ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

[Scan Monkey]

It does not necessarily need to change. The issue of the 29 in requirement comes from the definition of a "copycat weapon". It uses the terms "semiautomatic centerfire rifle" but does not define what those terms mean.

The previous subtitle defines rifle as

The federal definition (18 USC 921(a)(7)) is

Maybe you can come up with some explanation as to why the term rifle means something different when it deals with a "copycat weapon" compared to other definitions. I don't see a court accepting something different, but maybe you will be very persuasive.

I am sure there will be at least one lawsuit challenging the new rule.

Additionally the MD AWB lawsuit will likely impact the issue as the current prohibition is what impacts the 29 in requirement. I do not expect the AWB lawsuit to resolve the issue within the 120 day window of implementation of the new rule however.

I appreciate your comments. I'm an old guy living alone who followed my son's insistence that I get something for home defense. He's a hunter, I'm not. So I got a 20gauge Mossberg Shockwave (classified as 'other' by the state of Maryland so an HQL was necessary for purchase). At my age, I found it a bit awkward to shoot, hence the pistol grip/brace which made a world of difference. I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut about it and keep it handy. Thanks again!

 

[redsandman6]

Heads up, just went to the ATF E-File and it states that if you wanted to E-file Form 1, the braced pistol needed to be owned by the trust prior to 13 Jan 2023.

Who on earth is assigning non-NFA pistols to the trust???

My only option now is to e-file as an individual. I can transfer it to the trust after the 120 day period for $200.

Sucks. And those of us with roller lock clones are now going to have to figure out the 29" OAL thing.

that is some bs. why would they not allow it to go into a trust. this is so stupid. but its the atf and federal government so i shouldn't be so surprised

12. CAN I REGISTER MY FIREARM WITH A “STABILIZING BRACE” TO MY TRUST? • Yes, however, the firearm would have needed to be owned by the trust prior to the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register. Evidence that the firearms was in trust should be provided with the registration document.

when was rule published was it friday? or monday?

 

[TinCuda]

Someone else touched on it earlier in this thread but states and federal definitions are not always the same. I live in Texas. The state gun rules here are great. They do have some problems. When the Shockwave "shotgun" was agreed upon/tolerated/ruled (place whatever legal term here) that it was considered for the purpose of the ATF, a "firearm". It managed to escape it's short barrel status due to the 1934 NFA definition of a shotgun as including having a buttstock. Texas state law did not support that because Texas has such loose firearms laws that a "shotgun" had never actually been defined at a state level. It did not matter if a shotgun had a buttstock or not because the State of Texas had never defined what a shotgun was. Governor Abbott graciously pushed through a bill that made the Shockwave and Shockwave style firearms legal at a state level. The problem is that the bill basically said that if the federal government finds the firearm legal, so does the State of Texas. This has a reciprocatory effect. Meaning, if the feds don't like it, neither does Texas. We also have a Sanctuary State law in place that prohibits federal agents help from local law enforcement, but time will tell how all this plays out. I still say that 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.

 

[TheBert]

In one way, ATF has a defensible position - that they erred in approving the arm braces in the first place. However, people have bought and built braced pistols in good faith. A whole lot of people. And I see several potential lawsuits.

First, reclassifying a firearm as NFA reduces its value. The owner cannot cross state lines without prior ATF permission, and is stuck with a $200 transfer tax merely to get the firearm into a dealer's inventory should he wish to sell it. Sounds like a 5th Amendment Takings case to me.

Second, there will be states (such as Maryland) where it is impossible to comply. Take a look at the MP5 SBR thread over on the NFA portion of this site....there really isn't a good way to meet MD's 29-inch requirement. Again, a 5th Amendment Takings case.

All this is quite aside from the whole legislation-through-regulatory fiat business.

Probably the biggest issue will be getting some sort of stay in place while the lawsuits get settled out.

What stops them from restricting anything using the ... we erred in approving the ...?

 

[jcutonilli]

I appreciate your comments. I'm an old guy living alone who followed my son's insistence that I get something for home defense. He's a hunter, I'm not. So I got a 20gauge Mossberg Shockwave (classified as 'other' by the state of Maryland so an HQL was necessary for purchase). At my age, I found it a bit awkward to shoot, hence the pistol grip/brace which made a world of difference. I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut about it and keep it handy. Thanks again!

I do not believe that MD has a classification of 'other'. The reason that an HQL was required is because it was considered a handgun under certain sections of MD law such as the one requiring an HQL for handgun purchases. The definition of handgun does change depending on which section you are reading so the Shockwave may not be a handgun for all MD handgun laws.

 

[treasurehunter]

This will never come to pass especially after the bumpstock win.

 

[gungate]

So stupid. Why are SBR's even an issue? Who cares? It isn't like you can't get all manor of pistols in rifle calibers anyway. Suppressors and SBRs should be immediately removed from the NFA. They are nothing burgers.

 

[outrider58]

So stupid. Why are SBR's even an issue? Who cares? It isn't like you can't get all manor of pistols in rifle calibers anyway. Suppressors and SBRs should be immediately removed from the NFA. They are nothing burgers.

Preacher, meet choir.

 

[bcr229]

The whole NFA registry should go away. The taxes collected don't even cover the cost of tracking registrations, collecting the tax, and enforcing that section of law.

 

[pcfixer]

Preacher, meet choir.

gungate said:
So stupid. Why are SBR's even an issue? Who cares? It isn't like you can't get all manor of pistols in rifle calibers anyway. Suppressors and SBRs should be immediately removed from the NFA. They are nothing burgers.

Agreed 100% More of the big issue-----https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics

Never see much news about drugs related deaths, Do We!

 

[teratos]

None of it makes any sense to me.

If I pay $200 (or if there is 1 time amnesty) I can SBR it. Then I can put a legit stock on it. But I can't take it out of state without permission and I can't sell or transfer it to my family without having to have someone pay the $200 stamp to receive it. But somehow that $200 makes it "safer".

Or I can take the brace off and just have the buffer tube showing. I can transport it across state lines. I can transfer it to my son when he turns 21. I can sell it more easily. But someone without the brace it is "safer".

Or I can spend some more money and get a buffer tube with a foam pad, without the channel. It'll look a little cleaner, I can transfer it. It is "safer".

None of this makes any sense.

Ironically, I bought an actual WEAPON OF WAR from CMP and they mailed it to my house. Thank goodness the MGA and ATF haven't figured that out yet...

The $200 tax was meant to make these guns out of reach of most folks. It was passed in 1934. It was roughly todays equivalent of $3500.

 

[FrankAR15]

Wonder if MD state police will have any guidance? If you bought a pistol legally that was on the MD roster (but under 29” OAL).

The following is not mine, but I found this comment on a YouTube video. I feel it really hits the nail on the head….

“Strangely, my pistols were manufactured by federally licensed manufacturers, sold, and transferred on federal forms as a pistol. Their configuration has not changed. Therefore they must still be pistols. If they are not, then the ATF is guilty of the largest plot to circumvent the NFA in the history of the law, and they should be charged and tried immediately for violating the NFA and conspiring to entrap manufacturers and the public.”

I’m beginning to think the only option for people with under 29”OAL is to just destroy the brace

 

[IronEye]

Maryland law has not changed. If you bought a Maryland-legal pistol and it has not been altered isn't it still a Maryland legal pistol?

If ATF declares it to be a SBR and you need to fill out paperwork does that mean that Maryland's definitions somehow changed too?

Clearly if you get ATF SBR approval and add a regular shoulder stock you'll have to meet Maryland's 29" minimum.

If you get the ATF SBR approval AND MAKE NO CHANGES TO THE GUN does it automatically become a SBR under Maryland law?

I genuinely do not know the answer.

 

[gungate]

I might have a .300 blackout pistol upper 7", BCG and buffer for sale cheap. No magazines. Regular Water Cooler posters PM if interested. If I don't recognize you don't PM. It'll go in the for sale soon for everyone.

 

[Malachi.2.15]

The MGA is currently in session. In theory, it should be an easy bill to draft to clarify that the 29" rule doesn't apply to firearms registered as SBRs.

But then again...we live in Maryland...

 

[delaware_export]

So, question, from a federal perspective, not MD/state

IF you now have a braced ar pistol, is removing the brace and just having the buffer tube compliance?

 

[outrider58]

So, question, from a federal perspective, not MD/state

IF you now have a braced ar pistol, is removing the brace and just having the buffer tube compliance?

Yes

So are these...

Buffer Tube Cover Kits - AR Pistol | Thordsen Customs

www.thordsencustoms.com

 

[chillman]

So, question, from a federal perspective, not MD/state

IF you now have a braced ar pistol, is removing the brace and just having the buffer tube compliance?

There is a lot to read an interpret but I read it to say that the buffer tube cannot accept a brace or stock, cannot be anything other than needed to cycle the firearm.

 

[0621]

There is a lot to read an interpret but I read it to say that the buffer tube cannot accept a brace or stock, cannot be anything other than needed to cycle the firearm.

I thought it read that you had to remove and destroy/modify the brace so that it could not attach to the firearm.

 

[chillman]

I thought it read that you had to remove and destroy/modify the brace so that it could not attach to the firearm.

I haven’t read the 200+ pages, just a quick glance. Can’t see why you would have to destroy the brace as it itself is not illegal.