quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
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.

Would this not apply to any lower an individual made into a pistol, not just 80% lowers? For example, if I purchased a lower for $50, built that lower as a pistol, added a brace, then wouldn’t I be required to mark it under the ATF scheme of registering it as an SBR? The bare lower was neither a rifle nor a pistol until I made it into one or the other.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
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.

Would this not apply to any lower an individual made into a pistol, not just 80% lowers? For example, if I purchased a lower for $50, built that lower as a pistol, added a brace, then wouldn’t I be required to mark it under the ATF scheme of registering it as an SBR? The bare lower was neither a rifle nor a pistol until I made it into one or the other.

No, it’s now an SBR according to the ATF, doesn’t matter that it started life as a “receiver” on the 4473.

So you can 1, destroy it, 2, remove the brace, 3. Turn it into the ATF, 4. Register it with the special e1-form (and not have to engrave it)

Even a stripped lower receiver still has original manufacturer markings.

An 80% receiver does not.

Thanks Rogue for posting the links to the faq's and the report. I couldn't find them the other night. I downloaded them and it helped alot. Hopefully others will find it useful.

Yes, but that isn’t the point I’m confused about. When I read: “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.“, I see a lower that I’ve assembled into a pistol and added a brace to as being a personally made SBR.

It seems to me:
If you bought braced pistol, you don’t have to mark it.
If you bought pistol and added a brace later, it’s a personally made SBR and you have to mark it.
If you bought a bare lower, assembled it as a pistol, add a brace, again it’s a personally made SBR and you have to mark it.

Further, none of the bare lower receivers I have are marked in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92 and 479.102 as the caliber is engraved as "Multi”. That the caliber or gauge is engraved on the firearm is a specific requirement. It would seem marking the firearm would also be required in this case as well.

Register this dick, fed boi.

I suppose it's easy for me to talk, since I am not faced with making a decision over this bureaucratic gobbledygook. I've never owned an AR pistol or even an SBR. Others, though, have to figure all this out, and for that, you have my sympathies. This is a ridiculous mess.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Yes, but that isn’t the point I’m confused about. When I read: “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.“, I see a lower that I’ve assembled into a pistol and added a brace to as being personally made.

It seems to me:
If you bought braced pistol, you don’t have to mark it.
If you bought pistol and added a brace later, it’s a personally made SBR and you have to mark it.
If you bought a bare lower, assembled it as a pistol, add a brace, again it’s a personally made SBR and you have to mark it.

Further, none of the bare lower receivers I have are marked in accordance with 27 CFR 478.92 and 479.102 as the caliber is engraved as "Multi”. That the caliber or gauge is engraved on the firearm is a specific requirement. It would seem marking the firearm would also be required in this case as well.

quote:

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.

What part of this are you having such a hard time understanding?

'The Firearm' is the Receiver w/ the S/N. In the case on an AR15, you are 'registering' the Lower Receiver. If you assemble an AR15 with a Upper Receiver w/ a Barrel that is less than 16", and the Lower Receiver has a Shoulder Stock you have 'made' an SBR, therefore you are the 'Maker'. You didn't 'make' the Firearm...It was already a Firearm prior to installing anything in the Lower Receiver (Trigger, Mag Catch, Buffer Tube, etc.)! Now if you 'made' the Firearm (Lower Receiver from an 80% Lower let's say) you ARE required to 'mark' that, because while you wouldn't be required by law to put a S/N on it otherwise, you would have to do so to register it per NFA.

The ATF is saying that a Pistol w/ a Brace IS an SBR...You did not 'make' the Firearm, you 'made' an SBR!

If you're unwilling to accept/understand this, then feel free to 'mark' anything you want...

quote:

Originally posted by kent j:
Thanks Rogue for posting the links to the faq's and the report.

+1 His posts have been very helpful

quote:

You did not 'make' the Firearm, you 'made' an SBR!

If you're unwilling to accept/understand this, then feel free to 'mark' anything you want...

That’s what I was missing. I was conflating making the firearm and making the SBR. I thought my freely admitted confusion was the exact opposite of an unwillingness to accept/understand.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

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.

I agree and hopefully it will have an injunction filed soon to delay implementation until after the courts decide on it. At this point it could be seen as old fashioned entrapment for millions of law abiding citizens. I can't think of anything else outside of firearms where someone could legally buy something, have it for years, and then suddenly be exposed to major legal risk including years of imprisonment for simple possession.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

You did not 'make' the Firearm, you 'made' an SBR!

If you're unwilling to accept/understand this, then feel free to 'mark' anything you want...

That’s what I was missing. I was conflating making the firearm and making the SBR. I thought my freely admitted confusion was the exact opposite of an unwillingness to accept/understand.

Sorry if that came across harsh, and I admit, it kinda' was. You had asked multiple times, and I just didn't get how you were not getting it.

And for the record, it SUCKS that ANY of us have to deal with this Unconstitutional Overreach...Just Total Bullshit!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

You did not 'make' the Firearm, you 'made' an SBR!

If you're unwilling to accept/understand this, then feel free to 'mark' anything you want...

That’s what I was missing. I was conflating making the firearm and making the SBR. I thought my freely admitted confusion was the exact opposite of an unwillingness to accept/understand.

Sorry if that came across harsh, and I admit, it kinda' was. You had asked multiple times, and I just didn't get how you were not getting it.

And for the record, it SUCKS that ANY of us have to deal with this Unconstitutional Overreach...Just Total Bullshit!

I can’t help but wonder if much of this wasn’t deliberately written to confuse. If there is an ambiguity, how confident does one feel that these wonderful folks won’t interpret the ambiguity in such a way to put the owner/possessor in jeopardy? Like para, I am not directly affected, but those trying to deal with this have my sympathy.

This sure looks like the BATF is writing law.

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:
I live in the south so I’m free to travel with the AK pistol and brace as of right now. This ATF ruling changes that.

Some of us here ain't even THAT LUCKY!
Behind enemy lines in Illnois, not on are we dealing with the Il State laws and registering them here, we're screwed when it comes to AR Pistols.
There's no SBR, Full Auto or Suppressed here in Illinois. Verboten.

We can't turn our pistols into SBR's! It's not like this anti-gun State is all of a sudden going to legalize SBR's just to accommodate this grey area.

A good chunk of that document is them citing all the examples where people call it a stock or use it as a stock, when this whole mess is their fucking fault in the first place. They could have, and probably should have, just said "not so much" right from the get-go. They didn't. So here we have the cheap and easy out for them.

This isn't a "freebie," this is them taking the cheaper administrative alternative to spending many millions of dollars investigating, tracking down, and seizing all these braces. They'd have to hire more agents than the IRS recently did just to find them all, and then what? Knock on doors in every city and town in the country? Can you imagine the cost in dollars and lives? No, this isn't free, this is the less expensive option for them. They fucked up bigly, and "fixing it" to their liking is going to cost them, and this is simply the cheaper option. They can't say they fucked up, but they're saying they fucked up. Obviously we aren't all going to agree, and plenty of the opposition have been voicing their opinions on it loudly and oh-so poignantly. That's my opinion. This will all get fought in the courts, but it's their last, best play to save face at this point.

There was an amnesty back in 1968, and a good amount of select-fire stolen US Government property got registered and not a one of those people got fucked the way some people in this thread are saying we're going to.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

There was an amnesty back in 1968, and a good amount of select-fire stolen US Government property got registered and not a one of those people got fucked the way some people in this thread are saying we're going to.

Two totally different "Governments" between 1968 and 2023. I wasn't around in '68, but I probably trust that Government more than THIS Government!

And you're absolutely right, .Gov SHOULD HAVE said "No, that makes it an SBR" in the beginning.

I'm not sure I would've trusted either one over the other, honestly. The punchline for me is that I think the truth of the matter will end up being somewhere in between Chicken Little and boiling frogs. We'll see. We're all on this ride now.

quote:

Two totally different "Governments" between 1968 and 2023. I wasn't around in '68, but I probably trust that Government more than THIS Government!

Although I was young, I was around in 1968. I remember the talk of the overreach of the gov. back then. But I carried a Knife every day I went to school after 5th grade. When I started driving to school there was a gun of some sort in my vehicle. In High School I got called to the office. A police officer sat me down and asked me about an "incident". He asked me if I had a knife on me so I pulled it out and handed it to him. He said wrong kind of knife, handed it back to me and sent me back to class. Did I mention There were 3 of us in my class with the same name? Try open carrying a knife in New York city today and see what happens.

quote:

'The Firearm' is the Receiver w/ the S/N. In the case on an AR15, you are 'registering' the Lower Receiver. If you assemble an AR15 with a Upper Receiver w/ a Barrel that is less than 16", and the Lower Receiver has a Shoulder Stock you have 'made' an SBR, therefore you are the 'Maker'. You didn't 'make' the Firearm...It was already a Firearm prior to installing anything in the Lower Receiver (Trigger, Mag Catch, Buffer Tube, etc.)! Now if you 'made' the Firearm (Lower Receiver from an 80% Lower let's say) you ARE required to 'mark' that, because while you wouldn't be required by law to put a S/N on it otherwise, you would have to do so to register it per NFA.

The ATF is saying that a Pistol w/ a Brace IS an SBR...You did not 'make' the Firearm, you 'made' an SBR!

I can be a little dense at times, but it really helped when I started thinking assembled instead of made. 16 inch barrel = rifle, less than 16 inch barrel = pistol. Pistol + brace = short barreled rifle. You never really made anything. In the case of a AR you just assembled the parts made or manufactured by someone else. The total configuration of the parts you assembled equals the final designation of rifle, pistol or sbr.