ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

[Kharn]

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.

They're saying (in their estimate) 1.4 million people should have paid the $200 tax up to ten years ago on 3 million firearms, but they're willing to forgive the transgression.

Caetano said 200k stun guns were sufficient for 'common use' to be triggered, as of May 2021 there were 535k SBRs on the registry and now ATF wants to add another 3 million?

 

[redsandman6]

They're saying (in their estimate) 1.4 million people should have paid the $200 tax up to ten years ago on 3 million firearms, but they're willing to forgive the transgression.

Caetano said 200k stun guns were sufficient for 'common use' to be triggered, as of May 2021 there were 535k SBRs on the registry and now ATF wants to add another 3 million?

What they are saying is all of these "rifles" with barrels less than 16" with any kind of "accessories" on the end of the rifle including braces are sbrs and need to have a tax stamp like they have always needed. You can either take the "accessories" off or convert it to a non sbr. But if you want to have the sbr then you have to get a tax stamp and the atf will give it to you for free because they are nice. The atf gave options other than registering them on a form1.

Until someone challenges the nfa in court and says that sbrs are in "common use" and are "not unusual and dangerous" then the nfa will be law of land as passed in 1934.

I agree this is bs. Its moving the goal posts after they ruled one way. You are right whats the point there 10 to 40 million out there anyway for over 10 years. To me It also shows the nfa and sbrs and not anymore dangerous than any other type of firearm. And they shouldn't be regulated by the nfa.

It's the gun control lobby putting pressure on biden to "do something" biden got campaign money from them. he has to do something for them. This is probably the only thing the executive branch can do. They can re write definitions via atf rules. The question does he and the atf have the power. The courts will have to decide.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[jcutonilli]

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.

The new rule has not been published in the Federal Register as far as I know. The link to the Federal Register is below

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.federalregister.gov

 

[swinokur]

The ATF has no more authority to say a pistol with a brace is an SBR than they do saying a bump stock turns a rifle into a machine gun

Not in the statute, not illegal

FAIL

Let the lawsuits commence

 

[Allen65]

The ATF has no more authority to say a pistol with a brace is an SBR than they do saying a bump stock turns a rifle into a machine gun

Not in the statute, not illegal

FAIL

Let the lawsuits commence

But until SCOTUS addresses the regulatory mess created by Chevron and Auer, courts will continue deferring to the judgement of regulators to interpret definitions in statutes as the regulators see fit. The underlying problem stretches well beyond 2A issues.

 

[swinokur]

How about the reasonable interpretation opinion?

How did the 5CA decide the bump stock ban was unconstitutional?

No deference there

 

[jcutonilli]

How about the reasonable interpretation opinion?

How did the 5CA decide the bump stock ban was unconstitutional?

No deference there

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-51016-CV2.pdf

Of the sixteen members of our court, thirteen of us agree that an act of Congress is required to prohibit bump stocks, and that we therefore must reverse. Twelve members (Chief Judge Richman and Judges Jones, Smith, Stewart, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Wilson) reverse on lenity grounds. Eight members (Judges Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson) reverse on the ground that federal law unambiguously fails to cover non-mechanical bump stocks.
Chief Judge Richman, Judge Stewart, and Judge Southwick concur in the judgment and join in Part V, as does Judge Ho, who also writes separately. Judge Oldham concurs in the judgment and joins in Parts I–IV.A. Judge Haynes only concurs in the judgment and writes separately

rule of lenity

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Kharn]

SAF and Rainier Arms v BATFE was filed in January 2021 in the Northern District of Texas, it has been in limbo waiting for the final rule to be released. I expect that case will be very fun to follow once the rule hits the Federal Register.

 

[redsandman6]

But until SCOTUS addresses the regulatory mess created by Chevron and Auer, courts will continue deferring to the judgement of regulators to interpret definitions in statutes as the regulators see fit. The underlying problem stretches well beyond 2A issues.

exactly this is a power struggle between the executive branch and legislative branch. except the legislative branch is so dysfunctional that they are not really putting up a fight. the courts are slowly reigning in the executive branch over reach. some of the cases come to mind are the bump stock case and the supreme court case West Virginia v EPA

 

[adit]

Not click bait. Those submitting may want to reconsider. GOA lawyer interview.

 

[1841DNG]

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.

I was really interested in the engraving part. I don't want my info engraved and I can't imagine the backlog for engraving.

EIther way, I will wait for the lawsuits to shake out. I don't have any NFA items and I would want them in a trust if I was going to buy. Hardly a free stamp if I am not allowed to set up a trust in advance and would have to pay to transfer them later. And having to get permission to cross state lines is not appealing. For things already on a 77R (not that the feds don't secretly track 4473s) double registering is not that scary since I am sure the ATF can look at the Maryland registry.

 

[Kharn]

Presentation and Q&A with ATF from SHOT.

 

[1841DNG]

Not click bait. Those submitting may want to reconsider. GOA lawyer interview.

Well that is terrifying.

 

[smokey]

Presentation and Q&A with ATF from SHOT.

I notice she's wearing a red coat. It seems quite appropriate.

 

[jrumann59]

But until SCOTUS addresses the regulatory mess created by Chevron and Auer, courts will continue deferring to the judgement of regulators to interpret definitions in statutes as the regulators see fit. The underlying problem stretches well beyond 2A issues.

Well Cargill V Garland will get to SCOTUS quicker than this and the issue is the same ATF said it was legal and then said it was not. Cargill did not need to worry about chevron because for some reason ATF waived it.

 

[smokey]

If someone has a braced handgun <29", does it immediately become illegal in md the second this rule lands in the register? Theoretically that's when all our braced handguns supposedly transform into SBRs according to the ATF, even if they promise not to enforce anything until 120 days later.

 

[Bob A]

Not click bait. Those submitting may want to reconsider. GOA lawyer interview.

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.

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.

 

[TinCuda]

I know we have all been talking about Chevron Deference with the pistol braces. For those that don't know, the short answer is that Congress defers to a controlling agency (ATF in this case) to flesh out any details in the interpretations of the law. The problem is that this was never intended to be used to make industry changing decisions.

Has anyone considered Skidmore Deference? Under Skidmore, a court will adopt an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation if the court is “persuaded” that the agency’s interpretation is correct based on a review of factors the agency considered in reaching its decision. Such factors include whether the agency: (1) reviewed relevant evidence thoroughly, (2) offered sound reasoning for its position, and (3) took a position consistent with its other pronouncements on the subject.

I would think that any pro-Second Amendment lawyer would find factor three very interesting given the ATF's track record.

Skidmore can also be used to assess whether an agency’s policy decision is arbitrary and capricious.

Placing judges in a position to be "persuaded" could be argued to be dangerously subjective or ambiguous, but given our positive stacking on the Supreme Court, it might be worth the risk.

 

[Blaster229]

Everyone keeps mentioning AR pistols, but there are many MPX and EVOs out there too don't forget.

 

[chillman]

Everyone keeps mentioning AR pistols, but there are many MPX and EVOs out there too don't forget.

Yes, and most won’t be able to make the >29” Maryland rule. So you comply with the federal law but now can’t comply with the state law.