Consequences of the inverting of the Form 1 Changes can be used for entrapment

[wb3jma]

GOA lawyer gets ATF to admit the new process puts you in a position if denied application that they can will take enforcement action against you.

 

[Art3]

I feel like I've seen this before...

GOA Uncovers Fatal Flaw In Pistol Brace Rule...IT'S A TRAP!!!

I'm only the messenger. I don't know for sure if this is the right forum for this. I don't know if this is information is bogus and making a mountain out of a mole hill, but on the surface this sounds mighty important...or at least they do in this video.

www.mdshooters.com

ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

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...

www.mdshooters.com

 

[Bob A]

GOA lawyer gets ATF to admit the new process puts you in a position if denied application that they can will take enforcement action against you.

The essence of this video is that the ATF wants you to submit paperwork, fingerprints, personal information and photo of your newly-declared SBR. Legally, you are already a felon when you do so, as you're admitting that you already have an SBR before you receive your tax stamp.

Then you get to wait for them to approve your old pistol as a new SBR. Unfortunately, the FBI is no longer doing NICS approvals for ATF, so ATF has to run their own. This will become a problem, because if an approval is not granted in 88 days, it is automatically denied.

So there you are, illegal SBR in hand, your denial in hand, now really and officially a felon in possession. What will happen to you?

Well, you will be subject to an enforcement action. So says the lady from the ATF at the SHOT show.

Interestingly, you have been forced by the new ATF rule to testify against yourself, contrary to your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, in order to avoid prosecution for illegal ownership of a weapon that you owned in good faith, that the ATF admitted at the time of purchase or construction was in fact legal.

Seems to me that merely filling out the form ATF requires is a violation of the 5th Amendment, and is an illegal rule on its very face. Add to that the likelihood of a denial due to the inevitable processing delay, you are in even deeper jeopardy.

ATF indicates that they will work this all out. You can trust them, they're from the government.

 

[ericoak]

The ATF has let thousands of people register guns that were not only illegal, but illegally obtained including stolen from the US military. There is no way they are going to arrest and prosecute millions of Americans, many of whom bought the guns from licensed dealers.

 

[Bertfish]

Remove the brace while waiting

Done

 

[HaveBlue]

The ATF has let thousands of people register guns that were not only illegal, but illegally obtained including stolen from the US military. There is no way they are going to arrest and prosecute millions of Americans, many of whom bought the guns from licensed dealers.

I feel the same way. However, just because they can’t arrest all doesn’t mean they can’t arrest some. If they can only arrest some, they might even choose to arrest those they like the least.

 

[rocket1331]

Is 200 bucks really worth it? Yes, money is money, and everyone's financial situation is drastically different, but for some nominal amount, there is so little upside. Plus considering the general negatives that come with an SBR, people should really think twice. If you really want an SBR down the line, go the traditional route and pay that $200, meanwhile, pop the brace off prior to whenever the deadline is, and see how things shake out. Generally nothing in life is truly free, but for sure, nothing any government has to offer is ever free.

 

[outrider58]

Is 200 bucks really worth it? Yes, money is money, and everyone's financial situation is drastically different, but for some nominal amount, there is so little upside. Plus considering the general negatives that come with an SBR, people should really think twice. If you really want an SBR down the line, go the traditional route and pay that $200, meanwhile, pop the brace off prior to whenever the deadline is, and see how things shake out. Generally nothing in life is truly free, but for sure, nothing any government has to offer is ever free.

I agree.

If the AFT really wanted to get serious about all this, they would have raised the NFA tax. Back when it was conceived, $200 was an onerous tax, when you consider the average cost of a pistol(the original target of the NFA) was between $5-$10. Just imagine what that tax would be/could be today...

 

[HaveBlue]

Is 200 bucks really worth it? Yes, money is money, and everyone's financial situation is drastically different, but for some nominal amount, there is so little upside. Plus considering the general negatives that come with an SBR, people should really think twice. If you really want an SBR down the line, go the traditional route and pay that $200, meanwhile, pop the brace off prior to whenever the deadline is, and see how things shake out. Generally nothing in life is truly free, but for sure, nothing any government has to offer is ever free.

100% agree!

 

[rocket1331]

That $200 tax now is just a bonus to the federal registry that they justified themselves into having.

 

[erwos]

The ATF has let thousands of people register guns that were not only illegal, but illegally obtained including stolen from the US military. There is no way they are going to arrest and prosecute millions of Americans, many of whom bought the guns from licensed dealers.

This. If they basically arrest people for doing what they're asking them to do, it's a surefire way to never get any compliance ever. They want compliance. Maybe a little fear, too, but entrapment is a little more specific and directed than this.

 

[alucard0822]

Thought they did away with the picture requirement in the final rule. I get how it could easy be a 5th amendment violation, but they basically have to prove you had an unlawful weapon before the form 1 came though. Even now, you have to list OAL and info on the firearm you are looking to build, kinda hard to do without building it first unless you know to look it up or calculate it from parts.

The main problem is basically creating a market segment then ending it a decade later won't stand up to most any legal challenge. If the rule stands, there is absolutely nothing safe, and being these "rules" merely serve the party in control of that agency, it is easily abused and creates massive instability.

 

[alucard0822]

Thought they did away with the picture requirement in the final rule. I get how it could easy be a 5th amendment violation, but they basically have to prove you had an unlawful weapon before the form 1 came though. Even now, you have to list OAL and info on the firearm you are looking to build, kinda hard to do without building it first unless you know to look it up or calculate it from parts.

The main problem is basically creating a market segment then ending it a decade later won't stand up to most any legal challenge. If the rule stands, there is absolutely nothing safe, and being these "rules" merely serve the party in control of that agency, it is easily abused and creates massive instability.

 

[lazarus]

I agree.

If the AFT really wanted to get serious about all this, they would have raised the NFA tax. Back when it was conceived, $200 was an onerous tax, when you consider the average cost of a pistol(the original target of the NFA) was between $5-$10. Just imagine what that tax would be/could be today...

They can’t. It is controlled by legislation. And the original legislation made no provisions to tie it to inflation. Thankfully. Otherwise tax stamps would be about $5000 today. Pistols were a little more expensive then. Around $30 IIRC. Silencers were $8 on average. But yeah, the purpose of the NFA was originally banning machine guns and pistols for only the government and the rich. Pistols fell out of the NFA before it was passed, but SBRs and SBS along with AOWs stayed in, as those were considered a dodge around the effective pistol ban. Silencers were added in because not many people had them and there were game warden concerns people were using them to poach, so they wanted them banned.

Back before crossbows and modern bows were a thing. Otherwise they probably would have been pushing to ban at least crossbows.

 

[outrider58]

They can’t. It is controlled by legislation. And the original legislation made no provisions to tie it to inflation. Thankfully. Otherwise tax stamps would be about $5000 today. Pistols were a little more expensive then. Around $30 IIRC. Silencers were $8 on average. But yeah, the purpose of the NFA was originally banning machine guns and pistols for only the government and the rich. Pistols fell out of the NFA before it was passed, but SBRs and SBS along with AOWs stayed in, as those were considered a dodge around the effective pistol ban. Silencers were added in because not many people had them and there were game warden concerns people were using them to poach, so they wanted them banned.

Back before crossbows and modern bows were a thing. Otherwise they probably would have been pushing to ban at least crossbows.

The "they" in my comment was Congress.

 

[Lafayette]

On the plus side, Mark Smith (from Four Boxes Diner) thinks

26 U.S. Code § 5848​

may provide protection, as any information given on your Form 1 *(and not with intent to lie) cannot be used against you due to 5th amendment protections. At least that's how I understand his take. I wonder how it affects things if your background check fails after 88 days...after all the only reason they know you have a braced pistol is your Form 1 - and that can't be used to indict you, right?



Regardless if it does, this brace ban is BS of the first degree, and still bones MD residents due to the SBR regulations here.

 

[lazarus]

The "they" in my comment was Congress.

Oh. Sorry. Yeah, I should have figured that out. I am damned glad they haven't tinkered with it!

Same critters want a 1,000% tax on ARs. I don't trust them to touch the NFA. At this point it feels like the only good course is SCOTUS taking a scalpel, or hatchet to that law.