ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

[spoon059]

None of it really makes sense.

None of it makes any sense to me.

If I pay $200 (or if there is 1 time amnesty) I can SBR it. Then I can put a legit stock on it. But I can't take it out of state without permission and I can't sell or transfer it to my family without having to have someone pay the $200 stamp to receive it. But somehow that $200 makes it "safer".

Or I can take the brace off and just have the buffer tube showing. I can transport it across state lines. I can transfer it to my son when he turns 21. I can sell it more easily. But someone without the brace it is "safer".

Or I can spend some more money and get a buffer tube with a foam pad, without the channel. It'll look a little cleaner, I can transfer it. It is "safer".

None of this makes any sense.

Ironically, I bought an actual WEAPON OF WAR from CMP and they mailed it to my house. Thank goodness the MGA and ATF haven't figured that out yet...

 

[Crazytrain]

Shouldn’t the fact that there are roughly 35 million braced AR pistols in circulation prove that these firearms do not pose a significant crime problem because of their infrequent use in gangland crimes such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre that necessitated the SBR rule in the first place?

Seems to clearly fall under “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes”

 

[IronEye]

Note that the option to take off the brace includes destroying the brace or permanently altering the brace so that it no longer fits the pistol in question.

 

[Mark75H]

Note that the option to take off the brace includes destroying the brace or permanently altering the brace so that it no longer fits the pistol in question.

Makes all the sense in the world

 

[Tower43]

The lack of a tax- free amnesty shows they think they can mushroom stamp the owners of three million guns (somehow eight million braces confirmed sold by the largest manufacturers results in only three million braced pistols) and not concede any ground.

How long until the Sixth Circuit steps in to tell them Chevron Deference yet again didn't apply to criminal law, and issues a nationwide injunction?

umm they're offering free tax stamps if applied within 120 days

 

[Crazytrain]

umm they're offering free tax stamps if applied within 120 days

They are operating under the authority of taxation. Is it really taxation if they don't collect money? I haven't heard anyone mention this, but it sounds to me that they are shooting themselves in the foot with this. Perhaps only a grazing wound, but...

 

[FrankAR15]

Note that the option to take off the brace includes destroying the brace or permanently altering the brace so that it no longer fits the pistol in question.

So we can just remove the Brace and throw it in the trash? No mods to pistol itself??

 

[AssMan]

umm they're offering free tax stamps if applied within 120 days

I was just thinking about submitting a form 1 anyway. How do I get me some of that sweet tax free amnesty? I haven’t looked into it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jake4U]

umm they're offering free tax stamps if applied within 120 days

Bumpstocks and Catch Cans. I don't trust the ATF. At all.

 

[Scan Monkey]

BREAKING NEWS: ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces


Link to ATF Proposed Rule Change For Stabilizing Braces

Recently purchased a pistol grip/brace online for a Mossberg Shockwave. I wonder if this new law covers that since an HQL was required to purchase it?

 

[jcutonilli]

It seems to me that if you bought a braced pistol legally in Maryland that it would remain a legal pistol so long as you don't change anything. Nothing in Maryland law changed. Only the Federal definition changed.

Or would a carefully reading of Maryland law show that if the Feds consider it a SBR then it is also becomes a SBR under Maryland law.

Hell of a mess and I sure don't know the answer - IANAL.

It does not necessarily need to change. The issue of the 29 in requirement comes from the definition of a "copycat weapon". It uses the terms "semiautomatic centerfire rifle" but does not define what those terms mean.

The previous subtitle defines rifle as

“Rifle” means a weapon that is:

(1) designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; and

(2) designed or redesigned, and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

The federal definition (18 USC 921(a)(7)) is

The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

Maybe you can come up with some explanation as to why the term rifle means something different when it deals with a "copycat weapon" compared to other definitions. I don't see a court accepting something different, but maybe you will be very persuasive.

I am sure there will be at least one lawsuit challenging the new rule.

Additionally the MD AWB lawsuit will likely impact the issue as the current prohibition is what impacts the 29 in requirement. I do not expect the AWB lawsuit to resolve the issue within the 120 day window of implementation of the new rule however.

 

[Blazin]

Is the tax exempt ATF Form 1 already in effect????

 

[Kharn]

umm they're offering free tax stamps if applied within 120 days

The ATF stated they were not going to waive the tax during their 2021 draft proposals.

 

[Kharn]

Is the tax exempt ATF Form 1 already in effect????

Yes, it's available on their website.

 

[Kharn]

It does not necessarily need to change. The issue of the 29 in requirement comes from the definition of a "copycat weapon". It uses the terms "semiautomatic centerfire rifle" but does not define what those terms mean.

The previous subtitle defines rifle as

The federal definition (18 USC 921(a)(7)) is

Maybe you can come up with some explanation as to why the term rifle means something different when it deals with a "copycat weapon" compared to other definitions. I don't see a court accepting something different, but maybe you will be very persuasive.

I am sure there will be at least one lawsuit challenging the new rule.

Additionally the MD AWB lawsuit will likely impact the issue as the current prohibition is what impacts the 29 in requirement. I do not expect the AWB lawsuit to resolve the issue within the 120 day window of implementation of the new rule however.

I've bought a few 22lr conversion kits, and I wonder if ATF would accept a registration for a rifle using a KaliKey (modifies the bolt carrier and charging handle on an AR15 to make it a straight-pull bolt action) as it would not be semiautomatic anymore.

As the entire rule is "(iii) a semiautomatic centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 29 inches"

So, rimfire or manually operated, and the 29" limit no longer applies.

Then, once/if the copycat law is struck down, I could ignore the "In compliance with 4-301(e)" restriction on the Form 1.

 

[85MikeTPI]

 

[TinCuda]

The ATF have bitten off more than they can chew with this one. This whole thing will end one of two ways. 1. The rule will be withdrawn under congressional pressure, or 2. The courts will squash it. Period. It might take a slight amount of time if it needs to go to the courts. Either way, I honestly don't see this sticking even a little.

Conservatives hate the rule because of the obvious 2nd Amendment infringement.

Liberals hate it because it has the possibility of sending millions of potential democrat voters to big boy prison.

 

[rayrevolver]

Heads up, just went to the ATF E-File and it states that if you wanted to E-file Form 1, the braced pistol needed to be owned by the trust prior to 13 Jan 2023.

Who on earth is assigning non-NFA pistols to the trust???

My only option now is to e-file as an individual. I can transfer it to the trust after the 120 day period for $200.

Sucks. And those of us with roller lock clones are now going to have to figure out the 29" OAL thing.

 

[Blaster229]

Cargill V. Garland may make it dead on arrival

 

[BPH102687]

Cargill V. Garland may make it dead on arrival

A friend shared this with me earlier as well. SHUT EM DOWNNNN!