ATF issues rule change proposal regarding pistol braces

[NH_Realtor]

1000% agree but I'm struggling to understand what's so hard about dealing with this dumb 'ruling'.

View attachment 709134


Just slap an upper with a 16" barrel onto the lower with the brace and stick it in the safe? According what I've read, that configuration is perfectly legal and isn't classified as an SBR

Sure one can slap a 16” upper on it, but then what? Also why? Might as well just use a full size stock.

And honestly I’m much less concerned with AR pistols as I am with sub guns. I live 7 minutes from Maine, but if I register my sub gun now I have to notify the atf just to bring it across the line into Maine to shoot? This ain’t the 80’s and I’m not trying to take Nakatomi towers, I like shooting with the brace on.

My best hope for this is it gets slapped down in the court and hopefully the whole NFA is ruled stupid by default, cause it is stupid.

 

[oldgunner]

Sure one can slap a 16” upper on it, but then what? Also why? Might as well just use a full size stock.

And honestly I’m much less concerned with AR pistols as I am with sub guns. I live 7 minutes from Maine, but if I register my sub gun now I have to notify the atf just to bring it across the line into Maine to shoot? This ain’t the 80’s and I’m not trying to take Nakatomi towers, I like shooting with the brace on.

My best hope for this is it gets slapped down in the court and hopefully the whole NFA is ruled stupid by default, cause it is stupid.

Fair enough. I don't have one (brace) so I'm not really up on the attraction to them.

Repeal the NFA is the only real solution IMHO

 

[Golddiggie]

Fair enough. I don't have one (brace) so I'm not really up on the attraction to them.

Repeal the NFA is the only real solution IMHO

Remove the "F" from the ATF...

 

[AMV]

It does. There are pistol brace chassis for common handguns and such things like the Flux Raider, which are legal in MA. But the ATF is now deeming that they are too light to make use of a brace. And if it were SBRed, it would become illegal in MA because of the telescoping or folding newly defined stock.

Or the people who made AR pistols with fixed mag lowers, or anybody who made a bolt action pistol and added a brace, like a JTAC industries or similar.

All good points, I guess what I meant was it dose not apply to me in MA so I didn’t dig any deeper into it. kinda like the bump stock stuff. Never saw a good reason to own a fixed mag or bump stock, Had a crank for the 1919 but that’s a bit different animal. Logically looking at a bolt action rifle with a scope and a brace……. Even I would have to say that is more SBR than pistol . At least now you get a free stamp and a full stock.

 

[M125X]

Why do they have to make everything so complicated… a gun is a gun… that’s it. The ATF/.gov just wants to restrict rights.

 

[MAJoe]

Just slap an upper with a 16" barrel onto the lower with the brace and stick it in the safe? According what I've read, that configuration is perfectly legal and isn't classified as an SBR

And then what do you do with the short barrel upper if you have no NFA lower? Sounds like constructive intent to me and doesn’t solve this problem.

 

[Uzi2]

Why do they have to make everything so complicated… a gun is a gun… that’s it. The ATF/.gov just wants to restrict rights.

Because they are tyrants.

Actually, it's the ELECTED politicians that want to restrict gun rights, but they know they'd never get the votes to do it....So they get an unelected bureaucracy do their unconstitutional dirty work for them and chip away at it constantly.

Nobody is obligated to obey any unconstitutional laws or dictates, quite to the contrary, people are obligated to disobey them.

 

[oldgunner]

And then what do you do with the short barrel upper if you have no NFA lower? Sounds like constructive intent to me and doesn’t solve this problem.

Why you turn it in to the authorities of course. Obedience is the only safe play!!

 

[apander]

So this means I will have to register my left arm that I use to Stabilize my pistol when I shoot ? /S

 

[FisherTech]

The BATFE agents are all criminals, and should all be fired. That bunch of shit bags have been screw ups since they were formed after the GCA of 1968. (that law is a verbatim translation of the Nazi weapons law) Look up the name: Ken Ballew.

 

[Tartakovsky]

1000% agree but I'm struggling to understand what's so hard about dealing with this dumb 'ruling'.

View attachment 709134


Just slap an upper with a 16" barrel onto the lower with the brace and stick it in the safe? According what I've read, that configuration is perfectly legal and isn't classified as an SBR

I’d start using it as a boat anchor before I’d ever turn it in to the ATF. People that do that are lowest life form.

So this means I will have to register my left arm that I use to Stabilize my pistol when I shoot ? /S

Pretty soon you’ll have to register your fists as lethal weapons. $200 tax stamp. Per fist.

 

[Boghog1]

Glad I never bought that brace

 

[Quite_Exasperated]

So I read these threads and the mental masturbation everybody goes through but for the life of me can’t figure out why:
A) The ATF cares about braces and
B) Gun owners care about braces

I get not wanting to be told what to do by “the man”, or standing on principle to not step onto the slippery slope of well, you don’t need this and you don’t need that, then all of a sudden we have nothing. 100% get it and I’m with you, gubmint needs to stay out of my life, wallet, bedroom, and gun safe. Also, how are these more dangerous than anything else? Can the ATF articulate that and if not, why should they be banned? If I can legally possess a gun, who cares what form it takes? If I want a 2” barrel and a shoulder stock, so what, it just means I ain’t gonna hit squat at any reasonable distance. As a gun user, I don’t see a use case for me, that’s not to say others don’t have a use case, nor would I suppose to tell them what to do or what they should have. If > 50 yards, I want a shoulder mounted long barreled rifle to hit what I am aiming at, less than 50 yards a pistol will do me fine most of the time. Other than for a disabled person, what use case is there for having a short barreled rifle that you hold like a pistol? I’m not saying people shouldn’t be able to own them, I just don’t see the appeal or use case for the reasons I would use a gun. It all seems an impractical modification if we’re not talking about the standing on principle thing, again, we have to fight the administrative state with every ounce of energy because their ”agency” in the legal sense of the word, is to enforce laws, not create them. Other than that, if it’s your thing, I’ll never stand in your way to have, build, own, or use one. I know there will be those who jump to the fudd conclusion because they’re not taking the full context here, but I can‘t figure out the hullabaloo around any of this other than the f@ckery of the deep state to create a quagmire so deep, they can screw you at their whim. Best of luck, I hope SCOTUS flicks the deep state wankers in the scrotum the first chance they get.
Signed,
Bewildered on the Interweb

 

[OMM 0000]

View attachment 709019

What a creepy big brother booth!

 

[weekendracer]

The better option is to abolish the NFA.

The best option is abolish the atf.

Point A, I'm down with, with gusto.

Point B, shows how little is known about how federal agencies work. If you did away with the ATF, they would just roll those agents into the FBI, create a 'firearms branch', and put those guys back to work. I'd be willing to bet if you look at the founding of that agency, it was a bunch of FBI types that didn't want to do firearms work.

 

[Kevin_NH]

The ATF and attorney general literally don’t have the authority to waive the $200 tax stamp fee without an act of congress nor do they have the authority to issue a grace period for registration/compliance with NFA.

Treasury Department was authorized by congress to hold three amnesty periods under NFA '68, only ever used one.

Since bumpstocks just got poo poo'd and now legal again. It shows the ATF can't make law. So, there will be law suits to correct this situation.
As for doing your SBR for free. Sure, you can. But, it has to fall in their regulation. You are not supposed to change the gun from the pictured configuration on your paperwork. All you are doing is putting restrictions on your gun. More paperwork if you want to sell it or leave the state without permission.

That is false -- you absolutely can change the configuration; changes which do not permanently alter key characteristics (mostly length, caliber) don't even need to be reported to the ATF. This is settled law, no administrative rule by some Biden appointee will change that.

I would like to know if someone was to register an SBR (paying the $200) could they then install either a stock or 'brace' as they wish? IIRC, it's been mentioned (don't recall where exactly) that if you go for the pistol tax stamp (no cost) then you CANNOT install an actual stock on it. Which means it will be forever configured as the "pistol" setup. Personally, I'd rather have the flexibility to install whatever the F I want on the back end of the gun and not worry about some JBT's ruining my life over an accessory item. I'm going to keep watching how things develop on this illegal ruling.

One chicken-little youtuber comes up with this FUD, then it spreads like a STD.

Once a gun is a SBR, it can be reconfigured within the letter of the law with no issues.

If they had intended to screw with people in this way, they would've gone with making the offer of registering as an AOW.
Short explanation -- AOWs cannot have a "stock".
Going this route would've fit in with earlier rulemaking and would have the effect of precluding installation of a full stock (as that would turn the registered AOW into an unregistered SBR). I suspect it was considered and then abandoned for two reasons -- because it negates their argument that a "brace" is actually a "stock" when not designed primarily an aid for physically impaired shooters, and because future transfers would only require a $5 tax stamp, and they really wanted to impair onward sales of guns with braces.

 

[NH_Realtor]

Point A, I'm down with, with gusto.

Point B, shows how little is known about how federal agencies work. If you did away with the ATF, they would just roll those agents into the FBI, create a 'firearms branch', and put those guys back to work. I'd be willing to bet if you look at the founding of that agency, it was a bunch of FBI types that didn't want to do firearms work.

Fbi will probably use that division to arm the pedophiles they’re aiding and abetting.

 

[allen-1]

1000% agree but I'm struggling to understand what's so hard about dealing with this dumb 'ruling'.

View attachment 709134


Just slap an upper with a 16" barrel onto the lower with the brace and stick it in the safe? According what I've read, that configuration is perfectly legal and isn't classified as an SBR

If I currently have an AR built as a pistol, with possibly an armbrace, and maybe a red dot - it's a PISTOL. I can take it across state lines into states that I have reciprocity with. Which in my case is every surrounding state.

If I transform that to a SBR, now I need paperwork to take it across state lines.

If I transform it into a rifle, (which I could do, pistols can be made into rifles), now it can't be loaded, and may have to be locked up depending upon the states that I'm traveling into.

AR PISTOLS with braces and dots make extraordinary truck guns.


All of that aside - the ATF has just declared that braced AR Pistols aren't legal when they've published mutiple letters previously stating that they are. So the estimated anywhere from 3 to 30 million AR pistols legally owned in this country, are suddenly a legal issue for their owners - because the ATF just changed their mind. f*** them.

 

[AMV]

And then what do you do with the short barrel upper if you have no NFA lower? Sounds like constructive intent to me and doesn’t solve this problem.

You do not need a NFA lower to possess a upper with a short barrel, Pistols are not illegal, and do not need to be registered with the ATF if they have no brace.

 

[weekendracer]

Fbi will probably use that division to arm the pedophiles they’re aiding and abetting.

Would it be any worse than arming the cartels? I mean, the ATF would never do that and cause the death of at least 3 federal agents I know of, much less hundreds of 'normal' people.

 

[weekendracer]

All of that aside - the ATF has just declared that braced AR Pistols aren't legal when they've published mutiple letters previously stating that they are. So the estimated anywhere from 3 to 30 million AR pistols legally owned in this country, are suddenly a legal issue for their owners - because the ATF just changed their mind. f*** them.

This is my biggest bitch about all this. I spent...er....someone would have spent a good deal of money on a firearm that was legal. Now, all of a sudden, the firearm is illegal. When I get into a political discussion with a leftist, I break it down to: I want my government to be consistent and take time to make changes when changes need to be made. Changes made in haste are almost always bad changes.

 

[T-Unit]

I see the outcome of this one being different than bumpstocks.
There is a relatively clear legal definition of a machine gun and bumpstocks found an innovative way to allow near automatic fire rates outside of that definition.
The definition of a short barrel rifle is also clear. However even though pistol braces are a good product, the public asked and manufacturers supplied products that clearly had more utility as SBR stocks than braces.
I see an outcome where the courts split the baby and keep the braces as NFA items but declare the tax stamp unconstitutional "as applied" with respect to the ADA and gives free stamps to those with medically documented disabilities.

The better option is to go after the entire regulation by taking down Miller since no legitimate legal scholar believes it to be proper case.

Miller was effectively neutered by Heller and further by Bruen; any court referencing Miller in the future as part of its decision is going to be ripe for an overturn. Miller's focus was on NFA firearms not having some genuine or legitimate use in service to militia or other armed forces and Heller basically said that militia service isn't required to possess a firearm. So, if Heller says that you don't need to be in a militia to be able to own a firearm, then Miller saying certain firearms don't meet some imaginary prerequisite to be useful in a militia, then obviously the entire premise of the Miller case is flawed and there's no reason to continue to uphold the NFA.

I know it's going to take years for this stuff to work its way through the courts, but the NFA is a house of cards at least when it comes strictly to firearms and not explosives and chemical weapons. None of the arguments about the validity of regulating short barrel rifles or shotguns, machine guns, suppressors, etc. is relevant anymore. When all it takes for criminals to obtain a sawed off shotgun is to take 5 minutes with a hacksaw or replace a barrel on an AR-15 or go on the internet to order some Chinese made Glock giggle switches the ability to regulate such devices becomes so impossible that it becomes more a burden on law abiding.

The courts can act all queasy about the scary guns from 80s action movies, but the reality is they are on every street in every city in the country possessed by gangs of young men and there isn't a damn thing the NFA does to stop it.

 

[NH_Realtor]

Would it be any worse than arming the cartels? I mean, the ATF would never do that and cause the death of at least 3 federal agents I know of, much less hundreds of 'normal' people.

Yes, yes it would. Cartels are horrendous but as far as I know they’re not raping and sex trafficking kids. Maybe they are and I’m wrong, but I have zero tolerance when it comes to kids. Pedo’s get the woodchipper. No exceptions.

If the cartels are pulling pedo shit then off to chipper with them as well.

 

[weekendracer]

Yes, yes it would. Cartels are horrendous but as far as I know they’re not raping and sex trafficking kids. Maybe they are and I’m wrong, but I have zero tolerance when it comes to kids. Pedo’s get the woodchipper. No exceptions.

If the cartels are pulling pedo shit then off to chipper with them as well.

I get what you're saying, but yes, the cartels traffick just about anything that will make them money.

If you want to feel sick, google Arizona <r word> trees. They are real, to a certain extent. To the extent that not every coyote decorates trees.

 

[Twigg]

Anyone find a grandfather clause? Or is this just a way to make all the good guys suddenly bad

No and yes.

 

[Waher]

Yes, yes it would. Cartels are horrendous but as far as I know they’re not raping and sex trafficking kids.

Uh.... yeah that's not even remotely true. The Cartels are engaging in industrial scale rape of women and kids they move across the border.

Oscar Ramirez has been reporting on this for years.

https://www.youtube.com/@OscarBlueRamirez

 

[MAJoe]

You do not need a NFA lower to possess a upper with a short barrel, Pistols are not illegal, and do not need to be registered with the ATF if they have no brace.

Good call - thanks.

 

[NH_Realtor]

Uh.... yeah that's not even remotely true. The Cartels are engaging in industrial scale rape of women and kids they move across the border.

Oscar Ramirez has been reporting on this for years.

https://www.youtube.com/@OscarBlueRamirez

 

[Hoover]

If I currently have an AR built as a pistol, with possibly an armbrace, and maybe a red dot - it's a PISTOL. I can take it across state lines into states that I have reciprocity with. Which in my case is every surrounding state.

If I transform that to a SBR, now I need paperwork to take it across state lines.

If I transform it into a rifle, (which I could do, pistols can be made into rifles), now it can't be loaded, and may have to be locked up depending upon the states that I'm traveling into.

AR PISTOLS with braces and dots make extraordinary truck guns.


All of that aside - the ATF has just declared that braced AR Pistols aren't legal when they've published mutiple letters previously stating that they are. So the estimated anywhere from 3 to 30 million AR pistols legally owned in this country, are suddenly a legal issue for their owners - because the ATF just changed their mind. f*** them.

This new rule is similar to the bumpstock rule the 5th circuit struck down 13-3 in an en banc ruling. The 5th and the 8th are the two most conservative circuits, I’d expect the lawsuit to be filed in the western district of Texas in the 5th circuit.

 

[40 Creedmoor fan]

I, for one, am glad that ATF is doing away with braces! Hear me out!

An unjust and unconstitutional law was passed that put all sorts of restrictions on rifles with a "short" barrel. Instead of fighting to have SCOTUS rule on the the law, pro-2A made a "deal with the devil" where "braces" made short-barrel rifles into "pistols." As a result, the pro-2A community became fat and happy: oh look, I put one over the ATF by calling it a "brace."

Instead, we should have gone to court and advocate for repealing of unconstitutional NFA. This ruling is the kick in the proverbial pro-2A community butt to realize that, the ONLY correct course of action is to fight for the Constitution of the United States and the 2nd amendment.