule is intended to or will make felons of law-abiding citizens. This rule does not itself impose any new restrictions; instead, this rule articulates the best interpretation of the relevant statutory terms. Nothing in this rule changes those underlying statutory requirements. Nor does this rule affect “stabilizing brace” devices alone. Further, the Department disagrees with the comment that three million law-abiding citizens will be subject to harsh fines and forfeiture of firearms. Commenters with these objections failed to recognize that nothing in the rule or the relevant statutes prevents an individual from continuing to possess or use a “stabilizing brace” on heavy pistols or rifles. This rule only serves to clarify that certain weapons equipped with “stabilizing braces” are short-barreled rifles regulated under the NFA, thus requiring registration, transfer and making approval, and the payment of a making or transfer tax. Furthermore, this rule also provides options for individuals who are in possession of a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” that is an unregistered short-barreled rifle, as that statutory term is properly understood. The options for current unlicensed possessors include the removal and replacement of the offending feature (the barrel less than 16 inches); submission of an ATF E-Form 1 by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], to register the firearm as a short-barreled rifle; removal of the “stabilizing brace” so that it cannot be reattached to the firearm; turning the firearm into a local ATF office; or destroying the firearm. For a detailed discussion of the options available for individuals to comply with the statute, see section V.B of this preamble. In an exercise of the Department’s enforcement discretion, it has determined that any criminal liability for failure to take the necessary action to comply with Federal law for weapons that have already been made will result only for conduct occurring after the time period to register ends. Additionally, in lieu of criminal prosecution, the Department may, for conduct occurring after the 120-day period, pursue forfeiture of the firearm pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5872. The Department also disagrees this rule needlessly harms citizens by risking exposure of PII. The NFA requires that the registry of NFA firearms in the NFRTR include the identification of the firearm, date of registration, and identification and address of person entitled to possession of the firearm. See 26 U.S.C. 5841. The information in the NFRTR is confidential, and ATF officers or employees and other persons are prohibited by law from disclosing confidential NFA tax information. View Quote |
|
Quoted: I’m sure this will run through the same process as any other Form 1, if it’s not allowed in the state, they won’t approve it. In IL you have to have a C&R FFL to get SBR’s….you have to send the ATF a copy of the FFL for approval. So they’re obviously checking against state requirements. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Will BATF approve it if you live in a state that bans SBRs? How about live in a state that bans SBRs but the braced pistol is stored in another state? I’m sure this will run through the same process as any other Form 1, if it’s not allowed in the state, they won’t approve it. In IL you have to have a C&R FFL to get SBR’s….you have to send the ATF a copy of the FFL for approval. So they’re obviously checking against state requirements. What if it is still considered a pistol under State laws and regulations, not an SBR? |
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: We can have an injunction next week if 40 million people are about to be made felons. ATF Pg 209-210 Department Response The Department disagrees with the assertions that this rule is intended to or will make felons of law-abiding citizens. This rule does not itself impose any new restrictions; instead, this rule articulates the best interpretation of the relevant statutory terms. Nothing in this rule changes those underlying statutory requirements. Nor does this rule affect “stabilizing brace” devices alone. Further, the Department disagrees with the comment that three million law-abiding citizens will be subject to harsh fines and forfeiture of firearms. Commenters with these objections failed to recognize that nothing in the rule or the relevant statutes prevents an individual from continuing to possess or use a “stabilizing brace” on heavy pistols or rifles. This rule only serves to clarify that certain weapons equipped with “stabilizing braces” are short-barreled rifles regulated under the NFA, thus requiring registration, transfer and making approval, and the payment of a making or transfer tax. Furthermore, this rule also provides options for individuals who are in possession of a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” that is an unregistered short-barreled rifle, as that statutory term is properly understood. The options for current unlicensed possessors include the removal and replacement of the offending feature (the barrel less than 16 inches); submission of an ATF E-Form 1 by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], to register the firearm as a short-barreled rifle; removal of the “stabilizing brace” so that it cannot be reattached to the firearm; turning the firearm into a local ATF office; or destroying the firearm. For a detailed discussion of the options available for individuals to comply with the statute, see section V.B of this preamble. In an exercise of the Department’s enforcement discretion, it has determined that any criminal liability for failure to take the necessary action to comply with Federal law for weapons that have already been made will result only for conduct occurring after the time period to register ends. Additionally, in lieu of criminal prosecution, the Department may, for conduct occurring after the 120-day period, pursue forfeiture of the firearm pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5872. The Department also disagrees this rule needlessly harms citizens by risking exposure of PII. The NFA requires that the registry of NFA firearms in the NFRTR include the identification of the firearm, date of registration, and identification and address of person entitled to possession of the firearm. See 26 U.S.C. 5841. The information in the NFRTR is confidential, and ATF officers or employees and other persons are prohibited by law from disclosing confidential NFA tax information. Wait, wha what? To rephrase: This rule doesn't make millions of current firearms felony possession. It only makes firearms possession of certain guns, of which there are millions, a felony possession. It just fucking said that. Also, why do all the official texts refer to paying a license fee, yet everyone keeps saying its free. It didn't say anything in that text, about free - it said you have to pay the tax fee. |
|
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.