ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

[Neot]

I'm interested to see how all this shakes out once they realize this is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Typical of government political appointees where they make a decision that the rank and file have to live with, and it makes zero sense. A former co-worker, who works for ATF now, said braces are the least of their field agent's concerns. They are busy with real crimes not tracking down who has what attached to their guns.

 

[HaveBlue]

I may have figured out what they are up to on the brace rule. I don’t think they believe it will go into effect either. Even 10 million ‘free Form 1s’ would take decades to process. What happens to all of those brave attached firearms while the paperwork is being processed. My FFL would have to buy 50 safes to store them for years. Imagine the surge in 5320 ( interstate transport forms) they would need to process.

My rough hypothesis is that They want SCOTUS to rule against them because the want to build support for expanding the court. The brace issue is somewhat esoteric so 80% of America will have no idea what the fight is actually over. This makes the AFT to look like the victim and the Court as ‘pro-weapons of war for everyone’. The left will cast the Court as extreme / rouge when they kill the rule.

 

[jrumann59]

I may have figured out what they are up to on the brace rule. I don’t think they believe it will go into effect either. Even 10 million ‘free Form 1s’ would take decades to process. What happens to all of those brave attached firearms while the paperwork is being processed. My FFL would have to buy 50 safes to store them for years. Imagine the surge in 5320 ( interstate transport forms) they would need to process.

My rough hypothesis is that They want SCOTUS to rule against them because the want to build support for expanding the court. The brace issue is somewhat esoteric so 80% of America will have no idea what the fight is actually over. This makes the AFT to look like the victim and the Court as ‘pro-weapons of war for everyone’. The left will cast the Court as extreme / rouge when they kill the rule.

you give the ATF too much credit. Agencies like the ATF are reactionary and always react and in this case they reacted without giving thought to what this means, they will not be able to process form 1s fast enough which will get them into trouble for Rights delayed - a lawsuit, the NFA trust thing was not thought out well - lawsuit, Cargill V Garland could topple the house of cards, if anything I can see this rule doing the ATF in as an agency. ATF was so eager to react they may have cut their own throats once the all the lawsuits hit and get settled.

 

[Tower43]

The ATF stated they were not going to waive the tax during their 2021 draft proposals.

Well they clearly were instructed to allow it.... cause the order states they're exempting it....

 

[Tower43]

The ATF have bitten off more than they can chew with this one. This whole thing will end one of two ways. 1. The rule will be withdrawn under congressional pressure, or 2. The courts will squash it. Period. It might take a slight amount of time if it needs to go to the courts. Either way, I honestly don't see this sticking even a little.

Conservatives hate the rule because of the obvious 2nd Amendment infringement.

Liberals hate it because it has the possibility of sending millions of potential democrat voters to big boy prison.

I dont trust congress or the courts, if they actually gave a flying **** the atf wouldn't even exist

 

[TinCuda]

I dont trust congress or the courts, if they actually gave a flying **** the atf wouldn't even exist

I don't trust them either but what alternate choice would you propose? All out civil war?

 

[TinCuda]

Estimates are all over the place on braced pistols. Anywhere from 10 million to 40 million.
Seems that they easily meet the Heller test since they are in "common use".

There is already legal precedent where "common use" has been used...

The 2016 legal case JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS cite Heller for the right to carry a "stun gun" under "common use". I believe the estimated number of stun guns thought to be owned was around 100,000. It also set the precedent that devices not in common use at the writing of the Second Amendment were also protected. On top of that, this ruling went directly against the previously used standard of "dangerous and unusual". In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court held that, although stun guns are unusual in nature and were not common during the enactment of the Second Amendment, they are included in the Second Amendment’s protections.

Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe".

If 100,000 stun guns were protected under "common use", then certainly (Place whatever faults number the ATF wants to use here) to 40 million pistol braces would qualify for the same protection. The extra little caveat is that even though pistol braces are a fairly new invention and could be wrongfully argued that because they did not exist at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, merits no protection from the 2A. I would argue that if a battery powered, modern day, latest technology, electronic "stun" device is protected under the 2nd Amendment, then a pistol arm brace should clearly have the same protection.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Their most recent/current position on braces invites further judicial scrutiny into NFA in general and SBRs in particular. They just may have mistakenly opened their very own version of Pandora’s box.

Here‘s the their eternal regret.

 

[bean93x]

Would it be wise to start a form 4 now if one were looking at a suppressor before the huge influx of form 1’s from this?

 

[jrumann59]

Would it be wise to start a form 4 now if one were looking at a suppressor before the huge influx of form 1’s from this?

It won't make a difference, e-form 4s are about 8-9 months right now.

 

[Tower43]

I don't trust them either but what alternate choice would you propose? All out civil war?

That'd be a revolution, not civil war

 

[TinCuda]

That'd be a revolution, not civil war

LOL, don't kid yourself. The leftist in my neighborhood would be lining up to turn me in. Half this country actually really want to keep on the chains. It would most certainly be a Civil War.

 

[Kharn]

Well they clearly were instructed to allow it.... cause the order states they're exempting it....

And how would I have known they would do that when I posted the remark you quoted back in 2021?

 

[calicojack]

Does anyone know if registered as a SBR can the upper ve changed? Like can I build one pistol AR and just build each new lower and put the same upper on each one for the required photo? That way I can save up and get the specific upper I want for each lower.
Also if you can change the upper, then can you change caliber? Like one gets registered as a 5.56 but then swap to a 300 upper.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Yes - one SBR AR15 may have multiple uppers, just so long as (1) they are state complaint and (2) rifles has same OAL. You can add uppers to your SBR officially (an update letter), but I don't think it is required. You can also register multiple uppers at the time of form 1 submission.

 

[HaveBlue]

Can anyone post the link to the rule document in the Federal Register?

I found the version on the Federal Register from 6 months ago describing the “Worksheet” But nothing more recent.

I’m under the impression that the 120 day clock starts when it hits the Federal Register.

 

[Tower43]

And how would I have known they would do that when I posted the remark you quoted back in 2021?

I just read the thread today, my bad for starting it from the beginning lol

 

[redsandman6]

There is already legal precedent where "common use" has been used...

The 2016 legal case JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS cite Heller for the right to carry a "stun gun" under "common use". I believe the estimated number of stun guns thought to be owned was around 100,000. It also set the precedent that devices not in common use at the writing of the Second Amendment were also protected. On top of that, this ruling went directly against the previously used standard of "dangerous and unusual". In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court held that, although stun guns are unusual in nature and were not common during the enactment of the Second Amendment, they are included in the Second Amendment’s protections.

Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe".

If 100,000 stun guns were protected under "common use", then certainly (Place whatever faults number the ATF wants to use here) to 40 million pistol braces would qualify for the same protection. The extra little caveat is that even though pistol braces are a fairly new invention and could be wrongfully argued that because they did not exist at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, merits no protection from the 2A. I would argue that if a battery powered, modern day, latest technology, electronic "stun" device is protected under the 2nd Amendment, then a pistol arm brace should clearly have the same protection.

the difference i see is that braces are not being banned. you can put a brace on a rifle with 16"on longer barrel and it is completely legal to own. you can put a brace on a rifle with less than 16" you just have to register it as a nfa item. after you register it as a nfa item it is perfectly legal to own. stun guns were banned in Massachusetts at the time. the only way i see this going in the courts is like the bump stock case where the aft does have the authority to change the definition of a "rifle". Only congress has that authority. they are going after the braces by not going after the braces directly.

 

[alucard0822]

I agree with this guy, wait a month or two to see what injunctions/lawsuits happen before worrying about it. IMO there are a few things to keep in mind. First is that if you already have a firearm you are planning on SBRing anyway, why not do it for free. Hearing from the FFL that handles my NFA stuff that the engraving requirement is being waived for form 1s from the 120 day period. Shops have 60 days to sell current inventory affected by this. HELP FUND THE INEVITABLE LAWSUITS. If this is allowed to stand, ATF will basically have free reign to ban whatever they want for any reason they want, they seek power to throw any of us in a cage for a decade if they choose. The courts, most states and momentum are on our side, this is the BEST opportunity in a long time to go after the NFA itself, and end the near century that law has been a BS restriction on our 2A rights. This impossible to enforce, it creates tens of million of "felons" that complied in good faith with the prior rules. It is impossible to comply, if only half of the 40 million braces out there are registered, it will take several decades for the current staff to complete the form 1s. The sheer number of braced pistols, and the increasing number of LEO agencies stating they will not enforce it makes your chances of getting caught very low.

There are really only 3 ways to bring a braced pistol into compliance as this rule is re-written, Surrender it to the ATF, add a 16" upper to make a non-NFA rifle, register as an SBR during the grace period. Being the 6 criteria stated are extremely vague and subjective, even a <16" barreled firearm with a bare buffer tube "could" be considered an SBR. It changes the language of enforcement from the law's "intent" to "able to", as in a brace is not intended to be fired from the shoulder, but this effectively prohibits anything that "could be" used to fire from the shoulder. Yanking a brace or adding a pistol tube might not save you. ANY LEO, range, RO of gun owner that asks for papers or tries to enforce this needs to be publicly outed and shunned. This will be stopped, it fails basically every test and precedent from every notable court case in the last couple decades, the only thing not guaranteed is if that will happen before or after the 120 day "grace period".

 

[Kharn]

the difference i see is that braces are not being banned. you can put a brace on a rifle with 16"on longer barrel and it is completely legal to own. you can put a brace on a rifle with less than 16" you just have to register it as a nfa item. after you register it as a nfa item it is perfectly legal to own. stun guns were banned in Massachusetts at the time. the only way i see this going in the courts is like the bump stock case where the aft does have the authority to change the definition of a "rifle". Only congress has that authority. they are going after the braces by not going after the braces directly.

Would the SC tolerate a $200 tax on a stun gun, or $150 HiPoint? I think that's the big question.

Heller outright said that MGs and SBSs aren't protected, but in Bruen those aren't mentioned in the majority and Miller is mentioned as protecting items in common use while other paragraphs require a historical analysis of laws.

But Kavanaugh's concurrence is now the last great hope the antis have latched onto, replacing the Heller dissents...

 

[redsandman6]

Would the SC tolerate a $200 tax on a stun gun, or $150 HiPoint? I think that's the big question.

Heller outright said that MGs and SBSs aren't protected, but in Bruen those aren't mentioned in the majority and Miller is mentioned as protecting items in common use while other paragraphs require a historical analysis of laws.

But Kavanaugh's concurrence is now the last great hope the antis have latched onto, replacing the Heller dissents...

its a little different the brace itself doesn't require the $200 tax stamp. the sbr requires the tax. they are just treating braces as any other stock by redefining the definition of a "rifle". the rule is aimed at the braces but they went around the back door to get them. they didn't come out and just banned the braces. its also like the bump stock rule where they changed the definition of a "machine gun". expect with bump stocks it made them banned because you cant have a machine gun that is made after 1986. so its a little different than the bump stock issue too. i don't think common use comes into play because they are not outright banning the brace and you can use it on a 16"+ barreled rifle.