VA just joined the lawsuit against the ATF. I love our AG.

I said it in a earlier post. Where in the hell are the NRA and the GOA in all of this? They keep giving us all this BS boilerplate speech about how it's an invasion of our rights. They're working on it. Where is the simple suit asking for an injunction.

quote:

Originally posted by kent j:
I said it in a earlier post. Where in the hell are the NRA and the GOA in all of this?

They're the hell in court, filing lawsuits.

The NRA's suit was filed yesterday, and has already been joined by 25 states and several gun-related companies:

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ul-pistol-brace-rule

The GOA's suit was filed yesterday too, and joined by 1 state so far:

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-...f-pistol-brace-rule/


I'd say 6 business days from 1/31 for their teams of lawyers to thoroughly read and reread the final published decision, research precedence and caselaw, make a plan of attack, reach out for support, prepare several drafts of a lawsuit with the correct wording to lay a strong foundation, and then formally file it, is pretty damn speedy!

quote:

Originally posted by Leemur:
VA just joined the lawsuit against the ATF. I love our AG.

Awesome.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by kent j:
I said it in a earlier post. Where in the hell are the NRA and the GOA in all of this?

They're the hell in court, filing lawsuits.

The NRA's suit was filed yesterday, and has already been joined by 25 states and several gun-related companies:

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ul-pistol-brace-rule

The GOA's suit was filed yesterday too, and joined by 1 state so far:

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-...f-pistol-brace-rule/


I'd say 6 business days since 1/31 to read the final published decision, research precedence and caselaw, make a plan of attack, reach out for support, and then formally file a lawsuit is pretty damn speedy!

The NRA is in lead on a suit!?!?!?! I think I'm having a heart attack from from the shock!

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, the NRA partnered with 25 states and the GOA (with the GOF) are with Texas on a filing yesterday, 26 states total.

Is a photo part of the process?
Didn’t realize.
I’m so bad at uploading photos. Ugh.

^^^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 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.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^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 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.

Thanks.

I'm not sure of what the answer above about photos is about. But 1. you have to include a digital photo of yourself as the maker (assuming filing as an individual) and 2. you have to include a photo of the markings currently on the gun (i.e. the serial number and maker marks). These are both easy and the ATF accepts a number of different formats. Your cell phone camera will get the job done. You do not have to include a photo of the gun with brace as some have suggested.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
you have to include a photo of the markings currently on the gun (i.e. the serial number and maker marks).

Where is this stated? I've not seen it and it's NOT on the Form 1. The only thing different about the Form 1 is the extra checkbox indicating it's a Tax Exempt. Specifically its states "To confirm the application qualifies for tax-free registration, ATF may require additional supporting documentation, such as photographs of the firearm to be registered." To my knowledge, they're not asking for anything extra at the time of submission. They make a similar statement re: 'may require photographs' in the documents published re: the 2021R-08F Rule, but I have not seens it stated anywhere as a requirement or part of the eForm 1 Submission.

You have the option on an eForm 1 to upload photos of the receiver markings. It is generally not required. This has been an option all along, and is not tied to the brace registration.

It's primarily used if you're submitting a registration for a non-standard firearm model, or one from a new, obscure, or unknown manufacturer. If you don't include photos of the markings, it can delay your application while the ATF researches just what they hell you're talking about, and the ATF examiner will sometimes come back and request that you add photos before they will approve it.

^^^I presume that if the Manufacturer and Model info for the Firearm to be registered is already pre-loaded in the drop down menus for the eForm 1, there's no need to provide a photo considering it's already a known firearm configuration to the ATF, correct?

That's a safe bet.

If it turns out to be needed because they want to clarify something, you'll get a request by an examiner at a later date.

Some people may be getting confused by the format of the eForm 1. If you get to that screen where you can upload photos of the markings, they're assuming that they can't proceed past that until they upload photos of the markings. That's not the case. The "Next" button is greyed out, but the "Finish" button is not. Click "Finish".



The ATF's own eForm 1 step-by-step guidance for the brace registration states that it's optional. From Page 7 of this: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-...cewithqapdf/download

I don't know why you would consider that picture OPTIONAL. It says on the actual EForm1 "Add close-up photo of any stamping/engraving currently on serialized part." (not the documentation and an e.g. the actual form 1)
Do not see how that could be thought to be optional. Personally I add it. I can't see any possible downside and it certainly doesn't seem optional.

Since one is trying to get these approved as expeditiously as possible I give them everything they ask for. And in this case you are certifying what's actually already on the gun, so why not just give them the picture. Why wait for a potential reach out from the ATF to clarify something? I don't get even the idea.

Do not mean to ask a stupid question but I have not read anything in this related to the ”other weapon” catagory.

Does this new ruling also apply to braces on the “other weapon” category like the Mossberg Shockwave?

quote:

They're the hell in court, filing lawsuits.

The NRA's suit was filed yesterday, and has already been joined by 25 states and several gun-related companies:

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ul-pistol-brace-rule

The GOA's suit was filed yesterday too, and joined by 1 state so far:

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-...f-pistol-brace-rule/

Thanks Rogue. My googlefu wasn't strong enough to find that. Glad they finally got going. Maybe now we'll at least get an injunction.

quote:

Originally posted by sigarmsp226:
Do not mean to ask a stupid question but I have not read anything in this related to the ”other weapon” catagory.

Does this new ruling also apply to braces on the “other weapon” category like the Mossberg Shockwave?

Well, at least for the Mossberg Shockwave, it doesn't apply as that's a shotgun. I would not be surprised however, if other 'other weapon' configurations (such as those that evade other prohibited firearm classifications in CT, etc) were now classified classified as SBRs. Just my opinion though, so YMMV here...

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by sigarmsp226:
Do not mean to ask a stupid question but I have not read anything in this related to the ”other weapon” catagory.

Does this new ruling also apply to braces on the “other weapon” category like the Mossberg Shockwave?

Well, at least for the Mossberg Shockwave, it doesn't apply as that's a shotgun. I would not be surprised however, if other 'other weapon' configurations (such as those that evade other prohibited firearm classifications in CT, etc) were now classified classified as SBRs. Just my opinion though, so YMMV here...

Connecticut is a mess right now with the “other” category….we are waiting to see how this will be handled with the State. With the new pistol brace ruling by ATF and its newly defined definitions….there is no longer that “gray” area that the “other” was borne out of….now it’s clearly either a pistol,rifle or SBR…..all of which are not legal in the State! I work in a LGS and have had customers that submitted the federal form to ATF to register SBR only to have it sent back denied stating they are not accepting them from Connecticut!

We are in a holding pattern as of now, the State is still authorizing “other” authorization numbers for sales but admit they don’t know how this will all play out yet…..clear as mud!