I see Chowser posts an approved amnesty F1, which made me wonder what happens to all of those when the ATF final rule is tossed? The injunction doesn't do anything, but presumably the reason that the injunction was granted is the presumption the plaintiff's will prevail.
In thinking about it I conclude they are null and void as there is no underlying statue/administrative rule to grant a tax free F1 to 'normal' people. What's the forum think?

I think it would be a bureaucratic and practical effect nightmare, even if it's not a technical one to simply void them all. Whatever our motivations or how willing we were, a quarter million people made a show of good faith out of millions. It would be a mistake beyond words to piss all over the ones who actually said "yeah ok, sure." I think there's a number of reasons why they'll let those approvals stand, but the biggest one is that if it doesn't, it instantly and forever discredits the entire agency with everyone who was willing to do things their way, including a new generation and and a half who weren't around to watch Waco and Ruby Ridge happen on TV.

Could they invalidate them? Yeah, probably. Are they likely to? I don't think so.

They need a statutory basis to keep them valid. Where might that be? Intent and the right thing means nothing in this.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
They need a statutory basis to keep them valid.

Yes, but they need a reason to invalidate them. They want registered guns anyways. I think there's more reasons to keep the amnesty registrations valid than not.

There was another NFA amnesty in 1968, and for full auto stuff, too, not just SBR's. I've looked and I can't find anything anywhere about any of those being being invalidated. Now, it was an all paper system them, and most of the registrations for this amnesty being efile and easier to undo with some coding is something I've seen mentioned. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. There could be a legal basis for "amnesty means amnesty" based on 1968.

On each of these F1's is a condition that its issued subject to the final rule. So the final rule goes I think the F1 goes too...

I haven't actually looked at the statue yet but I think the 1968 amnesty was actually in the GCA of 1968. But decent example to research.

The headache of figuring out what to do with a claw back and the due process/taking claims issues are going to be FAR FAR more money than just writing off the $200 stamps. All that makes these applications different is that stamp.

I am unclear what the due process/taking claim would be. The rule is voided. The F1 is voided and you Mr. gun owner are back where you started with a legal pistol with a brace. Again I have no issue that the ATF would probably like to consider them as real F1's but I'm looking for some statutory basis for them to just waive the necessary $200. Me personally if it came to that I'd rather just send them $200 and have a valid F1 than go back to the braced pistol.

I'd have to look up the court case, but the Supremes have ruled that the federal government cannot levee a tax ex post facto. There will be no "ooops, now you fuckers gotta pay the man" nonsense, it will likely be that the approvals stand or they don't, but they can't retroactively tax people who got their approvals.

Well, for me I don't have a braced pistol, I have a SBR that I invested a stock in based on an approval that I received. The brace is gone. By reverting back I have relied on the approval to my detriment. This SBR was taken from me without any process. That's the taking issue. Magnified by everyone who did that. Perhaps making me a felon, because by the logic of your position, the SBR was never approved.

Whether you are legally right or not isn't the issue, the headache of litigating that issue for everyone isn't worth the tax stamps.

Boy the ATF really created a Clusterf$#k! The real issue is that government agencies can not create laws. I’m guessing also that the 1968 amnesty was built into the GCA of 1968 but too lazy to go looking. I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I too lean toward the approved F1s were a condition of the rule being finalized. Now that the rule is stayed as unconstitutional, my bet would be that the approved F1s are gone as well. Those SBRs would revert to a braced pistol and my guess is that those that thought to place a normal stock are now in felony territory. Obviously, we”ll have to see what if any guidance the ATF gives on the matter. I certainly wouldn’t want to be the person the ATF tries to make an example of. If it were me personally, I’d probably revert it back to a braced pistol and consult with an attorney familiar with firearms litigation. What a mess!

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
This SBR was taken from me without any process.

quote:

Originally posted by dking271:
Now that the rule is stayed as unconstitutional, my bet would be that the approved F1s are gone as well. If it were me personally, I’d probably revert it back to a braced pistol and consult with an attorney familiar with firearms litigation. What a mess!

I think you guys are getting ahead of things, nothing has been taken and the final ruling isn't even out yet, they just can't enforce it as of now. I'm not doing shit unless and until very clear information comes out about what's what, and that includes worrying about it or trying to figure out what my next moves are.

If you went into this thing and registered amnesty F1's and didn't at least consider the possibility that they'd yank the rug out from under us at some point, then I don't know what to say. I didn't get rid of any braces. Thought about it, and I saw a lot of people selling them, but I hung onto them just in case. I'd like to keep my SBR's and I suspect that'll be another thing that gets fought in court if they try to invalidate them. Whatever happens, I suspect we'll see some permanent legal restrictions on exactly what the ATF and other federal agencies can get away with.

I agree that this is something that is going to be fought at for a significant length of time. What I don't see, at all, is down the road anyone who was approved for an SBR via this method losing that SBR status. I might have to pay $200 for the stamp, at worst, but that's it and the chance of that happening remote at best.

The status of the lower being an SBR is not something that can be taken away via an "oops we got the law wrong for 250,000 people who we asked to legally comply when we threatened to make felons out of them".

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
I might have to pay $200 for the stamp, at worst, but that's it and the chance of that happening remote at best.

Again, the supreme court has shot down retroactive taxation. The likelihood of everyone being required to pay $200 per approval down the road is somewhere between "low" and "lol."

I think the most likely thing is that nothing happens. There's a lot of downsides to them trying to fuck with the amnesty registrants. What are the upsides? They have information on what you have, but they don't legally recognize your right to have it after you've gone through the process and been vetted? It's not just a matter of "is the juice worth the squeeze," I'm wondering what the juice even is in this instance. They're not going to create a whole class of people to go after, especially when that class of people are the ones who decided to take the ATF at their word and do things the way they wanted to do it.

Retroactive taxation is a thing in the law for sure. But the ATF doesn't have to force that issue, they can just say you can keep your F1 if you buy a tax stamp or its voided and you are back where we started.
But in all this I'm still at the same point, is there actually a statutory basis for the ATF to be able to issue a tax exempt F1 to a normal person.
Now I get that the courts may fashion a remedy for this situation that is outside of administrative and statutory rights of the ATF.
I can easily go back to pre amnesty configurations. But what is problematic at the moment to me is that in some specific cases I would like to add an expensive stock to a gun and it seems likely that might be a dead end till its all sorted.

Ahh, certainty. That's not going to happen. I mean, what statutory authority did the ATF have to do this thing in the first place?

But I concur that the chance that anyone is going to have to "retroactively" pay the stamp or lose the SBR designation is very, very low.

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:
But in all this I'm still at the same point, is there actually a statutory basis for the ATF to be able to issue a tax exempt F1 to a normal person.
Now I get that the courts may fashion a remedy for this situation that is outside of administrative and statutory rights of the ATF.

Yeah, I'm hoping for, and can imagine a situation where the courts essentially say "ATF, you fucked up, and you can't do this again, but these people registered NFA items and that's the way it's going to stand." I don't think anyone has a good idea how this particular issue is going to get resolved. We're in totally uncharted waters with a lot of sittings with the byproducts of an unconstitutional act. Hell, anyone with an NFA item fits in that category, but nobody has challenged that piece of shit legislation yet. Bruen is a landmark case. The bumpstock case and this one as well will likely also end up being similarly important.

For what it's worth, I'm completely avoiding Guntuber suck-running about where this is going. Anthony Miranda constantly jerking off the 2A community with his clickbait killed it for me. I can't even handle the Four Boxes Diner guy, Anthony left my dick so sore.

quote:

Originally posted by Loswsmith:
Ahh, certainty. That's not going to happen. I mean, what statutory authority did the ATF have to do this thing in the first place?

But I concur that the chance that anyone is going to have to "retroactively" pay the stamp or lose the SBR designation is very, very low.

The rulemaking authority granted by the legislature. Or at least that's the claim. There is no question that the ATF has been given rulemaking authority. Nobody is arguing that. The argument is whether the brace rule is within said authority.

I don’t care. I was intending on SBRing both of my rifles. I’ll pay $400 if it is what it takes.

Me neither but it would be nice if we didn't have to wait (note a 140 day time in the NFA thread) or solve some of the other issues the amnesty ones avoided like 922r.