quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
I’ve read the whole thread and the ATF pdf of the process and don’t see why some folks think marking the firearm as the maker is not required.

As far as states that don’t allow SBRs, wouldn’t that be up to state law? Thinking of marijuana being illegal federally yet legal at the state level, wouldn’t braced pistols be the same? If a state allowed braced pistols, but not SBRs, wouldn’t then the braced pistol still be such under state law?

Because at lot of the people don’t bother to read the actual rule, or the FAQ, that’s on the ATF webpage. They get their info from YouTube videos and posts on social medial and in forums.

SRBs are regulated under Federal law. A state law doesn’t override it. In many stares, like FL, SBRs are technically illegal, but the law has a specific expedition if they are possessed in accordance with federal law (I.e. you have a stamp). For marijuana, I believe it‘s more a case of the federal government choosing to go after people and dispensaries as opposed to state law triumphing over federal law.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
I’ve read the whole thread and the ATF pdf of the process and don’t see why some folks think marking the firearm as the maker is not required.

Because at lot of the people don’t bother to read the actual rule, or the FAQ, that’s on the ATF webpage. They get their info from YouTube videos and posts on social medial and in forums.

This isn't info from Youtube or social media. It's straight from the rule as published, as well as the ATF's FAQ on this stabilizer brace registration.

(If you're going to throw shade at people for supposedly not having bothered to read the actual rule, or the FAQ that's on the ATF webpage, it would behoove you to read those first yourself...)


From Section #27 of the brace registration FAQ on the ATF's website here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...orrectedpdf/download

quote:

MARKINGS
27. ONCE THE FIREARM IS REGISTERED, AM I REQUIRED TO MARK THE FIREARM SINCE I
MANUFACTURED A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR)?

• If the SBR equipped with a “stabilizing brace” is registered within the 120-day tax forbearance
period, the possessor is allowed to adopt the markings on the firearm. The maker’s marking
exception is only applicable to firearms that are registered pursuant to the final rule. If the
firearm is a personally made firearm, the possessor must mark in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92
& 479.102 prior to submitting the E-Form 1.

This is reiterated on three different occasions in the complete text of the final pistol brace rule itself here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...ngbracespdf/download

quote:

For purposes of NFA registration, affected firearms that include the markings required by the GCA can be registered with the original marking if the firearm has already been marked in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92 and 479.102. If the affected firearm is a “[p]rivately made firearm” (“PMF”) as defined in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 without GCA markings, the applicant will be required to mark the firearm in accordance with section 479.102 for NFA registration.

Someone who registers their brace-equipped pistol as a SBR during this "amnesty period" is allowed to adopt the original manufacturer's markings already on the firearm. This is specifically an exception to the usual requirement for marking/engraving a SBR with their own information that they normally would need to do when "manufacturing a SBR" via a Form 1.

It's only if the braced pistol lacks markings (as with an unmarked 80% receiver you finished yourself, or similar - aka a "ghost gun" ) that you must mark/engrave it in accordance with the usual GCA firearms markings laws.

A question for the lawyers.

Something that just occurred to me despite all the emphasis on the Second Amendment and the general authority of Executive Branch government agencies to in effect make law without Congress’ involvement.

When the ATF formally stated that stabilizing braces on pistols and using them like a long gun, i.e., “shouldering” the gun and using the brace for support was legal, it seems to me that was in effect a law similar to other statutes that expressly permit some action. Expressly permissive elements of statutes are rare because the general rule is that if something is not prohibited it’s automatically permitted. But I believe they are not unknown, and I would argue that the ATF’s earlier formal statement was no different than something like a state law that said it was legal for wine to be sold in supermarkets.

If I’m correct, until a few days ago it was Federal law that pistols with braces were not subject to the NFA. That then means, IMO, that the new ruling wasn’t just a new rule. It is a new law that suddenly criminalized the possession of a pistol with a brace. Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution clearly prohibits the Federal government from passing ex post facto laws. Because the new law directly contradicts the old law that specifically permitted the ownership of pistols without braces, how is possession of braces that were previously held during the legal period not a prohibited ex post facto situation?

I do realize that possession of certain things can be made illegal without regard to their former status. Heroin is one example, but was there ever a law that specifically made its possession legal as was the case with pistols with braces?

I can see how my argument would be challenged, but I wonder if it might have enough merit to at least be presented in all this.

Comments?

- There is NO Law prohibiting the 'shouldering' of a Pistol. You can and should be able to do anything you want with it. The ATF can only regulate, therefore issue guidance on the definitions of whats IN THE LAW that they're regulating.
- You're correct, this is 'Making Law' out of whole cloth by the ATF, and wholly UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
- I've said it MANY times...There Ought to be a Law! The ATF is overreaching here BIG TIME, and has a LONG history of 'Making Shit Up'! They've even outdone themselves with this one! The Supreme Court should (and hopefully will) strike this down, uphold the Fifth Circuit Decision re: Bumpstocks, and bitch-slap the ATF like they did to the EPA recently!

Edited for accuracy...

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
The Supreme Court should (and hopefully will strike this down like the did w/ Bumpstocks

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on bump stocks. It hasn't made it to them yet.

Two of the Federal appeals courts (6th and 10th Circuits) have ruled to uphold the bump stock ban, and one other (5th Circuit) has ruled that the ban should be struck down.

Because of these conflicting circuit court rulings, this means that it's a decision that will ultimately come down to the Supreme Court at some point to make a final nationwide binding decision, but they haven't taken up the case yet nor have they made any rulings on it.

^^^I stand corrected...

Are you saying the multiple Federal Circuit's have ruled w/ differing opinions, or that a previous Federal Court decision was overturned by the Fifth Circuit? I 100% assume that Fifth Circuit decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court though, regardless!

Differing opinions by three different federal appeals courts in three different circuits - 5th, 6th, 10th. One appeals court in one circuit can't overrule another appeals court from a different circuit. Their decisions stand within their separate areas of country. The country is basically split up into 11 different "zones" (circuits), with each Federal circuit court of appeals having responsibility for a handful of nearby states.

The appeal has to be escalated to the Supreme Court level to reach a final decision that applies to the entire country and overrules any decisions made by lower level appeals courts within their respective circuits.

My question isn’t about whether the ATF or other Executive Branch agencies should be permitted to create law by fiat at the whim of a faceless, unelected bureaucrat. I don’t believe they should be, but if violating one of them can get one arrested and thrown in jail, then it’s a law in every way except (possibly) name. That’s why laws established by rule-makers rather than the Congress are also occasionally overturned by the courts. The framers of the Constitution were thinking only of the proper process for making law and that’s why it says, “Congress shall make no law …” with no mention of faceless bureaucrats, but the courts rightly decided that the Constitution applied to rules made by other bodies as well.

My contention is that if it has the force of law, then it should be subject to all the laws that pertain to laws, e.g., the Constitution, and that’s what my question is about.

OK, I guess I forgot about the DC Circuit. I find that three judge panel on the DC Circuit upheld the ban in August 2022, but nothing further there.

I was aware that in December 2021, a unanimous three judge panel on the Fifth Circuit upheld the ban, but that was followed more recently a little over a week ago where a En Banc hearing overturned the ban 13-3 on appeal.

Are there other Circuit(s) ruled to uphold the Ban?

Regardless, one would think the Supreme Court would need to accept the case now that there's conflicting rulings.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Are there other Circuit(s) ruled to uphold the Ban?

Yes. 6th Circuit in December 2021 and 10th Circuit in March 2021.

What's next? ARs all have to be registered, hey but it's free guys. Why wouldn't that be the case? And how many frogs would just relax into the new temp. Free candy or puppy or whatever.

Here we are in 2023. After the last 3 years just passed. And THIS is what is being forced down our throats! Become a Felon for this nonsense!!!

I've truly come to understand the 3 percent number. I always thought more of this country and the people in it. I don't even have a braced pistol. Felt like a trap back then when they LIED saying it was perfectly legal. "Yeah go ahead and shoulder it sheep."

After watching this country burn and criminals let go to do more of it, good people being labeled as terrorists by the close cousin of this tyrannical org, and the other crimes we are all being subjected to at the hands of our illegitemate gov't, they all the sudden get to reason with us terrorists? Hey it won't cost us anything though. Gotta be $&*@E#) kidding me.

Is it just me or is the NFA looking a lot like Swiss cheese? Biden's ATF may have woken a few sleeping giants.

I appreciate little primers on the topic explaining how much the government has infringed over the decades.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
My contention is that if it has the force of law, then it should be subject to all the laws that pertain to laws, e.g., the Constitution, and that’s what my question is about.

The Constitution limits Congress’s power to make laws. Agencies like the BATF have the authority to issue rules because Congress delegated to them some of its power. Since Congress’s power is limited, and since the BATF’s power comes from Congress, the BATF’s power is just as limited as Congress’s is.

You got to the right conclusion just by a more indirect route.

Tomorrow there will be a slew of lawsuits filed. I'm going to wait a month or two and see what shakes after that before I tell the feds about anything.

RogueJSK...

Re: Markings

It states that marking a brace equipped SBR is not required and the original manufacturer markings are good enough (paraphrasing).

What happens if you then to put a stock on your now registered SBR?

If this has already been answered, I apologize.

Seems to me that once you remove the brace and put a stock on it, then is must be marked by you (the manufacturer)?

As I do not intend to comply with these flawed rules, I have not wasted my time reading this garbage.

I was settling in on a 8.2" barrel 300 blk braced, and Scorpion 7.75" barrel braced, for home/perimeter defense.

But this weekend I cleaned, oiled, confirmed zero, for three 16" AR's in 5.56 (M193).

Psychologically, this "rule" showed me (again) that my government hates me and is shit. But the weird thing, ballistically, is they drove me back to the deadlier 16" M193 for home use. Just seems like such nonsense.

Miscreants had a better chance of living (in our home) before this "rule."

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
Is it just me or is the NFA looking a lot like Swiss cheese? Biden's ATF may have woken a few sleeping giants.

I appreciate little primers on the topic explaining how much the government has infringed over the decades.

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MpJ6s8JS6F4" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

"THE NFA IS DONE". This is the reason I will never click on these goddamn click bait videos. How is it "done"? No matter how sound their arguments might come across, they don't know jack shit what will happen. Click bait to generate views and money, like jljones mentioned earlier. Just like all the click baits right after the 2020 election, "Ooh, we got them now".

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
RogueJSK...

Re: Markings

It states that marking a brace equipped SBR is not required and the original manufacturer markings are good enough (paraphrasing).

What happens if you then to put a stock on your now registered SBR?

If this has already been answered, I apologize.

Seems to me that once you remove the brace and put a stock on it, then is must be marked by you (the manufacturer)?

As I do not intend to comply with these flawed rules, I have not wasted my time reading this garbage.

The ATF is saying it's an SBR Now, so the status doesn't change if you remove the Brace and pit a Stock on it.

From the FAQ doc by the ATF:

ONCE THE FIREARM IS REGISTERED AS A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR) CAN I REMOVE/CHANGE THE “STABILIZING BRACE” OR ATTACH AN ITEM MARKETED AS A STOCK? IF SO, AM I REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ATF IN ADVANCE?
• Yes, the firearm is registered as an SBR, and you can change out the “brace” device or stock for a different brace or stock. You do not need to contact ATF/NFA because changing the brace/stock does not change the configuration of the SBR.

ONCE THE FIREARM IS REGISTERED, AM I REQUIRED TO MARK THE FIREARM SINCE I MANUFACTURED A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR)?
• If the SBR equipped with a “stabilizing brace” is registered within the 120-day tax forbearance period, the possessor is allowed to adopt the markings on the firearm. The maker’s marking exception is only applicable to firearms that are registered pursuant to the final rule. If the firearm is a personally made firearm, the possessor must mark in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92 & 479.102 prior to submitting the E-Form 1

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...orrectedpdf/download

quote:

What happens if you then to put a stock on your now registered SBR?

Its an SBR. Not some special SBR. A regular normal ATF approved SBR. you can do anything you want with it that's permitted for an SBR. Which literally is anything. different stock, different barrel, different caliber. The whole enchilada as they say. Now there arises a downstream question since the F1 doesn't say that it has some special status with how you might transfer it, as I suspect most FFL's won't buy the not engraved status, but who knows we are in uncharted territory. Worst case you have to mark it. Most likely case you don't a huge plus.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'd sooner email my SS# and bank account info to a Nigerian prince than trust the process being laid out here, guys.

Can anyone blame me for sensing a trap, even though I don't understand the process fully?

I just have a bad feeling about this. If a thing looks too good to be true...

To be blunt, these dummies stepped on their dicks. Pistol braces are easy enough to show in common use, people are designing cartridges around the short AR, that any potential argument they've got is going to get shot down in court. It'll take a little while to work through the process but I suspect this will be a win for our rights.