SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved.
Page 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 39
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved. Login/Join 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BigSwede:
quote:
Remove it
Destroy it
Turn it into the ATF
Register it eform1



I'm going with option number five


Correct me if I’m wrong but you don’t have to destroy them, right? They are just treated as a stock basically? You can own an AR pistol and a stock… you just can’t put said stock on that ar pistol without the correct paperwork
 
Posts: 1301 | Location: Arizona | Registered: January 31, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ScotP7:
Not to get off track, but trusts seem to play into all of this. In terms of trusts, can you school me on the advantages of them?
- My beneficiaries can also use an item in the trust, correct?
- And if I croak, the items in the trust can go to them without a Form 4 transfer tax, correct? But if they live in a separate state (or possibly even in the same state), the item (if an SBR or SBS) would still have to be transferred via an FFL, correct?
Hard to get my arms around all these permutations.
Thanks much.

Technically, if you 'croak' and the NFA items were NOT on a Trust (so owned by you as an Individual), the NFA item(s) would still go tax free to your beneficiaries, but on a Form 5 - Tax Exempt Transfer. The Form 5 has much of the same info requirements as a Form 4.

Regarding Beneficiaries, while a Beneficiary 'can' also be a Trustee, not all Beneficiaries are Trustees. Also, a Beneficiary may be a minor, so in that case, it would be at the very least, be problematic. Regardless, the Trust will streamline the 'transfer' of trust property to the Beneficiary, avoiding Probate Court, as well as the Form 5 Transfer through the ATF.

That said, there are multiple advantages of a Trust...

- A BIG one is Possession/Use: Anyone on the Trust as a Trustee, can use or possess the NFA item. If owned as an Individual, ONLY that individual can legally possess the item. So, if there's anyone in your household that has access, that 'could' be a problem. The Trust eliminates the 'Constructive/Illegal Possession' for household members that have access to the safe, especially if you're traveling. Additionally, if you simply want others to be able to use the NFA items, the Trust facilitates the legal use/possession by others listed as Trustees.


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 8865 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of P250UA5
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kskelton:
quote:
Originally posted by BigSwede:
quote:
Remove it
Destroy it
Turn it into the ATF
Register it eform1



I'm going with option number five


Correct me if I’m wrong but you don’t have to destroy them, right? They are just treated as a stock basically? You can own an AR pistol and a stock… you just can’t put said stock on that ar pistol without the correct paperwork


Constructive intent?
If you don't have an AR in rifle configuration & only have a pistol, IIRC by having the 2, you technically only have the ability to assemble an unregistered SBR?




The Enemy's gate is down.
 
Posts: 15285 | Location: Spring, TX | Registered: July 11, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Frangas non Flectes
Picture of P220 Smudge
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by P250UA5:
Constructive intent?
If you don't have an AR in rifle configuration & only have a pistol, IIRC by having the 2, you technically only have the ability to assemble an unregistered SBR?


From page 20:

quote:
Originally posted by jcsabolt2:
quote:
Originally posted by hrcjon:
quote:
How will constructive possession be applied in these situations?

This is overplayed all the time. The relevant supreme court case is US v Thompson Center. And no just having those two parts absent some intent would not be an issue.


Just to save everyone a few clicks from looking it up.
United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co.
"The court ruled in Thompson Center Arms' favor in that the carbine conversion kit did not constitute a short-barreled rifle, primarily because the kit contained both the stock and the 16-inch barrel.

Justice Scalia also noted that there is a warning carved on the stock telling the user to not attach the stock to the receiver when the 10-inch barrel is attached to the receiver or vice versa.

This circumstance caused the court to apply the rule of lenity since the NFA carries criminal penalties with it. This meant that ambiguous statutes are interpreted against the government."


______________________________________________
Carthago delenda est
 
Posts: 17113 | Location: Sonoran Desert | Registered: February 10, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by nhracecraft:
quote:
Originally posted by ScotP7:
Not to get off track, but trusts seem to play into all of this. In terms of trusts, can you school me on the advantages of them?
- My beneficiaries can also use an item in the trust, correct?
- And if I croak, the items in the trust can go to them without a Form 4 transfer tax, correct? But if they live in a separate state (or possibly even in the same state), the item (if an SBR or SBS) would still have to be transferred via an FFL, correct?
Hard to get my arms around all these permutations.
Thanks much.

Technically, if you 'croak' and the NFA items were NOT on a Trust (so owned by you as an Individual), the NFA item(s) would still go tax free to your beneficiaries, but on a Form 5 - Tax Exempt Transfer. The Form 5 has much of the same info requirements as a Form 4.

That said, the multiple advantages of a Trust...

- A BIG one is Possession/Use: Anyone on the Trust as a Trustee, can use or possess the NFA item. If owned as an Individual, ONLY that individual can legally possess the item. So, if there's anyone in your household that has access, that 'could' be a problem. The Trust eliminates the 'Constructive/Illegal Possession' for household members that have access to the safe, especially if you're traveling. Additionally, if you simply want others to be able to use the NFA items, the Trust facilitates the legal use/possession by others listed as Trustees.


Thank you for the reply.
I didn’t realize items not listed on the trust would still go to beneficiaries upon croaking? They would go automatically, assuming they did a Form 5?
 
Posts: 826 | Location: Baltimore, MD | Registered: March 29, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
^^^I edited my previous post w/ some add'l info, but just to add, in the event of your death, individually owned NFA items, just like everything else, would become part of your Estate, distributed per the expressed terms of your Will, and would be subject to Probate, plus the Form 5 Transfer. A Trust avoids all of that! Wink


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 8865 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of RichardC
posted Hide Post
Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
when new infringements we conceive.


____________________
 
Posts: 15886 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
If I put a rifle upper on an AR pistol along with a rifle stock then I am Ok, right ?



Then do I have to trash the pistol upper.


Sorry I have tried reading all the comments and I just got more confused the more I read.
 
Posts: 580 | Location: Alexandria, VA | Registered: January 25, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
As I understand it, you can change a pistol to a rifle; you just can’t do the opposite.

You don’t need to trash the pistol upper, just don’t attach it to a lower making an evil sbr configuration. As justice Scalia wisely pointed out, there most be an element of intent to violate the law. Put it away along with the offending brace (if one exists) and hope for common sense change down the road. Or sell the pistol parts. But trash it? Or give anything to ATF assholes? Never.




“Remember to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from a virus they got vaccinated against because you’re not vaccinated.” - author unknown
 
Posts: 15559 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrWho:
If I put a rifle upper on an AR pistol along with a rifle stock then I am Ok, right ?

Then do I have to trash the pistol upper.

Sorry I have tried reading all the comments and I just got more confused the more I read.

Trash the Pistol Upper...NO! First off, you 'could' sell it if you weren't going to keep it!

Keeping it is certainly an option, if you already have a SBR. Of course, if you did, you probably wouldn't be asking because you already know that Upper Receiver could be used on ANY Registered SBR you already own. Also, as you're asking, it's assumed you don't plan to register it as an SBR, or are still undecided. So, assuming none of the previous options apply to you, according to the ATF and the new 'Rule' they just dreamed up, you would need to remove the Short Barrel from the Upper Receiver.

Regardless, turning in or destroying ANYTHING in NOT necessary!


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 8865 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Thanks

quote:
Originally posted by nhracecraft:
quote:
Originally posted by DrWho:
If I put a rifle upper on an AR pistol along with a rifle stock then I am Ok, right ?

Then do I have to trash the pistol upper.

Sorry I have tried reading all the comments and I just got more confused the more I read.

Trash the Pistol Upper...NO! First off, you 'could' sell it if you weren't going to keep it!

Keeping it is certainly an option, if you already have a SBR. Of course, if you did, you probably wouldn't be asking because you already know that Upper Receiver could be used on ANY Registered SBR you already own. Also, as you're asking, it's assumed you don't plan to register it as an SBR, or are still undecided. So, assuming none of the previous options apply to you, according to the ATF and the new 'Rule' they just dreamed up, you would need to remove the Short Barrel from the Upper Receiver.

Regardless, turning in or destroying ANYTHING in NOT necessary!
 
Posts: 580 | Location: Alexandria, VA | Registered: January 25, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of SigSentry
posted Hide Post
I don't plan on replacing the brace for a stock with a AR 16" upper. Also, as my ffl sold me the stripped lower, the short barrel sans brace is still a valid configuration as I understand it.

Edit: again, it was kind of ATF to allow us to convert our "SBRs" back to pistols by removing the brace.

Assuming the firearm sold was neither a pistol or rife, after converting it to a rifle with a 16" barrel, changing it back to a pistol is not considered "making" a firearm.

"Pursuant to ATF Ruling 2011-4, such rifle may later be unassembled and again configured as a pistol. Such configuration would not be considered a “weapon made from a rifle” as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(4)."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SigSentry,
 
Posts: 3507 | Registered: May 30, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
One of the criteria from the ATF's amended definition of a Rifle in 08F Pistol Brace Rule:

quote:
whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations

Of course the ATF never actually defines ANYTHING, but this line seems problematic for our logical definition of ANY current AR Pistol going forward.


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 8865 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I Deal In Lead
Picture of Flash-LB
posted Hide Post
Had a thought about this whole fiasco an hour or so ago while walking the dog.

Sig and others selling guns with braces and other companies selling braces for existing guns all have something in common. They advertise how this is just the thing for handicapped people to enable them to shoot a pistol.

A smart lawer with GOA or the NRA or any of the other organizations that are going to join together in a lawsuit against the ATF would do well to bring the Americans With Disabilities Act into this whole can of worms. It's a powerful defense as even the ATF doesn't want to be seen as an agency that steps on the rights of disabled people.
 
Posts: 10626 | Location: Gilbert Arizona | Registered: March 21, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of vthoky
posted Hide Post
This should be interesting: Matt Gaets introduces the Abolish the ATF Act.




God bless America.
 
Posts: 13486 | Location: The mountainous part of Hokie Nation! | Registered: July 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
One thing that needs to be cleared up here - the BATF is not proposing to ban or restrict pistol braces. The thread title incorrectly says that and it's leading to some confusion here.

Up until last week a pistol brace was not a stock so you could put one on an AR pistol and it would still be a pistol. The proposed rule would eliminate this distinction, so a pistol brace is just like any other stock which means putting it on an AR pistol converts the pistol into a short barreled rifle. That's no big deal if the lower is registered as a SBR, but it's a very big deal if it isn't.
 
Posts: 994 | Location: Tampa | Registered: July 27, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by DaveL:
One thing that needs to be cleared up here - the BATF is not proposing to ban or restrict pistol braces. The thread title incorrectly says that and it's leading to some confusion here.


You may notice that this thread and its title were created over two years ago (December 2020), at which time nobody knew exactly what the ATF's final proposal was going to be, other than that they were considering implementing some flavor of ban or restriction.
 
Posts: 32494 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Shall Not Be Infringed
Picture of nhracecraft
posted Hide Post
^^^This thread was started over TWO YEARS AGO, but this is where we are...


____________________________________________________________

If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !!
Trump 2024....Save America!
"May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20
Live Free or Die!
 
Posts: 8865 | Location: New Hampshire | Registered: October 29, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Frangas non Flectes
Picture of P220 Smudge
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by vthoky:
This should be interesting: Matt Gaets introduces the Abolish the ATF Act.


Would have been great if he'd done that when we controlled all three branches of the government.


______________________________________________
Carthago delenda est
 
Posts: 17113 | Location: Sonoran Desert | Registered: February 10, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
Picture of Balzé Halzé
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by vthoky:
This should be interesting: Matt Gaets introduces the Abolish the ATF Act.


Interesting how? Even if we had a majority of Republicans in the Senate, it would still die. And then there's Biden.

Can the House defund the ATF? That would be interesting.


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country

Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan

"Once there was only dark. If you ask me, light is winning." ~Rust Cohle
 
Posts: 30401 | Location: Elv. 7,000 feet, Utah | Registered: October 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ... 39 
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    ATF proposing to ban/restrict pistol “braces.” Very short comment period: Please get involved.

© SIGforum 2024