quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

begs the question is just having the original 10" barrel and brace stored away make me a felon?

Nope. As long as you don’t show intent to assemble anything “illegal”.

Yep. Correct.

Haven't heard back from Dean @ NFALawyers yet.

Not sure what I should do with my MPX for now. Only firearm I have that's effected. I don't know... maybe sell the brace to fund the proper Form 1 for it.

Matt's opinion the 922r and 88 day "fear mongering". I wish that Keltec RDB was cheaper

.

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
Matt's opinion the 922r and 88 day "fear mongering". I wish that Keltec RDB was cheaper
[FLASH_VIDEO][/FLASH_VIDEO]

I am reading the final rule, and holy shit does it make my head hurt. And reading rulemaking is part of my work.

Assuming I finish it I’m planning on putting together a summary and I’ll post it in the Gun Control sub forum.

quote:

Can it really be condensed down to a couple of sentences?

I don't know with any certainty of course. But that's my view of the current law. And I've watched lots of these videos and I've not seen a single person show any legal basis for what many are interpreting from that cost response. That will be a battle for the courts I would guess. I'm not an NFA lawyer. But the ATF has clearly done nothing visible legally to change their position on 922r. I've SBR'd lots of stuff and studied the ATF rulings on a variety of issues like 922r. But this 922r discussion that offers destruction as the only option on decade old imported firearms seems totally off the map. The ATF says something in its 280+ pages of responding to comments and people act like its a new rule. Simply can't be. They were responding to an issue raised on the costs of this new ruling. There is no evidence that a new position on 922r has been announced or made. And even during this period the ATF continues to approve plenty of imported pistols as SBR's. And even if the ATF suddenly decided to change something with respect to 922r history has shown that they have grandfathered all the guns imported under the old rules. Me personally I wouldn't use the amnesty for an imported pistol that did not come with a stabilizing brace as part of being imported (and I suspect that's a tiny number). But I can certainly say that all evidence is that the ATF would approve a regular Form 1 on such a pistol as has been done previously.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
Me personally I wouldn't use the amnesty for an imported pistol that did not come with a stabilizing brace as part of being imported (and I suspect that's a tiny number)

Why not? Serious question. There's no distinction as to whether the Pistol Brace was originally provided/installed by the Manufacturer, or installed as an aftermarket accessory by the user in the new 'Rule'. Manufacturers such as B&T sell Braces for specific model pistols covering their entire product line (pistol and rifle calibers), and have done so for several years with the knowledge and tacit approval of the ATF.

Here is the historical path to an SBR. Buy an imported pistol like the B&T. Apply for your SBR via a Form 1 and when granted add a stock. Whether 922r actual applies in that circumstance is subject to debate, but its easy enough to deal with it for most guns. This is a completely proven low/no risk path but it costs you $200.
Now pick the amnesty path. You admit that you have an illegal SBR via the application. Now for the vast majority of these guns the ATF has no idea if it has or ever had a brace. None. You just told them. Now the ATF has said yea ok we forgive that illegal part IF you get a form 1 or remove it. And yea we will let you get away with putting it back into a pistol from the rifle configuration. But both of those are the ATF applying its prosecution discretion. Not a statue, not a rule change. Yup you would probably win in court when the ATF changes its mind,but you want that to save $200. Now I get if it came from the factory in only one configuration and that is with a brace (and I have one of those) there is no way around the situation. But I'' gladly pay the $200 and just avoid this whole mess...

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:

quote:

begs the question is just having the original 10" barrel and brace stored away make me a felon?

Nope. As long as you don’t show intent to assemble anything “illegal”.

Yep. Correct.

Far be it from me to claim to be an expert on such things but I previously came across the idea that the government doesn't have to show your intent to assemble an SBR; just that the parts are in "close proximity" under your control. I think the term is "constructive possession."

I believe the remedy is that the part that would make it an SBR has to not be in the immediate vicinity like in the garage but someplace else where you can't easily get to like a friend's house where he wouldn't be exposed to the same "constructive possession" situation.

Link

"27 CFR 479.11: DEFINITIONS (PISTOL)
A firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is
made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they: (a)
serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than
16 inches in length; or (b) convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm"

It is the governments responsibility to show culpability. The beauty of these arguments is people who have no experience in these types of matters watch YouTube videos (which 99 percent of the time are not correct; or are intentionally misleading well because clicks and monetization)

If you have a pistol in one corner and a brace in the other corner, it is no where near “constructive possession”. No more than having a 10 inch barrel, but no pistol or SBR construes a SBR. Close proximity for the purpose of constructive possession is the same box, or if an FFL sold someone a pistol and a brace at the same time, knowing full well that the purchaser’s intent was to make an illegal NFA item. Which is no different than the FFL selling a buyer a complete lower, and a 10 inch upper at the same time, AND have knowledge that their intent was to violate.

When all else fails, people take a cop out “oh so you trust the government then?” When people like gearhounds drops a little knowledge. Instead of what they should be saying “Hey, listen to this guy”

NONE of that takes into account that no USAO will prosecute anyone for this alone. They can’t win it at trial.

There is so much garbage on the internet (particularly YouTube) that people that actually know what they are talking about in a reasonable fashion are drowned out by noise. Gearhounds is absolutely correct on this.

It looking like the ATF did the only reasonable thing they could do about 922r> according to a report from a presentation at Shot by the ATF (I'm not sure if its ok to link this) so here's that report:
"The agency said owners of imported guns equipped with pistol braces can register or dismantle them instead of destroying or turning them in. It said assembling a pistol-braced gun, most models of which the ATF now considers rifles, from more imported parts than allowed by section 922(r) of federal law is illegal. However, the law doesn’t affect the possession of those guns by people who did not assemble them, and they can be treated the same way as non-imported braced guns under the new rule.

“[A] person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ will have the same options as anyone else under the final rule,” the agency explains in a soon-to-be-released question-and-answer section on its website. “Should that person choose to register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.”

So that guidance should be out in a FAQ to digest. And in the same presentation they said Federal Register is next Tuesday.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
It looking like the ATF did the only reasonable thing they could do about 922r> according to a report from a presentation at Shot by the ATF (I'm not sure if its ok to link this) so here's that report:

Is it potentially copyrighted material owned by another individual/entity and/or privileged info? If not, the more info we have access to the better!

Regardless, your post provides more clarity than anything else on this subject, so THANK YOU for that!

I'm pretty sure that the ATF updated the FAQ with 922r. Q9. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...ted12523pdf/download

I'm not 100% following their logic, but there it is in black and white, you don't need 922r solved to submit an amnesty Form1.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
It is the governments responsibility to show culpability. The beauty of these arguments is people who have no experience in these types of matters watch YouTube videos (which 99 percent of the time are not correct; or are intentionally misleading well because clicks and monetization)

If you have a pistol in one corner and a brace in the other corner, it is no where near “constructive possession”. No more than having a 10 inch barrel, but no pistol or SBR construes a SBR. Close proximity for the purpose of constructive possession is the same box, or if an FFL sold someone a pistol and a brace at the same time, knowing full well that the purchaser’s intent was to make an illegal NFA item. Which is no different than the FFL selling a buyer a complete lower, and a 10 inch upper at the same time, AND have knowledge that their intent was to violate.

When all else fails, people take a cop out “oh so you trust the government then?” When people like gearhounds drops a little knowledge. Instead of what they should be saying “Hey, listen to this guy”

NONE of that takes into account that no USAO will prosecute anyone for this alone. They can’t win it at trial.

There is so much garbage on the internet (particularly YouTube) that people that actually know what they are talking about in a reasonable fashion are drowned out by noise. Gearhounds is absolutely correct on this.

IANAL, but I have been the object of a prosecution 25 yrs ago by a federal entity. One guy decided he was going to add a notch to his bedpost, and I was a soft target with no union to back me up. He thought I was going to roll over easily and take a settlement, but it was a career ending potential for me so I fought it.

After more than a year, and costing me 2 years of my pay to fund my lawyer, the judge threw it out as baseless. Which it was. Completely baseless. The scenario the prosecutor put forth was quite literally impossible. Not to mention that the complaint itself detailed how it was not an infraction of the federal regulation. (analogous to being accused of violating a law against having an open container of water in the vehicle because a bottle of water was found, when in fact there is no law against water in a vehicle).

Under normal circumstances I expect law enforcement and prosecutors to use some amount of logic. But I have learned that there are the exceptions, so it is best to not give them any assistance.

I would certainly never consent to a warrantless search, and I would assert my right to silence if I owned a pistol brace.

quote:

Fly-Sig:

I would certainly never consent to a warrantless search, and I would assert my right to silence if I owned a pistol brace.

^^^ this is sound advice in any matter.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
I'm pretty sure that the ATF updated the FAQ with 922r. Q9. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...ted12523pdf/download

I'm not 100% following their logic, but there it is in black and white, you don't need 922r solved to submit an amnesty Form1.

Thank you for this good info.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
story

I really don’t see what that has to do with what is and isn’t constructive possession as it relates to firearms.

He’s still right.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
story

I really don’t see what that has to do with what is and isn’t constructive possession as it relates to firearms.

He’s still right.

Ok, here it is in simple terms. There are times when a government authority decides to bring down the hammer on an individual for some reason other than honest justice in accordance with established law. The agent or prosecutor has another agenda, and they have unlimited resources to apply against a citizen who will be ruined by the situation. The authority may know they may not win at trial, but they either expect a settlement or they are willing to go to trial anyhow.

Constructive possession may be well legally established to require something like both items in the same box or both purchased at the same time (which you earlier posited as meeting the test). But some poor schlub could still be targeted to be crushed by an authority with something to gain by it, even if it never goes to court.

Walking right up to the legal line but not crossing it may be legal, but I would never assume an authority would know where the line is or would care.

In my case the complaint was written (an analogy here): We propose to strip Mr. Fly-Sig of his liberty for being in possession of a bottle of tap water in violation of Federal Regulation 123.456 which prohibits "open container of an alcoholic beverage". I mean quite literally the complaint itself proved I was not in violation, yet I had to spend huge $$ in legal fees to defend myself.

And, the technicality of me being in possession of a beverage of any kind (again, an analogy) was utterly impossible. The situation literally could not have happened, but it was very technical.

In even simpler terms:

1- In an ideal world, justice is justice, and black is black, and white is white.

2- Welcome to the real world. Corruption runs rampant. Too many thugs wear badges. The DOJ has been weaponized and has become the DOI.

He’s still correct.

It’s interesting that people who apparently don’t care what the law is are they same ones complaining that the government don’t care what the law actually is........

Hmm... It appears as if you may be hinting that Gearhounds could actually be correct. Did I decipher that right?