quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Will it be shot down within 120 days? Nope. It probably won't even make it to presenting formal arguments within 120 days. That'll all get eaten up with preliminary motions, discovery, and other legal wranglings.

And is it 100% guaranteed to get shot down? Nope.

Meanwhile, as the various lawsuits and challenges wind their way through the court system, that 120 day amnesty period's clock keeps running.

So you roll your dice and you take your chances. Either register within the next few months for free, or separate the brace from the pistol and bank on it getting eventually shot down so they can be reunited legally, or I guess just say "fuck it" and keep on doing whatever you want, consequences be damned.

That depends on if the folks filing lawsuits can get a stay order which would at least pause the process. We'll find out a bit more on Monday when everyone files lawsuits to stop this.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Free?

Wasn’t that the deal? A one time window to register your brace, avoid becoming a felon overnight, and there is no charge?

Or did I misunderstand?

The ATF will forebear the $200 Tax:

quote:

Individuals and FFLs that are not Class 1 (Importer) and Class 2 (Manufacturer) SOT holders in possession of firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” that are subject to the provisions of the NFA as of the date this rule is published will not be subject to the $200 making tax so long as they timely submit an E-Form 1 by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Sooo, FREE Tax Stamp!

Free tax stamps . If this holds up I’m strongly considering registering all of my AR lowers as SBRs. They’re all capable of using a pistol brace and many have at one time or another, so the flexibility would be nice.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
“Is published in the Federal Register”
This has not occurred yet, correct?

Correct. It's anticipated to happen early next week.

quote:

Originally posted by joatmonv:

Correct me if I'm wrong here but I thought I may have read somewhere that the companies that are making theses braces submitted a brace for ATF approval and everything was hunky dory at that time? Maybe I'm wrong and didn't read that.
If I did read that and I'm correct, why in the name of Hell would I now register something that was fine in the beginning?

The document states (at least in some cases) that the brace manufacturers sometimes submitted multiple examples and that *some* of those were not considered a stock, but the manufacturers in question deemed them all approved. It even mentioned in the document that cease-and-desist orders were imposed on the blanket claim of ALL models from certain manufacturers were OK.

Now I have a question. If it's law that these fees are required as condition of NFA item ownership, and these braced pistols are being deemed SBRs, how does the ATF have authority to waive the stamp fee?

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...titutional-overreach

.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:
Now I have a question. If it's law that these fees are required as condition of NFA item ownership, and these braced pistols are being deemed SBRs, how does the ATF have authority to waive the stamp fee?

Not trying to be a smartass here but it seems they can do anything they want.
As for it being law, I see it as over reach personally. Federal law is passed by one way and one way only. Of course there's Executive Orders also.

I think there will be a TRO soon on this one followed by it working its way to SCOTUS.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
While you're rubbing your hands together with glee, I'll take this opportunity to tell you I have exactly one gun with a brace on it, and it's because I bought it that way this last June. I've got several guns I'm going to do a Form 1 on, and I don't think I'm going to take the gamble on the "free tax stamp" for the one because as I read it, that's your route to an SBR as an individual, not through a trust.

I've long expected them to go after braces, but I'm not going to celebrate that it finally happened. I don't really have any skin in this game, but my position is solidly "fuck the ATF." If you wanna simp for a three letter agency and gush at the idea of gun owners being targeted, that's certainly your right. What it gets you, I have no idea and I don't think you could explain it in a way that looks good on you.

I'm not rubbing my hands with glee, or celebrating, or even simping for three letter agencies.

More like shaking my head in disgust that gun owners spent the first two years the brace was out we just kept poking the bear. And the bear noticed. We got a small reprieve during the Trump administration, but you don't need a masters in political science to know as soon as the Dems were in office that the bear would poke back. And here we are. Wasting time, money, and energy fighting over a fake stock while the Dems are pushing strong AWBs in states that the brace is useless to own since the guns it goes on have been banned.

What do the FFL’s who have these sitting on the shelf do?

quote:

Originally posted by joatmonv:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:
Now I have a question. If it's law that these fees are required as condition of NFA item ownership, and these braced pistols are being deemed SBRs, how does the ATF have authority to waive the stamp fee?

Not trying to be a smartass here but it seems they can do anything they want.
As for it being law, I see it as over reach personally. Federal law is passed by one way and one way only. Of course there's Executive Orders also.

Interesting question re: ATF Authority. Though ATF 'was' part of Treasury, as of 2003, as a result of the Homeland Security Act, they're now part of DOJ. One would think they just have authority to collect the tax, but they seem to make EVERYTHING up as they go along anyway, so who knows.

This of course raises other questions:

- What if one files Tax-exempt under the new rule, and then there's a TRO, or it's actually overturned as Unconstitutional? Then what happens? Is it still a free Tax Stamp?

- Five years (ten years?) down the road when the Form 5320.1 is finally approved, but the rule has been partially or completely overturned, do you receive a tax bill from the US Treasury for unpaid tax?

- What if by the time the Form 5320.1 is FINALLY approved (five or ten years down the road), there's actually a new Legislation passed by congress, you know like this is SUPPOSED to work that changes things? Then what?

What a Cluster!

1. Where is the objective data that this has anything to do with anything other than making a rule just because…

2. If I had a pistol, what benefit would I possibly gain by making it into an SBR, where the trade-off is that I can no longer take it with me from state to state as I can a pistol, but have an official stock on it?

3. Where is the objective data that this agency is doing anything at all, in this instance, with the rights (or safety) of the humans loaning them this power in mind?

4. I’m not sure that any agency “allowing” the sale of something, and then later changing their mind, is something anyone breathing wouldn’t take umbrage with.

quote:

Originally posted by bigarms:
What do the FFL’s who have these sitting on the shelf do?

I know that SOT's have to file a Form 5320.2 (eForm 2) 'Notice of Firearms Manufactured' to reflect the reclassification of the affected Firearms. If the FFL is NOT an SOT, they have to file a Form 5320.1 (eForm 1) 'Application to Make and Register a Firearm' though it would then be transferred on a Form 5320.4 (Form 4) when sold. Then it gets confusing:

quote:

Any FFL without an SOT that is engaged in the business of manufacturing short-barreled rifles equipped with a “stabilizing brace” device should become a Class 2 SOT if they will continue to engage in the business of dealing and manufacturing NFA firearms.
Once they obtain their SOT under 26 U.S.C. 5801, they must register their NFA firearms in the NFRTR by completing and submitting the E-Form 2 by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
1. Where is the objective data that this has anything to do with anything other than making a rule just because…

2. If I had a pistol, what benefit would I possibly gain by making it into an SBR, where the trade-off is that I can no longer take it with me from state to state as I can a pistol, but have an official stock on it?

3. Where is the objective data that this agency is doing anything at all, in this instance, with the rights (or safety) of the humans loaning them this power in mind?

4. I’m not sure that any agency “allowing” the sale of something, and then later changing their mind, is something anyone breathing wouldn’t take umbrage with.

#4 for me.
I remember them flip flopping a few times on braces. 1st it was alright, then they were evil, then all was good again. Now we're back to evil.

quote:

Originally posted by bigarms:
What do the FFL’s who have these sitting on the shelf do?

My guess is a mix of some will get legal advice on if they can simply remove the brace and sell them that way, some will pull them from the shelf pending a all-but-certain challenge outcome, some might see if they can be returned. And some might just sell them.

Tough situation, but I doubt any shop will have many on-hand. I could imagine if someone bought a braced pistol (say Monday) and failed to be sufficiently aware of this ruling/subsequently found in possession of in a worst-outcome scenario, would sue a shop for not disclosing this issue at time of purchase.

quote:

Originally posted by joatmonv:

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
1. Where is the objective data that this has anything to do with anything other than making a rule just because…

2. If I had a pistol, what benefit would I possibly gain by making it into an SBR, where the trade-off is that I can no longer take it with me from state to state as I can a pistol, but have an official stock on it?

3. Where is the objective data that this agency is doing anything at all, in this instance, with the rights (or safety) of the humans loaning them this power in mind?

4. I’m not sure that any agency “allowing” the sale of something, and then later changing their mind, is something anyone breathing wouldn’t take umbrage with.

#4 for me.
I remember them flip flopping a few times on braces. 1st it was alright, then they were evil, then all was good again. Now we're back to evil.

Hell, there was even "incidental shouldering doesn't nullify the intended use" deal, as I recall.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:

quote:

Originally posted by joatmonv:

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
1. Where is the objective data that this has anything to do with anything other than making a rule just because…

2. If I had a pistol, what benefit would I possibly gain by making it into an SBR, where the trade-off is that I can no longer take it with me from state to state as I can a pistol, but have an official stock on it?

3. Where is the objective data that this agency is doing anything at all, in this instance, with the rights (or safety) of the humans loaning them this power in mind?

4. I’m not sure that any agency “allowing” the sale of something, and then later changing their mind, is something anyone breathing wouldn’t take umbrage with.

#4 for me.
I remember them flip flopping a few times on braces. 1st it was alright, then they were evil, then all was good again. Now we're back to evil.

Hell, there was even "incidental shouldering doesn't nullify the intended use" deal, as I recall.

Correct.
They changed their minds on that too a few times also.
Main reason I bought one for my CZ Bren pistol. All was good and now it's not.

I’ve seen nothing but idiocy such as:

ATF BANS BRACED PISTOLS AND TURNS MILLIONS OF AMERICANS INTO FELONS! Link to this video shows title

ATF says NO to pistol braces - This is Bad. Link to this video shows title

Today ATF made millions of gun owners into felons. Link to this video shows title

The rule does not “ban” pistol braces. Braces are still allowed. A braced Glock 17 for example.

You aren’t a felon because a final rule is issued. There is the whole indictment, trial, conviction thing that happens first.

Then there is the idea the “amnesty registration” is a HUGE entrapment scheme.

How the MENSA members making these videos have any idea what the Final Rule actually says in context, after just 23 hours is beyond me.

I am a regulatory analyst. Reading and interpreting federal regulations is how I make my living. I would never tell a client what a major rulemaking like this means, especially in light of the Bruen decision, after such a short period.

I call on members to refrain from posting these idiotic videos. If we can’t police ourselves, I hope El Jefe sees my comment and institutes restrictions on linked videos with sensationalist titles.

Here’s a question- are braces now considered the same as a suppressor or auto sear? What if you have it mounted on a gun with legal barrel length? Do they expect people to register them with a specific serial number when the gun in question isn’t in the same category? I ask because I have a pinned and welded M-4 length AR that currently sports the Shockwave it had on with a shorter barrel.