I believe Dwill104 is correct. I'm wanting to make some adjustments on a couple of "pistols" that I have but will wait until a more defining clarification is put out.

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

Also, as this is your 'one and only, do it all 5.56', I hope you're aware that you can't just slap that upper on your G$ Super Duty lower receiver and head out to the range. NFA still applies until we get new guidance from the ATF post SilencerShop/Jenson. It may be a moot point depending on what guidance is forthcoming, but the ATF has also indicated that the 'Engraving Requirement' may be going away on Form 1 SBRs & SBSs anyway, so I'd hold off mating them until you've got we've got confirmation on one or both to avoid violating the finish on that Lower Receiver. Enjoy your shiny new toys!

Have to disagree with you here. The injunction is in effect right now, period. There is nothing in the court order that says the ATF has to provide guidance before it takes effect. If you’re in one of the covered plaintiff groups, and assuming any applicable state laws are complied with, then the ATF and DOJ are enjoined from enforcing certain specific sections of the NFA on you. Technically, the NFA still exists, however if you’re covered, you aren’t required to file a Form 1 to make a SBR, and can’t be charged or prosecuted for not having one. So, depending on meeting certain conditions, yeah you can just slap that short barrel upper on your receiver. Of course, that’s just my opinion, for what little it’s worth. Guidance from the ATF may never come.

The injunction only addressed NFA side of things and NOBODY knows if the OP is covered by the injunction anyway. Not to mention there's a whole lot of 'ifs' you posted when qualifying your disagreement. The GCA still applies to SBRs, so I assume you saying that anyone (that 'may' be protected) is free to just go ahead and 'make' one even though it's unlawful for a dealer to transfer one without a Form 4 due to 18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful Acts. Seriously, the OP has now purchased his 'one and only, do it all 5.56', so it's a fair assumption he may not be fluent in all the ins and outs of the NFA and GCA regulations. It 'may' be a moot point, but we're talking about the ATF here and I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to gray areas involving potential Federal Felony Violations. For the record, the Director of the ATF has publicly posted that Guidance from the ATF is coming, so no need to rush things IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

Also, as this is your 'one and only, do it all 5.56', I hope you're aware that you can't just slap that upper on your G$ Super Duty lower receiver and head out to the range. NFA still applies until we get new guidance from the ATF post SilencerShop/Jenson. It may be a moot point depending on what guidance is forthcoming, but the ATF has also indicated that the 'Engraving Requirement' may be going away on Form 1 SBRs & SBSs anyway, so I'd hold off mating them until you've got we've got confirmation on one or both to avoid violating the finish on that Lower Receiver. Enjoy your shiny new toys!

Have to disagree with you here. The injunction is in effect right now, period. There is nothing in the court order that says the ATF has to provide guidance before it takes effect. If you’re in one of the covered plaintiff groups, and assuming any applicable state laws are complied with, then the ATF and DOJ are enjoined from enforcing certain specific sections of the NFA on you. Technically, the NFA still exists, however if you’re covered, you aren’t required to file a Form 1 to make a SBR, and can’t be charged or prosecuted for not having one. So, depending on meeting certain conditions, yeah you can just slap that short barrel upper on your receiver. Of course, that’s just my opinion, for what little it’s worth. Guidance from the ATF may never come.

The injunction only addressed NFA side of things and NOBODY knows if the OP is covered by the injunction anyway. Not to mention there's a whole lot of 'ifs' you posted when qualifying your disagreement. The GCA still applies to SBRs, so I assume you saying that anyone (that 'may' be protected) is free to just go ahead and 'make' one even though it's unlawful for a dealer to transfer one without a Form 4 due to 18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful Acts. Seriously, the OP has now purchased his 'one and only, do it all 5.56', so it's a fair assumption he may not be fluent in all the ins and outs of the NFA and GCA regulations. It 'may' be a moot point, but we're talking about the ATF here and I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to gray areas involving potential Federal Felony Violations. For the record, the Director of the ATF has publicly posted that Guidance from the ATF is coming, so no need to rush things IMO.

Making and selling SBRs are two different things. The GCA provisions, which still are in effect as you noted, deal with dealers selling SBRs. Making and possessing SBRs are covered by the NFA, so yes as silly as it seems you can “make” something that a dealer can’t sell without a Form 4. My qualifications (may, etc.) deal with the fact that the injunctions only apply to specified groups, and without knowing whether the OP is in one of the plaintiff groups, or has a state law that requires registration under the NFA, the injunction may or may not apply to him. It’s as simple as that, not a question of whether it’s legal if you’re covered. But flat out saying you “can’t” do it, period, as you’ve said isn’t correct either. Anyway, I’m not interested in arguing about this, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. We’ll have to wait and see when/if the ATF comes out with something, and exactly what the guidance covers. It could just be guidance for dealers.

^^ Yes, can't is somewhat absolute here, I get that, and I may be guilty of in-artful syntax/linguistics with that statement. Distinction without a difference?
Perhaps my statement should've read:

quote:

I hope you're aware that 'it may or may not be legal for you to' just slap that upper on your G$ Super Duty lower receiver and head out to the range.

Honestly though, there is A LOT of confusion and sufficient questions that remain unanswered on 'exactly' who is and is not covered by the injunction, so lacking a definitive answer from an authority in a position to provide one, there is NO WAY I'd be willing to risk a Federal Felony...AND no way I'd casually suggest otherwise. Better to proceed with caution IMO, especially when posting on a public forum, as some reading might be quick to run with something (misinformation?) that could get them into a LOT of trouble. Plus, I'd hate for anyone engrave a shiny new G$ Lower Receiver if it's completely unnecessary.

For the record, here's the post from the Director of the ATF on the subject:

https://x.com/ATFDirectorRC/st.../2093499293055307794

quote:

There's a lot of misinformation circulating about the recent NDTX ruling in Jensen v. ATF; including a headline claiming, "ATF is Furious and We Are Planning Brutal Revenge on Gun Owners."

The source? You guessed it: unnamed anonymous sources. It's completely FALSE.

**More importantly - ATF respects the Court's ruling and the rule of law. We are following the order and will not take enforcement action against protected parties inconsistent with that ruling. We are working diligently on clear guidance. Getting it RIGHT matters more than getting it out fast.

That means carefully navigating federal and state laws so that manufacturers, FFLs, and law-abiding gun owners aren't left with legal problems - today or under a future administration.

Thank you for your patience as we focus on developing the guidance. It will be posted online as soon as we are done. The American public and the 2A community deserve facts NOT clickbait.

Just To Add re: "Making and possessing SBRs are covered by the NFA, so yes as silly as it seems you can 'make' something that a dealer can’t sell without a Form 4." Absolutely 100% correct...And yet people get all twisted into knots re: 922(r) which covers 'importing' certain firearms, with certain characteristics, and still, many feel compelled to count parts, and are seemingly forced to assemble the correct number of USA made (marked?) parts, some of which are unobtanium in order to ensure they're in compliance with 922(r) when modifying such firearms to add certain features to them.

Again, we're dealing with the ATF here, and they have an all too well know history that can and should give one pause prior doing anything that's not absolutely black & white...Just Sayin'

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nhracecraft,

quote:

922(r) which covers 'importing' certain firearms,

While 922r does indeed deal with importing certain firearms, it also deals with the making of a firearm that could not be imported under the sporting rules. You can choose to respect the law and 922r or not, I'm not saying anything on that, but it is an applicable statue.

^^ True. I know I started it, and now we're getting off in the weeds here, but...

Per the FAQ document re: Final Rule 2021-08F:

Question: 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?
Answer: 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.

While the above is specific to SBRs registered during the Amnesty period, a key takeaway is that the ATF is focusing on when one defines the firearm was 'assembled' and of course, what's important is who does the defining. That, and things are not always as black & white as they seem.

OK now we are really drifting. But the amnesty firearms are not the normal case. The ATF ruled they had already been assembled and were already SBR's and that could not be cured. So 922R did not apply subsequently, and also lots of other things that were good like the marking requirement.
But a gun you are making (SBR) right now is NOT THAT SITUATION in any manner. You are subject to 922r. You are MAKING it when you file the Form1 (that's its actual purpose) for permission to make it and then subsequently actually make it.
Why are you trying to muddy this discussion with the amnesty? I don't get the connection you are trying to make.
EDITED to ADD this whole 922r discussion has nothing to do with any gun that is not subject to 922r, which for the OP and just about anyone doing an AR would have no meanining whatsoever...

Correct. The whole point was black & white vs gray areas, and that the ATF has historically been the authority that does the defining. Therefore it would be prudent to wait for 'guidance' from the ATF prior to 'making' SBRs by just slapping short barrel uppers on Title 1 Lower Receivers by those that 'may or may not' be covered by the injunction in SilencerShop/Jensen v. ATF.

on this we fully agree. anyone taking delivery of an NFA item with no path to update the registry to its actually ownership in the registry is just plain dumb (and probably worse) IMO.
Anyone making an NFA item without an approved F1 backing it up is equally dumb.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
That Sir, is a REALLY Nice combo you've put together there! Congrats on your acquisition(s)!

Also, as this is your 'one and only, do it all 5.56', I hope you're aware that you can't just slap that upper on your G$ Super Duty lower receiver and head out to the range. NFA still applies until we get new guidance from the ATF post SilencerShop/Jenson. It may be a moot point depending on what guidance is forthcoming, but the ATF has also indicated that the 'Engraving Requirement' may be going away on Form 1 SBRs & SBSs anyway, so I'd hold off mating them until you've got we've got confirmation on one or both to avoid violating the finish on that Lower Receiver. Enjoy your shiny new toys!

I sign up for GOA and I ordered a pistol brace. When I did the 4473 the lower was marked os other firearm. And go big or go home so I purchased a Huxwrks suppressor.

I know it is not what you asked but thought I would share.

I have the Colt 6933 (11.5”) and love it. I think you can get the complete SBR rifle for about $1350-$1400.

Just wanted to provide you with something to consider.

I ordered a used 11.5" complete Colt upper From Aim Surplus, going to have fun with this one. Need to find a Colt lower and install a binary

https://aimsurplus.com/product...plete-upper-receiver

quote:

I have the Colt 6933 (11.5”) and love it. I think you can get the complete SBR rifle for about $1350-$1400.

I just bought one!
It's the Colt LE6933 M4 Commando with the 11.5" barrel.
Now I have to learn what type of optic would be best for it.
Any suggestions?

I have had a Daniel Defense since 2011. It has been completely headache free.

I usually don't boycott companies but I will never buy a DD rifle.

In 2017 they laid off half of their employees with no notice and no severance, while moving into a new factory. They refused to let them out of non compete agreements! Dirtbags imho.

https://noveske.com/products/c...rs?460=1312&461=1315