I would summarize the situation as follows:
- if you had in your possession on 1/31 a braced pistol that has now been deemed an illegal SBR...
- You can EForm1 it with a waiver of the $200 tax, no requirement to engrave it (assuming it has mfg. markings), no 922r requirement, and no requirement to wait till the Form1 is approved to use it as an SBR -OR- you can reconfigure it to not be an SBR. All by 5/31.
- Once an approved SBR you can reconfigure it in any way you want, different stock, barrel length, caliber etc. etc. (side note and personal opinion since the ATF has said they won't prosecute you for an illegal SBR I think you can do all those changes once you have submitted the EForm1, what's the difference what configuration your illegal SBR is in?)

That's it in a nutshell. ANYthing else is outside the rule itself.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
I would summarize the situation as follows:
- if you had in your possession on 1/31 a braced pistol that has now been deemed an illegal SBR...
- You can EForm1 it with a waiver of the $200 tax, no requirement to engrave it (assuming it has mfg. markings), no 922r requirement, and no requirement to wait till the Form1 is approved to use it as an SBR -OR- you can reconfigure it to not be an SBR. All by 5/31.
- Once an approved SBR you can reconfigure it in any way you want, different stock, barrel length, caliber etc. etc. (side note and personal opinion since the ATF has said they won't prosecute you for an illegal SBR I think you can do all those changes once you have submitted the EForm1, what's the difference what configuration your illegal SBR is in?)

That's it in a nutshell. ANYthing else is outside the rule itself.

Thank you for the always good analysis.

Plus or minus whatever your silly State rules put you in for the new SBR situation. Like MD or CT or IL.

I guess I missed it, but I’m still not clear on what it all means for imported pistols. Was that all just YouTube BS or????

Yes, just the ramblings of guntubers. The ATF has since clarified, both in a Q&A at SHOT and online in their FAQ, that 922r doesn't apply here, and imported pistols with braces can still be registered like any other.

From the FAQ at https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...ted12523pdf/download :

quote:

I POSSESS A PISTOL, WHICH WAS IMPORTED AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY EQUIPPED WITH A STABILIZING
BRACE. DOES 18 U.S.C. § 922(R) APPLY TO MY FIREARM?

• No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a
semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the GCA
at 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more
than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. As discussed
in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is for the
“assembly” of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm would cure
the 922(r) violation because the “assembly” has already occurred. Accordingly, 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. Should that person choose to register the
firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.

Thank you for that clarification RogueJSK

I'm not a fan of this whole mess and am uncomfortable about it personally, but for many guns its a complete home run...you don't have to engrave it, you don't have to deal with 922r, you don't have to pay for the stamp, and you can continue to use it as an SBR till the ATF gets around to approving your application. NONE of which would be true for a normal SBR application.

^^^^^ And if it sounds too good to be true....

I am under the impression that lawsuits on this would be filed left and right. Where are they? YT so-called legal experts claiming this and that means jack shit.

I find all of this impossible to unravel.

[skepticism engaged] I’m with Balzé on this…[]

It sounds really good, and seems easy, but….there’s a tingly im getting

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
Plus or minus whatever your silly State rules put you in for the new SBR situation.

No SBR's in NY. Do it you're a felon, don't you're a felon.

(mostly hypothetical of course, most of the guns people braced where already illegal and you couldn't own them anyway. I was temped with non semi-auto project ideas a time or two, but never followed through)

I'm normally a half-empty glass person but, in this case, I'm seeing the situation as a half-full glass given the Bruen ruling.

So, let's see if I've got this straight. I electronically notify the ATF, in writing with photos, that I am in felony possession of an NFA item and then wait for them to tell me it's OK this time but don't do it again?

Sorry, but as Grandpa used to say, "This dog don't hunt".

I’ve pretty much stayed out of this thread checking in from time to time. Not a constitutional lawyer, but has anything changed from the USSC ruling in the United States V Miller where it was determined the 2nd amendment does not guarantee you the right to own a short barreled shotgun. It was my understanding that many took the precedence set in that case to mean NFA guns are not protected broadly under the 2nd amendment.

I seem to recall not that many years ago, the ATF changed an opinion on destructive devices, specifically something to do with grenade fuses. People that registered and paid the $200 tax stamps, claimed to have agents come and seize the item they had legally registered. I seem to recall USA V Miller as the foundation of the decision. I didn’t pay very close attention, so I may have it wrong but I believe that’s the main reason the NRA dug in its heals on classifying scary guns as NFA. This whole thing is impossible to unravel and yeah it sounds to good to be true.

quote:

Originally posted by pace40:
So, let's see if I've got this straight. I electronically notify the ATF, in writing with photos, that I am in felony possession of an NFA item and then wait for them to tell me it's OK this time but don't do it again?

Sorry, but as Grandpa used to say, "This dog don't hunt".

Well, I'm not 100% sure you have it straight, so I gotta ask...

As you don't specify, re: photos, are you talking about the firearm, which is now deemed by the ATF to be an SBR, or the 'passport photo' that needs to be provided, either on the Responsible Person Questionnaire in the case of a Trust, or w/ the Form 1 if filing as an individual? I ask as the ATF is NOT demanding photos of every firearm (now SBR) one chooses to Form 1 during the amnesty period, though they don't rule it out requesting such photos. I presume they'd only require photos to be submitted if the info on the Form 1 doesn't 'add up' and/or make sense.

And now that they've now changed their minds on the legality of use of Pistol Braces for the THIRD TIME (Officially it was yes that's legal, then it was NOT Legal if you do that, then NO Problem go ahead and do that if you want, to THAT'S an Illegal SBR!) who's to say this 'rule' is the final answer. Unfortunately, due to their track record, many (most?) are justifiably inclined to not trust the ATF at all here, and that I understand.

Regardless, let me say that I believe this is Clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL OVERREACH by the ATF, and that they are essentially MAKING LAW out of whole cloth, bypassing Congress and subverting the legislative process! Unfortunately the ATF has a LONG track record of 'making things up' as they see fit! This SHOULD be overturned by the Courts...Where the hell are the Lawsuits??

Honestly though, THE biggest issue with this UNCONSTITUTIONAL OVERREACH as I see it, is that for the MILLIONS of Law Abiding Gun Owners living in commie ban states, where you can't even own an AR let alone an SBR, there are ZERO Legal options, but for injunctive relief by the Courts!

At least in PA you 'currently' have options...

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
As you don't specify, re: photos, are you talking about the firearm, which is now deemed by the ATF to be an SBR, or the 'passport photo'

Oh, I'm talking about sending them my picture along with a statement that I'm a felon.

In March of 2017, a letter to SB Tactical's attorney from the ATF said,

"Therefore, an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device (referring to the brace) is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock - even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder."

In January of 2023 pistols with attached braces are now NFA firearms whether they are fired from the shoulder or not.

Now I'm supposed to believe them when they offer amnesty? If you look up "fickle" in the dictionary, you see the ATF logo.

I'll pass. As I said a few pages back. I've removed the brace and destroyed the attachment method. This needs to play out in court.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
I am under the impression that lawsuits on this would be filed left and right. Where are they? YT so-called legal experts claiming this and that means jack shit.

A quick search turned up these. There may be more but I figured this was enough for now.

https://www.firearmsnews.com/e...sue-atf-brace/468760

Firearms Policy Coalition Files Lawsuit Over ATF's Pistol Brace Rule


https://www.thecentersquare.co...12-4375e6702bee.html

Two from Wisconsin sue ATF over new stabilizing brace rule


https://www.washingtonpost.com...istol-brace-lawsuit/

Veterans sue Biden Justice Dept. over pistol brace restrictions

https://www.gunowners.org/na02012023/

Our attorneys are working on filing a lawsuit against the ATF to stop them from enforcing this unconstitutional pistol ban and collecting personal information about you and your firearms.

We plan to file as soon as possible. But we’re counting on your support to marshal the vital resources we need for the upcoming court battle.

I was planning on doing an SBR sooner or later. I might just bite the bullet and do it now.

In any event, this amnesty tripe sounds hasty and I'll probably dis-assemble and regular eF1 with a real stock. Going that route affords protection by the NFA act, and I'm already on that list. This new amnesty thing puts you on a new, more legally ambiguous list and then what?

I guess I'm licking boots, either way!

May as well send some GOA lawyers a Benjamin as an FU to the ATF in the meantime...

No comprendo