User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
MI, USA
|
Posted: 11/19/2023 4:13:31 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rmdye: I cannot see them saying they are null and void. that would open them up for more trouble with the 200k people that did what they told them to do. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rmdye: I cannot see them saying they are null and void. that would open them up for more trouble with the 200k people that did what they told them to do. Originally Posted By Polycop: Many now have proper stocks on them and I can't see the ATF saying, umm ya take the stock off your rifle and it's now a pistol, wink wink. Remember the million(?) people who put braces on pistols in good faith did under previous rules that brought us to now? You guys have a lot of unfounded faith in the ATF to not flip flop again out of concern for the citizens feelings. I could absolutely see all the freebrs disappearing overnight at some point. Technically, all applicants would only be out their time and possibly the cost of finger printing. These were free afterall and the ATF could successfully argue that they never told people to go buy new stocks because the registration was all about keeping the brace which was already considered the stock. Yeah, people will be pissed but the ATF won't care. Now if they actually had issued a tax stamp on the forms it might be harder to go back on. But the way it was done as tax exempt and with that pesky condition clearly stated, it's almost as if this was done by design to be eaaily reverseable if or when the rule was overturned. They also don't need to let anyone keep the SBR to retain your registry data either. Plus there is the obvious revenue benefit to just voiding all the forms and allowing anyone who still wants a standard SBR to reapply and pay the tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2023 12:47:01 AM EDT
[#2]
I really don’t see it happening with a signed and approved form 1.
But anyone feel free to give an example of when the government said approved forms were no longer valid. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2023 1:15:22 AM EDT
[#3]
Best thing to do is keep the brace handy and just wait to see. You can’t second guess morons. Who knows what they’ll do? Something? Nothing? But if you have a free form 1 I doubt you’ll be in any trouble ever. You showed you tried to comply with the law. Not saying it “can’t” happen, but most likely won’t.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2023 1:32:31 PM EDT
[#4]
Does anyone have any news from ATF or ideas on whether or not they are still working the submitted brace eforms?
I’d assume they have stopped approving them and are waiting it out? But that’s just my guess, since mine has been sitting there for almost 10 months now. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 11/20/2023 2:00:47 PM EDT
[#5]
The people who think the ATF is going to void the tax exempt form1s are the same that think everyone who filed under the tax exemption pled guilty to a federal felony.
Nothing about the process was altered except the tax exemption, and the entity that authorized that was allowed to do it. The only other thing that could happen is the ATF determines that engraving is needed, but they have a hard enough time convincing that is needed for a traditional form1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2023 11:22:01 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crazyelece: The people who think the ATF is going to void the tax exempt form1s are the same that think everyone who filed under the tax exemption pled guilty to a federal felony. Nothing about the process was altered except the tax exemption, and the entity that authorized that was allowed to do it. The only other thing that could happen is the ATF determines that engraving is needed, but they have a hard enough time convincing that is needed for a traditional form1. Ain’t that the truth! I had a fellow officer carrying his form 1 SBR when the dpt. started allowing under 16” AR’s… you could not convince him he had to engrave his info on it, OR that he needed a copy of some sort of his form carried with it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/24/2023 9:59:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TripleJ]
[#7]
I am curious as well. I’d like to know if anyone has had an approval on a tax exempt Form 1 since the injunction.
I was denied on an AP5 in July because I had put Century as the manufacturer. I corrected the form and mailed it in. Nothing since. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2023 9:16:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Bishop3]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pgm74: Remember the million(?) people who put braces on pistols in good faith did under previous rules that brought us to now? You guys have a lot of unfounded faith in the ATF to not flip flop again out of concern for the citizens feelings. I could absolutely see all the freebrs disappearing overnight at some point. Technically, all applicants would only be out their time and possibly the cost of finger printing. These were free afterall and the ATF could successfully argue that they never told people to go buy new stocks because the registration was all about keeping the brace which was already considered the stock. Yeah, people will be pissed but the ATF won't care. Now if they actually had issued a tax stamp on the forms it might be harder to go back on. But the way it was done as tax exempt and with that pesky condition clearly stated, it's almost as if this was done by design to be eaaily reverseable if or when the rule was overturned. They also don't need to let anyone keep the SBR to retain your registry data either. Plus there is the obvious revenue benefit to just voiding all the forms and allowing anyone who still wants a standard SBR to reapply and pay the tax.  That there is a lot of gymnastics, IMHO with an ATF form 1 approval, forbearance OR not its done (w/ 'stock' attached it is an SBR). I think those of us that have previously approved SBR form 1s aren't sweating it. It may be that imported pistols benefited the most with the forbearance (no engraving & 922r compliance). Yes it was free, but, you should have seen the tax bill before that!Who are the form 1 tax forbearance scarlet letter wearing 'A'rfcomers Shame 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2023 10:33:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Hummmmm, an imported SP5, form 1 papered with HK as the manufacturer and no 922R parts with no engraving. I'm guessing those guns are going to be worth some loot in the future. Maybe....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2023 12:19:03 AM EDT
[#10]
Like a Colt 9mm AR15, cz scorpion or sig 556.
The lack of engraving is a plus. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2023 12:01:59 PM EDT
[#11]
What would be the harm in handing out a few tax stamps to people who registered them under the freeBR phase? ‘Oops we fucked up. Here is our gift to you’ for all the folks who say collecting the tax is wrong?
If not….they get a bunch of money from people who registered 10-20 rifles as a SBR. People could just pay and enjoy their toys too. Shortest waiting period for some folks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2023 2:20:49 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By durtychemist: What would be the harm in handing out a few tax stamps to people who registered them under the freeBR phase? ‘Oops we fucked up. Here is our gift to you’ for all the folks who say collecting the tax is wrong? If not….they get a bunch of money from people who registered 10-20 rifles as a SBR. People could just pay and enjoy their toys too. Shortest waiting period for some folks. The gov is not going to give a stamp if you don’t pay the tax. When you die and leave it to your family member, they don’t get a stamp either. Now if you sell it, the buyer gets the stamp. |
|
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 12/3/2023 12:16:57 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Polycop: Hummmmm, an imported SP5, form 1 papered with HK as the manufacturer and no 922R parts with no engraving. I'm guessing those guns are going to be worth some loot in the future. Maybe.... They absolutely will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 6:00:03 PM EDT
[#14]
I submitted several pistols for the free registration that I had been a few weeks from submitting through the normal SBR 200 dollar stamp process. Now that legal stuff is happening, can I just submit them again using the normal process?
Does anyone know what's happening with the free submissions? Are they still processing them? Has anyone gotten an approval since the court thing? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2023 6:49:53 PM EDT
[#15]
I'm the idiot who made and error on my eform submit and had to re-submit a paper form. Is there a way to check status on the paper form submission?
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 11:21:18 AM EDT
[#16]
I’m in the same boat as you. Resubmitted on paper form one in mid June and still waiting for my approval. You can call the ATF NFA branch and provide your serial number. They will just confirm receipt and that it is in process. No way for them to provide any other status or escalation. It has been almost 6 months and at this point, I just have no choice but to assume it may come next year.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rope-A-Dope: I'm the idiot who made and error on my eform submit and had to re-submit a paper form. Is there a way to check status on the paper form submission? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2023 8:09:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CovertChannels: I’m in the same boat as you. Resubmitted on paper form one in mid June and still waiting for my approval. You can call the ATF NFA branch and provide your serial number. They will just confirm receipt and that it is in process. No way for them to provide any other status or escalation. It has been almost 6 months and at this point, I just have no choice but to assume it may come next year. Y'know, I like to assume most policy choices make logical sense. I can't for the life of me understand why they don't allow a simple error to be corrected on an efile and just re-submit. Seems punitive. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 12/10/2023 12:14:57 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AKFF: Does anyone know what's happening with the free submissions? Are they still processing them? Has anyone gotten an approval since the court thing? I got this email from ask the experts this week about my January 16th submission. Thank you for your inquiry. We have looked into your Form 1 application and found it was submitted pursuant to ATF final rule 2021R-08. We sincerely appreciate you bringing this to our attention, however, as a result of pending litigation in federal courts, ATF is temporarily enjoined from enforcing ATF final rule 2021R-08F. While this preliminary injunction remains in effect, ATF is unable to act on applications submitted under this rule. Please note that ATF is currently exploring its options for further judicial review, and we will reach back out to you if the status of the preliminary injunction changes. We thank you for your understanding and hope this is helpful in responding to your constituent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2023 10:47:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Princeton]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 243savage: I got this email from ask the experts this week about my January 16th submission. Thank you for your inquiry. We have looked into your Form 1 application and found it was submitted pursuant to ATF final rule 2021R-08. We sincerely appreciate you bringing this to our attention, however, as a result of pending litigation in federal courts, ATF is temporarily enjoined from enforcing ATF final rule 2021R-08F. While this preliminary injunction remains in effect, ATF is unable to act on applications submitted under this rule. Please note that ATF is currently exploring its options for further judicial review, and we will reach back out to you if the status of the preliminary injunction changes. We thank you for your understanding and hope this is helpful in responding to your constituent. Appears ATF has finally taken a public stance regarding the unapproved free SBR applications. As far as them “exploring further options” who didn’t see that coming! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2023 8:04:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 243savage: I got this email from ask the experts this week about my January 16th submission. Thank you for your inquiry. We have looked into your Form 1 application and found it was submitted pursuant to ATF final rule 2021R-08. We sincerely appreciate you bringing this to our attention, however, as a result of pending litigation in federal courts, ATF is temporarily enjoined from enforcing ATF final rule 2021R-08F. While this preliminary injunction remains in effect, ATF is unable to act on applications submitted under this rule. Please note that ATF is currently exploring its options for further judicial review, and we will reach back out to you if the status of the preliminary injunction changes. We thank you for your understanding and hope this is helpful in responding to your constituent. I guess I’ll stop holding my breath on my Feb. 4 submission. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/11/2023 10:26:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AKFF]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 243savage: I got this email from ask the experts this week about my January 16th submission. Thank you for your inquiry. We have looked into your Form 1 application and found it was submitted pursuant to ATF final rule 2021R-08. We sincerely appreciate you bringing this to our attention, however, as a result of pending litigation in federal courts, ATF is temporarily enjoined from enforcing ATF final rule 2021R-08F. While this preliminary injunction remains in effect, ATF is unable to act on applications submitted under this rule. Please note that ATF is currently exploring its options for further judicial review, and we will reach back out to you if the status of the preliminary injunction changes. We thank you for your understanding and hope this is helpful in responding to your constituent. Thank you for posting. That is the first real information I’ve seen. I’m going to go ahead and submit all mine the normal way. I assume they won’t have a problem with two submissions. Or maybe they will. I suppose I can put them in a trust now. Is there still a benefit to that? |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 12/13/2023 10:13:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 243savage: I got this email from ask the experts this week about my January 16th submission. Thank you for your inquiry. We have looked into your Form 1 application and found it was submitted pursuant to ATF final rule 2021R-08. We sincerely appreciate you bringing this to our attention, however, as a result of pending litigation in federal courts, ATF is temporarily enjoined from enforcing ATF final rule 2021R-08F. While this preliminary injunction remains in effect, ATF is unable to act on applications submitted under this rule. Please note that ATF is currently exploring its options for further judicial review, and we will reach back out to you if the status of the preliminary injunction changes. We thank you for your understanding and hope this is helpful in responding to your constituent. I'm Almost wishing I'd have just paid the Taxes on them at this point. Thanks for the update! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2023 9:49:33 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MPD142: I'm Almost wishing I'd have just paid the Taxes on them at this point. Thanks for the update! They won’t remove the already registered guns. No way. That was the whole point of it to get as many of those guns registered as they could. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 12/17/2023 12:46:59 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Princeton: Appears ATF has finally taken a public stance regarding the unapproved free SBR applications. As far as them “exploring further options” who didn’t see that coming! If they say they can’t act on the applications they couldn’t enforce them which means everyone who was approved pending the outcome has a free short barreled rifle, right? Perhaps they mean only the pending applications. Not approved per the pending litigation whatever stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2023 9:30:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By countrygunner: They won’t remove the already registered guns. No way. That was the whole point of it to get as many of those guns registered as they could. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By countrygunner: Originally Posted By MPD142: I'm Almost wishing I'd have just paid the Taxes on them at this point. Thanks for the update! They won’t remove the already registered guns. No way. That was the whole point of it to get as many of those guns registered as they could. The main point was to shut down industry and stop further sales of the most practical home defense / urban self defense rifles ever made. Communists absolutely hate it when average people have a means of self defense. Registering some of those already out there, was a side benefit. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/9/2024 11:54:32 AM EDT
[#26]
I think if the brace ban is over turned, anyone with a FreeBR is going to have two choices: Take off your stocks (and other SBR-only accessories) and put the brace back on to put it back into pistol config, or pay up for a stamp and get it engraved.
Why do I think that? Because if they allow FreeBR's to stay they've effectively created a new class of NFA item, one without a stamp and no engraving. I believe in the world of legal stuff, if the ban is struck down, it's as if it never existed in the first place. Without the ban, there was no conditional upon which to base the FreeBR's, so it either has to go back to pistol or you have to go through the regular process to file for and pay for a stamp and get the lower engraved. The FreeBR can't exist as the reason they did is no longer in effect...that's why it's conditional. Also, if they allowed the FreeBRs to remain, they open themselves to lawsuits from those who filed for one, but didn't get them when processing was halted due to the injunction. Possibly other lawsuits for those who will cry foul concerning non-stamped, non-engraved SBRs out there (people will get mighty petty over stuff like this). Either way, no one really knows what's going to happen, so we'll have to wait and see. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/9/2024 1:56:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Screwball]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: Why do I think that? Because if they allow FreeBR's to stay they've effectively created a new class of NFA item, one without a stamp and no engraving. Really? Where on my Form 1 does it say that? Because I see "short barreled rifle" in 4b of mine... People forget that not all SBRs are engraved... only those created by someone other than a manufacturer. A SBR Colt AR doesn't have engraving other than the standard one... |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 1/9/2024 2:18:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: I think if the brace ban is over turned, anyone with a FreeBR is going to have two choices: Take off your stocks (and other SBR-only accessories) and put the brace back on to put it back into pistol config, or pay up for a stamp and get it engraved. Why do I think that? Because if they allow FreeBR's to stay they've effectively created a new class of NFA item, one without a stamp and no engraving. I believe in the world of legal stuff, if the ban is struck down, it's as if it never existed in the first place. Without the ban, there was no conditional upon which to base the FreeBR's, so it either has to go back to pistol or you have to go through the regular process to file for and pay for a stamp and get the lower engraved. The FreeBR can't exist as the reason they did is no longer in effect...that's why it's conditional. Also, if they allowed the FreeBRs to remain, they open themselves to lawsuits from those who filed for one, but didn't get them when processing was halted due to the injunction. Possibly other lawsuits for those who will cry foul concerning non-stamped, non-engraved SBRs out there (people will get mighty petty over stuff like this). Either way, no one really knows what's going to happen, so we'll have to wait and see. What are the folks with applications submitted going to sue for? Sorry but you weren’t approved and we closed the program. All unapproved forms are denied. Sorry a lawsuit happened while we were giving these things away. You don’t get what you weren’t given. If the brace ban is overturned the ATF forms already say the freeBR is based on the pending rule. It’s been documented a lot here. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/10/2024 12:11:35 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Screwball: Really? Where on my Form 1 does it say that? Because I see "short barreled rifle" in 4b of mine... People forget that not all SBRs are engraved... only those created by someone other than a manufacturer. A SBR Colt AR doesn't have engraving other than the standard one... All of them that aren't a factory created item. It doesn't matter what your form says. Prior to this shitshow, SBR's had to have a stamp, those "made" by the filer had to be engraved. That was the whole point of the engraving to identify someone as the "maker" (maker and manufacturer are two different things). If it was a complete pistol from the manufacturer, then the 4473 would say as much. So, no engraving in that case, but the stamp and tax were still required for an SBR. If the ban is overturned and those FreeBR's are allowed to remain, it does, effectively, create a group of them that falls somewhere outside the standard process and requirements. None with taxes paid and no stamp and many with no engraving that otherwise would have had to have it. Also as I've said before, you can bet if this ban is overturned, you can be sure the ATF is not going to make whatever process falls out of this easy or convenient by any means. I fully expect their attitude to be "you got our ban overturned, and you can have your braces, so put it back on or pay up." All they'll have to do is point out the standard process and requirements to own an SBR and that over turning the ban means the conditions they "allowed" you to have it are no longer in effect. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/10/2024 12:15:01 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By durtychemist: What are the folks with applications submitted going to sue for? Sorry but you weren’t approved and we closed the program. All unapproved forms are denied. Sorry a lawsuit happened while we were giving these things away. You don’t get what you weren’t given. If the brace ban is overturned the ATF forms already say the freeBR is based on the pending rule. It’s been documented a lot here. You can sue for anything you want. If someone submitted a form within the specified time frame and didn't get a decision because they stopped processing them, some lawyer will take it on. The program hasn't been "closed" it got put on hold. Sure, due to the injunction, but realistically, they could process those forms if they wanted to because once everything is said and done (be the ban remain or get overturned) some things are going to change as a result. |
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 1/10/2024 1:22:11 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Screwball: Really? Where on my Form 1 does it say that? Because I see "short barreled rifle" in 4b of mine... People forget that not all SBRs are engraved... only those created by someone other than a manufacturer. A SBR Colt AR doesn't have engraving other than the standard one... This. Nobody knows what they'll do, but lack of engraving would be a lousy excuse to try and reel back in all these forms they personally approved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2024 1:51:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Missilegeek]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stowe: Nobody knows what they'll do This. And if this series of events teaches you anything, it's that the ATFs opinion on this matter is utterly useless. If they had half a brain (they don't) they would just leave it alone rather than continue to embarrass themselves. If they thought the response rate to a free sbr was low, wait until they try making people engrave, or try collecting the money. Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2024 3:14:09 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Screwball: Really? Where on my Form 1 does it say that? Because I see "short barreled rifle" in 4b of mine... People forget that not all SBRs are engraved... only those created by someone other than a manufacturer. A SBR Colt AR doesn't have engraving other than the standard one... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Screwball: Originally Posted By EDL: Why do I think that? Because if they allow FreeBR's to stay they've effectively created a new class of NFA item, one without a stamp and no engraving. Really? Where on my Form 1 does it say that? Because I see "short barreled rifle" in 4b of mine... People forget that not all SBRs are engraved... only those created by someone other than a manufacturer. A SBR Colt AR doesn't have engraving other than the standard one... People think the "no engraving" is a carrot. Hardly, it's a legal logic hole - if the guns are all SBR's and always were SBR's, then the original manufacture is the one who made the SBR - and look, his name is already there, right there on the receiver. See? It's already engraved. That's why the no engraving rule; it's because it was always made as an SBR. Aaaannnd if they don't say that, then they are saying the SBR's were not SBR's, and they just made it up them NOW being SBR's. Which they sure as Hell don't want to defacto admit. But what about stripped lower kit builds? That was the funniest part of the whole video. because basically "yes we know, and we don't have the recourses to chase and verify all that, so we're just calling them all made by the name on the receiver regardless". They sort of just made that one up; but apparently they can do so. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/10/2024 6:10:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Screwball]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: If the ban is overturned and those FreeBR's are allowed to remain, it does, effectively, create a group of them that falls somewhere outside the standard process and requirements. None with taxes paid and no stamp and many with no engraving that otherwise would have had to have it. Look into the decision years back, saying certain shotguns were DDs. Legally purchased shotguns were Form 1ed in a similar manner (well, minus the eForm option), without tax/stamp. They are approved DDs thru this day. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 1/10/2024 1:04:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: You can sue for anything you want. If someone submitted a form within the specified time frame and didn't get a decision because they stopped processing them, some lawyer will take it on. The program hasn't been "closed" it got put on hold. Sure, due to the injunction, but realistically, they could process those forms if they wanted to because once everything is said and done (be the ban remain or get overturned) some things are going to change as a result. With the program put on hold there isn’t anything to process. If the program is canceled they won’t get their approval. If the canceled program grants stamps to approved rifles then unapproved rifles won’t get anything. Sorry yours (not you specifically) wasn’t approved in the timeframe to have them approved. The program was canceled and we decided the approved ones were approved and grandfathered in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2024 5:39:20 PM EDT
[#36]
If you have an approved form 1, that’s it, you’re done.
Anything they do to try and change approved forms already in the registry will just make things worse. I’m sure some people have already sold or transferred some of the freebies so they have a form 4 with a tax stamp and no engraving. Was still cheaper than buying a factory sbr, especially if they were not available such as sp5’s. |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 1/10/2024 9:11:49 PM EDT
[#37]
I don't see the logic behind thinking the AFT is going to unwind SBR registration braced "pistols" if the law is overturned. From the .gov perspective, they *want* the registration, remember? I think that unless the court orders them to do something, all they'll do is update this page:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/if-i-no-longer-want-short-barreled-rifle-sbr-and-i-remove-%E2%80%9Cbrace%E2%80%9D-do-i-need-contact-nfa From this: If I no longer want a short-barreled rifle (SBR) and I remove the “brace,” do I need to contact the NFA to un-register my SBR with an attached “stabilizing brace”? It is not a requirement to remove your SBR from the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR); however, ATF highly recommends you notify the Government Services Branch (GSB) of the National Firearms Act Division to remove the firearm from the NFRTR registry. All NFRTR updates should be emailed to [email protected](link sends e-mail). To this: If I no longer want a “braced pistol” on the NFA registry, can I un-register my SBR with an attached “stabilizing brace”? It is not a requirement to remove your braced pistol from the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR); however, ATF highly recommends you notify the Government Services Branch (GSB) of the National Firearms Act Division to remove the firearm from the NFRTR registry. All NFRTR updates should be emailed to [email protected](link sends e-mail). |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/11/2024 12:11:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: EDL]
[#38]
They already have the registration if you filed for the freebie. Forcing you to put a brace back on it or pay up and re-file won't change that.
Unwinding it, as you say, is the most likely outcome if the ban is over turned. You have it specifically because it was conditional on the existence of their rule. If the rule is gone, the condition upon which it was based is gone. That's what conditional means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2024 1:38:36 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: They already have the registration if you filed for the freebie. Forcing you to put a brace back on it or pay up and re-file won't change that. Unwinding it, as you say, is the most likely outcome if the ban is over turned. You have it specifically because it was conditional on the existence of their rule. If the rule is gone, the condition upon which it was based is gone. That's what conditional means. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: They already have the registration if you filed for the freebie. Forcing you to put a brace back on it or pay up and re-file won't change that. Unwinding it, as you say, is the most likely outcome if the ban is over turned. You have it specifically because it was conditional on the existence of their rule. If the rule is gone, the condition upon which it was based is gone. That's what conditional means. So the fix they are going to come up with, is to tell us that it's ok to make a pistol out of what they claimed was "always a rifle?" And they gave me a specific form calling it a short barreled rifle, in writing? You may be right... But man they would look awfully silly. They would have to change it from "you can't make a pistol out of a rifle" to "you can't make a pistol from a rifle, unless the courts show that we can't tell the difference before or after, then it might be ok." What a clown show. If you don't know what I'm referring to: Can I lawfully make a rifle into a pistol without registering that firearm? No. A firearm that was originally a rifle would be classified as a “weapon made from a rifle” if it has either a barrel less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches. If an individual wishes to make an NFA firearm, they must first submit ATF Form 1 (Application to Make and Register a Firearm), pay a $200.00 making tax, and receive approval of the application from ATF before converting the firearm. [18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3)-(4)] https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/can-i-lawfully-make-rifle-pistol-without-registering-firearm I think that's another thing that irks the ATF about AR pistols, rifles and accessories becoming common use. It clearly displays the arbitrary nature of the unconstitutional laws. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/11/2024 11:37:05 AM EDT
[#40]
I fully understand your reference, but that's not really the point to all of this. What the ATF said was that the braces that started hitting the market exceeded what they originally deemed were OK. The newer style braces became stocks in their view (I'm not saying I agree with them, it's the basis they used for this shitshow). They concocted the freebie as a way to get the registrations as they know an outright requirement to pay wouldn't work. Regardless, their freebie is conditional. Remove the condition and they will have no choice but to do something if the ban is over turned. Something will have to change or revert. I guess the way I see it is that if the ban is over turned, then legally, it's as if the ban never happened. That puts us back to the time frame, and the rules in place as they were pre-ban. Maybe I'm too pragmatic or too logical in my thought, but to me a scenario of reverting back to a pistol or pay up is the scenario that makes the most sense.
Of course, I can also point out historic events that caused them to make changes after the fact as well, but it was codified. Back when the NFA of '34 was concocted, barrel length restrictions were 18" for both rifles and shotguns. It was only after the government sold over a quarter million M1 carbines to the public they realized those had 16" barrels, so they changed the restriction on rifles to 16" instead of trying to force everyone to register and pay up, so in that sense it is possible the freebie registration stops and those out there just remain I suppose, but it will require them to change the rules to say as much. Then again, the mindset was a bit different back then than now. I expect they're going to do things differently and they're not going to make it easy or make sense...if the ban is over turned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2024 2:20:31 PM EDT
[#41]
Since braces have started back selling, I’ve noticed they are trending down in price.
|
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 1/11/2024 2:34:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: I fully understand your reference, but that's not really the point to all of this. What the ATF said was that the braces that started hitting the market exceeded what they originally deemed were OK. The newer style braces became stocks in their view (I'm not saying I agree with them, it's the basis they used for this shitshow). They concocted the freebie as a way to get the registrations as they know an outright requirement to pay wouldn't work. Regardless, their freebie is conditional. Remove the condition and they will have no choice but to do something if the ban is over turned. Something will have to change or revert. I guess the way I see it is that if the ban is over turned, then legally, it's as if the ban never happened. That puts us back to the time frame, and the rules in place as they were pre-ban. Maybe I'm too pragmatic or too logical in my thought, but to me a scenario of reverting back to a pistol or pay up is the scenario that makes the most sense. Of course, I can also point out historic events that caused them to make changes after the fact as well, but it was codified. Back when the NFA of '34 was concocted, barrel length restrictions were 18" for both rifles and shotguns. It was only after the government sold over a quarter million M1 carbines to the public they realized those had 16" barrels, so they changed the restriction on rifles to 16" instead of trying to force everyone to register and pay up, so in that sense it is possible the freebie registration stops and those out there just remain I suppose, but it will require them to change the rules to say as much. Then again, the mindset was a bit different back then than now. I expect they're going to do things differently and they're not going to make it easy or make sense...if the ban is over turned. First it's not a ban. Second, the "conditional" had nothing to do with the "SBR", the conditional applied to the "tax free" status of the form. Third, historically nothing to do with the ATF and their opinions has ever had anything to do with logic, pragmatism, or common sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2024 8:41:57 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crazyelece: First it's not a ban. Second, the "conditional" had nothing to do with the "SBR", the conditional applied to the "tax free" status of the form. Third, historically nothing to do with the ATF and their opinions has ever had anything to do with logic, pragmatism, or common sense. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crazyelece: Originally Posted By EDL: I fully understand your reference, but that's not really the point to all of this. What the ATF said was that the braces that started hitting the market exceeded what they originally deemed were OK. The newer style braces became stocks in their view (I'm not saying I agree with them, it's the basis they used for this shitshow). They concocted the freebie as a way to get the registrations as they know an outright requirement to pay wouldn't work. Regardless, their freebie is conditional. Remove the condition and they will have no choice but to do something if the ban is over turned. Something will have to change or revert. I guess the way I see it is that if the ban is over turned, then legally, it's as if the ban never happened. That puts us back to the time frame, and the rules in place as they were pre-ban. Maybe I'm too pragmatic or too logical in my thought, but to me a scenario of reverting back to a pistol or pay up is the scenario that makes the most sense. Of course, I can also point out historic events that caused them to make changes after the fact as well, but it was codified. Back when the NFA of '34 was concocted, barrel length restrictions were 18" for both rifles and shotguns. It was only after the government sold over a quarter million M1 carbines to the public they realized those had 16" barrels, so they changed the restriction on rifles to 16" instead of trying to force everyone to register and pay up, so in that sense it is possible the freebie registration stops and those out there just remain I suppose, but it will require them to change the rules to say as much. Then again, the mindset was a bit different back then than now. I expect they're going to do things differently and they're not going to make it easy or make sense...if the ban is over turned. First it's not a ban. Second, the "conditional" had nothing to do with the "SBR", the conditional applied to the "tax free" status of the form. Third, historically nothing to do with the ATF and their opinions has ever had anything to do with logic, pragmatism, or common sense. All valid points. Yet EDL's theory, that they will attempt to revoke the F1s or collect the tax... There is an element of logic to that possibility. Especially when you consider that would be inconvenient for a lot of gun owners, and this administration and director are openly hostile to the gun community. The real conundrum for this so called "law enforcement agency" is that if they go back on their word, it will only punish the people who are the most law abiding, further tarnish their reputation and further discourage people from cooperating with them in the future. We simply don't know what they are going to try to do after they lose the case. That's assuming they lose the case. It's possible that they win an appeal. It's also possible it just gets delayed into a new R administration and the appeals are dropped leaving the current ruling in place. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 12:42:13 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crazyelece: First it's not a ban. Second, the "conditional" had nothing to do with the "SBR", the conditional applied to the "tax free" status of the form. Third, historically nothing to do with the ATF and their opinions has ever had anything to do with logic, pragmatism, or common sense. Yes, it is. Braces were banned on pistols. They were deemed "stocks", so they gave you several options and the only one that allowed you to keep the brace on the pistol was to register it as an SBR. The conditional has everything to do with the SBR. I have a tax-free non-engraved SBR specifically because of the rule. It even says on my form 1 that it is approved with conditions, the conditions being the rule. If it is over turned, the conditions no longer apply. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. As for the ATF being rational, logical, etc...agree. In fact, the original NFA of '34 was about handguns. Barrel restrictions were added because the politicians feared people would circumvent the NFA by sawing off barrels and stocks to make rifles and shotguns concealable and get around the then expensive tax. The part where it goes stupid is when handguns were dropped from the bill when the NFA passed, but barrel restrictions remained. |
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 11:24:22 AM EDT
[#45]
Braces are not banned. You can put a brace on a 16" barrel firearm if you want. They're just saying that braces are basically stocks.
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 1/12/2024 2:37:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: All valid points. Yet EDL's theory, that they will attempt to revoke the F1s or collect the tax... There is an element of logic to that possibility. Especially when you consider that would be inconvenient for a lot of gun owners, and this administration and director are openly hostile to the gun community. The real conundrum for this so called "law enforcement agency" is that if they go back on their word, it will only punish the people who are the most law abiding, further tarnish their reputation and further discourage people from cooperating with them in the future. We simply don't know what they are going to try to do after they lose the case. That's assuming they lose the case. It's possible that they win an appeal. It's also possible it just gets delayed into a new R administration and the appeals are dropped leaving the current ruling in place. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Missilegeek: All valid points. Yet EDL's theory, that they will attempt to revoke the F1s or collect the tax... There is an element of logic to that possibility. Especially when you consider that would be inconvenient for a lot of gun owners, and this administration and director are openly hostile to the gun community. The real conundrum for this so called "law enforcement agency" is that if they go back on their word, it will only punish the people who are the most law abiding, further tarnish their reputation and further discourage people from cooperating with them in the future. We simply don't know what they are going to try to do after they lose the case. That's assuming they lose the case. It's possible that they win an appeal. It's also possible it just gets delayed into a new R administration and the appeals are dropped leaving the current ruling in place. EDL's theory is wrong on many levels and is supported by opinions and facts that are wrong. The court cases have nothing to do with the free registration, most of them are directly attacking the ruling. IIRC the case that was awarded the stay for everyone is based on the fact that ATF didn't follow the law with regard to how they implemented the rule and will likely null it due to that fact and not the fact that they think braces aren't stocks. Best case scenario the court rules that braces aren't stocks, that ruling doesn't effect SBRs in any way. We don't know how the cases will eventually go, but we do know that none of the cases are about SBR laws let alone registration of SBRs. Originally Posted By EDL: Yes, it is. Braces were banned on pistols. They were deemed "stocks", so they gave you several options and the only one that allowed you to keep the brace on the pistol was to register it as an SBR. The conditional has everything to do with the SBR. I have a tax-free non-engraved SBR specifically because of the rule. It even says on my form 1 that it is approved with conditions, the conditions being the rule. If it is over turned, the conditions no longer apply. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. As for the ATF being rational, logical, etc...agree. In fact, the original NFA of '34 was about handguns. Barrel restrictions were added because the politicians feared people would circumvent the NFA by sawing off barrels and stocks to make rifles and shotguns concealable and get around the then expensive tax. The part where it goes stupid is when handguns were dropped from the bill when the NFA passed, but barrel restrictions remained. Way to talk out both sides of your mouth. No, the ruling does NOT ban braces in any way. Yes it deems them stocks and firearms with stocks therefore can't be pistols. The fact that stocks on pistols equates to a SBR is a long held belief and stance of ATF, the ruling had nothing to do with this. You have a tax free non-engraved SBR because the director allowed it, which he is allowed to do by law. The conditions referenced by the form and the ruling have nothing to do with the SBR, but the fact that the director is allowing it. Once the form has been approved, it is no different than any other registered SBR. How long have you been in the NFA game? You are clearly the one who can't, or isn't willing to, understand what's going on. "Approval with conditions in accordance with the rule," there is no if and only if in that statement. It is stating the conditions were met, and approval is granted. The rule being struck down, doesn't have any effect to an approved registration of a SBR. |
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 1/13/2024 4:23:07 PM EDT
[#47]
The "forbearance" was in the rule.
The condition is the rule, and the rule includes the forbearance. If the rule is dumped, it means your braced pistols magically turned illegal SBR, was never really an illegal SBR to begin with (which we already knew). If the rule is dumped, it means the conditional is gone, as is the forbearance, as if it never happened. That is what EDL is saying. As far the ATF and the $200? No one knows what will happen. It isn't a whole lot of work for the ATF to send out a letter to those with FreeBR's that says "The rule was deemed illegal/unconstitutional and thus the conditional forbearance has been revoked. We are notifying you that your weapon will be being removed from NFA status in 90 days. If you would like to keep the weapon as an SBR, please complete the Form 1 process which includes a $200 tax stamp. We will expedite your request since we have your information. If you choose to allow your weapon to return to non NFA status, please remove the stock from the weapon, or make the barrel +16" inches within 90 days." When a weapon is removed from NFA status, the ATF just notes your file about that weapon. The don't delete file. It is even less work for them to do nothing, leave everyone in limbo, and those with FreeBR's will just keep them. Who knows how long this will be tied up in litigation, so....whatever. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/14/2024 11:16:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: EDL]
[#48]
I'm speaking of braces on pistols. Of course you can put one on a rifle if you wish. Braces on pistols makes them SBR's, according to the ATF rule, which means a "braced pistol" isn't a legal configuration any more at that point. It requires registration, at which point it is an SBR. "Perhaps "braced pistols" are banned is more accurate to say?
Either way, the freebie is conditional. If the condition they are allowed goes away, then all is null and void. It will require the ATF to say the freebies can remain if they intend to do that. DO you think the ATF is going to be so kind or benevolent? You guys argue a lot about the ATF not being on our side, so what makes you think they would be if this happens? I never said the cases are about the free registration, I've been very specific that the freebies are a direct result of the condition that they were granted. I know the cases are about the ATF allowing braces, then suddenly taking them away. The cases want to return braces to their former status. That doesn't change the fact that if the rule is over turned (because we win the case that "braces aren't stocks"), the condition no longer applies and it is THAT which causes the conundrum. They were registered for free based on the condition. There is no stamp and no tax paid because of the condition. If the conditional rule and forbearance are removed, your "approval" is technically void. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/14/2024 10:14:02 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EDL: If the conditional rule and forbearance are removed, your "approval" is technically void. That’s not how it works… But since you clearly have a law degree with extensive background in Federal firearms law… how about you show us code, regulation or even case law that supports your claim.  Like §479.62, which clearly states that if an approval comes back tax exempt… an explanation why is attached to the Form 1. Also note that it is mentioned about the $200 tax/stamp being affixed, it starts with “if the making is taxable.”  Or §479.71, which clearly says that proof of registration is the approved Form 1. Doesn’t say a word about stamp, being not all approvals result in stamps being issued. So, instead of telling us how “right” you are… how about you prove it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2024 3:07:45 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Screwball: That’s not how it works… But since you clearly have a law degree with extensive background in Federal firearms law… how about you show us code, regulation or even case law that supports your claim. https://i.imgur.com/TBU0K8q.jpeg Like §479.62, which clearly states that if an approval comes back tax exempt… an explanation why is attached to the Form 1. Also note that it is mentioned about the $200 tax/stamp being affixed, it starts with “if the making is taxable.” https://i.imgur.com/wVnbKdJ.jpeg Or §479.71, which clearly says that proof of registration is the approved Form 1. Doesn’t say a word about stamp, being not all approvals result in stamps being issued. So, instead of telling us how “right” you are… how about you prove it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Screwball: Originally Posted By EDL: If the conditional rule and forbearance are removed, your "approval" is technically void. That’s not how it works… But since you clearly have a law degree with extensive background in Federal firearms law… how about you show us code, regulation or even case law that supports your claim. https://i.imgur.com/TBU0K8q.jpeg Like §479.62, which clearly states that if an approval comes back tax exempt… an explanation why is attached to the Form 1. Also note that it is mentioned about the $200 tax/stamp being affixed, it starts with “if the making is taxable.” https://i.imgur.com/wVnbKdJ.jpeg Or §479.71, which clearly says that proof of registration is the approved Form 1. Doesn’t say a word about stamp, being not all approvals result in stamps being issued. So, instead of telling us how “right” you are… how about you prove it. Yeah it seems the ATF published a rule and issued form 1's. The forms are current and valid. To positively change or revoke that, it seems they would have to individually contact and legally serve notice to every person about every item. Otherwise you could just keep your signed form and ignore them. Is there any historical precedent of takesies backsies on form 1's once they've been given out? |
|
|
|
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.
