ATF has made their ruling

[Clay C]

Any noise from the GOP about a LEO agency deciding millions of the GOP's constituents are now felons?

[Death from Above]

Sure would like a SBR….


If a person had a few “pistols” what are the cons of making one a SBR during the tax stamp waive.

If the have cans pinned…which is the route….they are still on a list

[Clay C]

Originally Posted by Death from Above

Sure would like a SBR….


If a person had a few “pistols” what are the cons of making one a SBR during the tax stamp waive.

If the have cans pinned…which is the route….they are still on a list

Keep in mind they have decided having a pistol brace makes you a felon right now at this very moment. They are just "gracious" enough to extend a period where you can "fix it" without being prosecuted. In other words, filing a form 1 during the amnesty period is just giving them a list of people that in their eyes are committing felonies. Their "good grace" could end any time they want it to.

[Drycreek3189]

The way I see it is this: If you don’t sign up for the “amnesty” and you get caught with the now illegal firearm you are SOL. If you own suppressors, they already have given you the a**l exam and know as much about you as your mother knows, (maybe more). Tell me where I’m wrong.

[PondPopper]

Originally Posted by Drycreek3189

The way I see it is this: If you don’t sign up for the “amnesty” and you get caught with the now illegal firearm you are SOL. If you own suppressors, they already have given you the a**l exam and know as much about you as your mother knows, (maybe more). Tell me where I’m wrong.

And yet people are standing in line to get suppressors...

[Death from Above]

Esit

[Artos]

Originally Posted by Death from Above

Sure would like a SBR….


If a person had a few “pistols” what are the cons of making one a SBR during the tax stamp waive.

If the have cans pinned…which is the route….they are still on a list

Unless I misunderstand, these brace guns cannot go on your trust...if I'm wrong, someone please correct. I'm also uncertain what the steps are if you want to sell.

If you want a SBR, then pay for the stamp & play the game...if you decide, then get a suppressor at the same time. You won't want to shoot another AR unsuppressed after you have the real deal.

My gut tells me this whole deal is going to get tied up in the courts for a while...this is a huge constitutional overreach & again, I think the Va vs EPA win is on our side. DOJ cannot make law.

I wouldn't touch this if I had a brace.

[brrdnk]

I believe this will get tossed out by the courts. Not any different than the bump stock ban. Wait and see. This is all about registration of guns.

[Artos]

Originally Posted by locolobo

"Not a **** thing like they have for the past 20 years or so. They probably worked WITH the ATF on this"

And it took the NRA all this time to get it through to the Supreme court!
You need to get your ducks in a row fella! It takes years for a lot of this $#!t to work its way through the system and obviously, You do not have the guts to see it through. The NRA did!

You must have started drinking early yesterday?? Where did I say anything about the NRA??

[Death from Above]

Originally Posted by Artos

Unless I misunderstand, these brace guns cannot go on your trust...if I'm wrong, someone please correct. I'm also uncertain what the steps are if you want to sell.

If you want a SBR, then pay for the stamp & play the game...if you decide, then get a suppressor at the same time. You won't want to shoot another AR unsuppressed after you have the real deal.

My gut tells me this whole deal is going to get tied up in the courts for a while...this is a huge constitutional overreach & again, I think the Va vs EPA win is on our side. DOJ cannot make law.

I wouldn't touch this if I had a brace.

thanks...I am working towards a 10.5 with a designated can...that gets around the SBR and only has me on the hanger for the can.

This will be a gun that sits in the corner unless SHTF/uvalde type scenario

[Artos]

Another $200 isn't going to make you rich or poor...get one with a quick detach & have the ability to move it around for another gun / guns.

You will love shooting it & won't sit in the safe.

[Death from Above]

Originally Posted by Artos

Another $200 isn't going to make you rich or poor...get one with a quick detach & have the ability to move it around for another gun / guns.

You will love shooting it & won't sit in the safe.

You convinced me 😂

[Clay C]

Originally Posted by brrdnk

I believe this will get tossed out by the courts. Not any different than the bump stock ban. Wait and see. This is all about registration of guns.

How long did it take for the bump stock ban to be overturned? There are millions more braces than bumpstocks out there. Some people will be used as examples before it’s overturned, if it is at all.

Sometimes The process is the punishment.

[Artos]

Originally Posted by Clay C

How long did the bump stock ban take to overturn?

Sometimes The process is the punishment.

On another site, the consensus is slap a 16" upper on it or disassemble, have mass non-compliance & simply wait it out.

[duckmanep]

Originally Posted by Artos

On another site, the consensus is slap a 16" upper on it or disassemble, have mass non-compliance & simply wait it out.

but having a less than 16 inch upper in possession without at least 1 SBR in your name is going to cause problems. A disassembled AR pistol will still be an SBR by definition, correct?

"A firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they:
(a)serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
or (b) convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm."

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Artos]

Thus, the disassembly of the shorty upper...

[duckmanep]

Originally Posted by Artos

Thus, the disassembly of the shorty upper...

and disposal of the barrel...

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[DirtyDave]

Originally Posted by Clay C

Any noise from the GOP about a LEO agency deciding millions of the GOP's constituents are now felons?

LOL. They are ALL the same Government. The only time they are pro 2a is when they are campaigning

[Artos]

Originally Posted by duckmanep

and disposal of the barrel...

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Can you please point out the law where just a barrel itself that is under 16" is illegal??

Nobody advised to keep all the parts in the same box.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by Artos

Can you please point out the law where just a barrel itself that is under 16" is illegal??

Nobody advised to keep all the parts in the same box.

And what is the definition of close proximity?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Mike D]

IMO the ATF knows this will be tossed out in court.

There is already precedent on braces. And if the 40m number is correct it’s definitely in common use. Also as I understand it, there are only (8) processors for Form 1. If my math is correct, if each form was processed in 1 minute, it would take 69 +/- YEARS to process all of the forms. That ain’t gonna happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[DirtyDave]

Originally Posted by Mike D

IMO the ATF knows this will be tossed out in court.

There is already precedent on braces. And if the 40m number is correct it’s definitely in common use. Also as I understand it, there are only (8) processors for Form 1. If my math is correct, if each form was processed in 1 minute, it would take 69 +/- YEARS to process all of the forms. That ain’t gonna happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah they are just hoping for some voluntary registration in the meantime.

Since the ban on bumpstocks, less than 1k have been turned in. They estimate about 500k of them are out there LOL. If there's 40m braces out there sheesh

[npe001]

Originally Posted by Mike D

IMO the ATF knows this will be tossed out in court.

There is already precedent on braces. And if the 40m number is correct it’s definitely in common use. Also as I understand it, there are only (8) processors for Form 1. If my math is correct, if each form was processed in 1 minute, it would take 69 +/- YEARS to process all of the forms. That ain’t gonna happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

A guy calculated in on Reddit and came up with like 80 years. lol what a joke. nothing more than a fear tactic to start a registry..

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by npe001

A guy calculated in on Reddit and came up with like 80 years. lol what a joke. nothing more than a fear tactic to start a registry..

Yeah they are trying to see how many sheep will voluntarily jump and register their property because well you know, it’s free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by Mike D

IMO the ATF knows this will be tossed out in court.

There is already precedent on braces. And if the 40m number is correct it’s definitely in common use. Also as I understand it, there are only (8) processors for Form 1. If my math is correct, if each form was processed in 1 minute, it would take 69 +/- YEARS to process all of the forms. That ain’t gonna happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I saw one of the YouTube (real) lawyers bring that up. It was something like, well they just increased their workload by few decades.

[cwill]

Originally Posted by Drycreek3189

The way I see it is this: If you don’t sign up for the “amnesty” and you get caught with the now illegal firearm you are SOL. If you own suppressors, they already have given you the a**l exam and know as much about you as your mother knows, (maybe more). Tell me where I’m wrong.

Why not just be patient and see what happens vs being part of this De Facto gun registration, which is exactly what it is. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that they have you right where they want you if these are your thoughts.

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Yeah they are trying to see how many sheep will voluntarily jump and register their property because well you know, it’s free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

While I agree with that premise, I am still wondering about the logic.

How many people on TBH have an NFA machine gun, SBR, SBS or suppressor?

How many threads and comments have we seen asking how long the paperwork will be on their suppressor, SBR, etc? How do they get a trust for an NFA, how can it be modified to add people, etc?

So apparently plenty of people have NFA items which are absolutely registered and plenty more have inquired about it.

So now a person can basically have a registered NFA SBR (pistol with a stock/ race) for free or the same person can say, you’re not going to fool me by getting me to register my brace to make an SBR for free. I’m falling for that scam requiring me to register it, I am going out and getting a $200 stamp to get an SBR and register it!!

[trophy8]

I’m kinda wondering if they aren’t doing it to slow down NFA purchases as well. The wait time will be insane.

[imyomama]

Originally Posted by trophy8

I’m kinda wondering if they aren’t doing it to slow down NFA purchases as well. The wait time will be insane.

kill 2 birds with one stone ... it will be a decade before it gets approved ... mean time yall are felons anyways , and they got all your info , your serial number , your address etc .... and now they can blame this volume to kill suppressors and MG for years ....

my recommendation , take the brace off .. wrap it in plastic , vacuum seal or whatever and bury it in your backyard till this nonsense blows over ...

they's not going to come dig up your backyard to find a brace...
or give it to a friend or family member to hold ... or get a po box or a locker .. just somewhere you can get to later...

unless you break the law and they find it due to a warrant , they'll never know .. and if you do get a warrant, you probably got bigger problems already.

[Death from Above]

How would a person know that the law has changed if the did not do social media.

[cwill]

Originally Posted by Death from Above

How would a person know that the law has changed if the did not do social media.

They wouldn't and I'm sure some will pay dearly which is unfortunate. Imagine the old farmer who bought a complete pistol package last time he was at the gun shop because it looked like the ultimate truck/tractor gun. Just unreal what's happening in this country.

[duckmanep]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Yeah they are trying to see how many sheep will voluntarily jump and register their property because well you know, it’s free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

what makes a guy with a pistol that wants to seize the opportunity to make it a legal SBR a sheep?

We are talking about a defined law that has been law for a long time (<16" = SBR and needs stamp) where a goofy loophole existed when some dude started calling his stock a brace and now they have closed that loophole and are giving people an opportunity to comply.

Everyone put rifle optics and other rifle accessories on these pistols and expected the ATF to keep calling them pistols? They have been SBRs the whole time and now they are ready to enforce it. Fun while it lasted not having to stamp all of them, but this is not a fight I see us winning.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[muzzlebrake]

SBR or pistol?

[mmoses]

Originally Posted by duckmanep

what makes a guy with a pistol that wants to seize the opportunity to make it a legal SBR a sheep?

We are talking about a defined law that has been law for a long time (<16" = SBR and needs stamp) where a goofy loophole existed when some dude started calling his stock a brace and now they have closed that loophole and are giving people an opportunity to comply.

Everyone put rifle optics and other rifle accessories on these pistols and expected the ATF to keep calling them pistols? They have been SBRs the whole time and now they are ready to enforce it. Fun while it lasted not having to stamp all of them, but this is not a fight I see us winning.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Except they are saying the AR pistols with the buffer tubes are now SBRs. Thats no goofy loophole.

[mmoses]

Just got invited to a Stabilizing Brace Virtual Training on WebEx for FFLs.....lets here some wisdom!

[duckmanep]

Originally Posted by mmoses

Except they are saying the AR pistols with the buffer tubes are now SBRs. Thats no goofy loophole.

I realize my opinion is unpopular, but just trying to use common sense on this one. How many guys are running bare tubes? I would guess 90%+ have adjustable braces with rifle optics. That's a rifle in a loophole.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Clay C]

ATF: Pistol Braces are fine.

ATF a few years later: LOL we changed our mind. How do you like being a felon? Remember, we will murder your Wife, Children and Dogs over less.

[trophy8]

Originally Posted by duckmanep

I realize my opinion is unpopular, but just trying to use common sense on this one. How many guys are running bare tubes? I would guess 90%+ have adjustable braces with rifle optics. That's a rifle in a loophole.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

But per THEIR RULES it was/is legal.

[Drycreek3189]

Originally Posted by trophy8

But per THEIR RULES it was/is legal.

WAS is right, evidently IS ain’t any more. They changed the rules because it’s their game. It sucks but it is what it is. Write your congressman and senator. When they look up from whatever azz they are currently kissing it might change, but I doubt it. The majority of the DC crowd doesn’t give a rat’s south end about the 2nd Amendment unless they are trying to work around it. They’ve been doing that since 1934 and I’m just amazed that the “tax” is still $200. That was an astronomical amount of money for most folks in 1934 but it ain’t squat now.

[Hoggslayer]

Originally Posted by duckmanep

but having a less than 16 inch upper in possession without at least 1 SBR in your name is going to cause problems. A disassembled AR pistol will still be an SBR by definition, correct?

"A firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they:
(a)serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
or (b) convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm."

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

So I can prop up my night stand that is missing a leg, with my 10.5" upper. That way its serving another purpose. Next problem!

[Huntin]

Today, the Department of Justice announced it has submitted to the Federal Register the “Stabilizing Braces” Final Rule, which makes clear that when manufacturers, dealers, and individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into rifles with a barrel of less than 16 inches, commonly referred to as a short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the laws that regulate those rifles, including the National Firearms Act (NFA). In April 2021, at an event with President Biden, the Attorney General directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to address the issue of stabilizing braces.

Here is the first paragraph of the article. Notice in the first sentence the word "submitted". How come I have not seen this on the news? I have registered items with the ATF and have not received any emails from them on this matter.

[Huntin]

Does anyone have a link to this form to fill out? I would like to see it.

[Texas Grown]

Originally Posted by Chew

I've been on a lot of murder and shooting scenes in my life. Not one involved a "supporting brace" or any of that. So FORNICATE you ATF.

You're still using the "F" word, Bobby.


But I'll "cheers to that".

[Death from Above]

Originally Posted by duckmanep

I realize my opinion is unpopular, but just trying to use common sense on this one. How many guys are running bare tubes? I would guess 90%+ have adjustable braces with rifle optics. That's a rifle in a loophole.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

How any if them are committing crimes with them…thats the rub.

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by muzzlebrake

sbr or pistol?

An LBH

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by trophy8

But per THEIR RULES it was/is legal.

I know that the law and the Constitution are not exactly a popular topic, but….

That sure seems like it violates Article I, Section 9 where it says that no bills of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. I would think that constitutionally it also applies to government agencies who have rule interpreting authority.

[trophy8]

Originally Posted by tvc184

I know that the law and the Constitution are not exactly a popular topic, but….

That sure seems like it violates Article I, Section 9 where it says that no bills of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. I would think that constitutionally it also applies to government agencies who have rule interpreting authority.

Dumb that down for me

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by tvc184

While I agree with that premise, I am still wondering about the logic.

How many people on TBH have an NFA machine gun, SBR, SBS or suppressor?

How many threads and comments have we seen asking how long the paperwork will be on their suppressor, SBR, etc? How do they get a trust for an NFA, how can it be modified to add people, etc?

So apparently plenty of people have NFA items which are absolutely registered and plenty more have inquired about it.

So now a person can basically have a registered NFA SBR (pistol with a stock/ race) for free or the same person can say, you’re not going to fool me by getting me to register my brace to make an SBR for free. I’m falling for that scam requiring me to register it, I am going out and getting a $200 stamp to get an SBR and register it!!

Well suppressors, SBS, et Al have been settled law for a long time so it just goes with the territory.

This is a complete 180 from what has been a legal, unregistered firearm that now all of a sudden they want you to either modify, register, destroy or forfeit.

They are sweetening the pot to get as many of them registered as possible since they can’t “legally” have a general gun registry (nod, nod, wink, wink).

All IMO of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by duckmanep

what makes a guy with a pistol that wants to seize the opportunity to make it a legal SBR a sheep?

We are talking about a defined law that has been law for a long time (<16" = SBR and needs stamp) where a goofy loophole existed when some dude started calling his stock a brace and now they have closed that loophole and are giving people an opportunity to comply.

Everyone put rifle optics and other rifle accessories on these pistols and expected the ATF to keep calling them pistols? They have been SBRs the whole time and now they are ready to enforce it. Fun while it lasted not having to stamp all of them, but this is not a fight I see us winning.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

If you wanted an SBR then why didn’t you buy an SBR to begin with?

I don’t believe in loopholes. It’s either law or it isn’t. SBRs have been law since the 1930 and pistols have been pistols; until now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by trophy8

Dumb that down for me

The Constitution says that a law cannot be enacted that makes a crime of something that happened previously. Basically it is unconstitutional to make a retroactive law. They can make a law that says addresses a crime AFTER the law was enacted.

So if ATF made a ruling (if Congress gave them that authority) that a brace was legal and people purchased them by the millions, what authority do they have to make something illegal retroactively?

From the Constitution:

Article I Legislative Branch
Section 9 Powers Denied Congress
Clause 3 Nullification
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.


If Congress can’t constitutionally pass a retroactive law, can the ATF (or anyone else) change a law to make a personal a criminal if he was not a criminal when the act was committed?

Bill of Attainder: Enacted legislation that declares a person a criminal.

Ex Post Facto: An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed.

So does it seem like it should be unconstitutional to make a person a criminal when the act that he committed was not a crime at the time?