ATF Coming After Firearms with Stabilizing Braces

[Michael S]

I am not crazy. Just sick of what is happening. First of all I am doing nothing for at least a month until the dust settles. Then decide if I even want to do an SBR. Either way I am not doing anything to get in trouble with this mess. I do hope someone in the courts has a little common sense.

 

[Kcruz2189]

I believe the ATF refers to this as "constructive intent". You don't have them together but you could so it's no-go.

Thanks for your comment! If having a pistol brace on a rifle is legal(learned something new today and most days I read this forum ), and AR lowers can be paired with any upper (say 16”+), how would they legally prove “intent“ when you can easily put a new rifle upper on your lower for a different barrel length, caliber, etc? I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, I’m just in disbelief if they can determine “intent” with no evidence. Imagine what else they could use this type of pre-crime for…

 

[jcutonilli]

I believe the ATF refers to this as "constructive intent". You don't have them together but you could so it's no-go.

"constructive intent" really depends on whether that is the only configuration possible. See video

 

[Bountied]

"constructive intent" really depends on whether that is the only configuration possible. See video

ARs are literally like Legos. If you have a barrel under 16" it could be made into an SBR. So anyone with a 16" AR and a spare 10.5" barrel lying around could be considered constructive intent?

 

[outrider58]

ARs are literally like Legos. If you have a barrel under 16" it could be made into an SBR. So anyone with a 16" AR and a spare 10.5" barrel lying around could be considered constructive intent?

The SCOTUS said no:

United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

stephenhalbrook.com

On January 13, 1992, Stephen P. Halbrook argued in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of Thompson/Center Arms Company concerning whether certain pistol and rifle components constituted a short-barreled rifle subject to the registration and taxation requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Court rendered a favorable decision, holding that the Act provided criminal penalties and thus due process required that the Act must be construed narrowly according to the rule of lenity. Consquently, the components were not subject to the Act

 

[wreckdiver]

If anyone who owns any firearm with 16+” barrel and also happens to own a hacksaw would that be “constructive intent”?

 

[redsandman6]

Do you guys think maybe the atf violated any of the ada (Americans with disabilities act)
Since the brace was originally designed for people with disabilities?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Kharn]

The

Do you guys think maybe the atf violated any of the ada (Americans with disabilities act)
Since the brace was originally designed for people with disabilities?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You're looking for pages 90-93 in the final rule.
1) ADA is only applicable to the states.
2) The Rehabilitation Act is applicable to the feds instead.
3) ATF claims they aren't violating it, because they're not banning braces, just requiring SBRs be registered.

 

[small shot]

Thanks for your comment! If having a pistol brace on a rifle is legal(learned something new today and most days I read this forum ), and AR lowers can be paired with any upper (say 16”+), how would they legally prove “intent“ when you can easily put a new rifle upper on your lower for a different barrel length, caliber, etc? I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, I’m just in disbelief if they can determine “intent” with no evidence. Imagine what else they could use this type of pre-crime for…

16" upper with a brace now becomes a rifle then the hbar rule would come into play???

Or is a 16" upper with a brace now a AOW??

Clear as mud....

 

[Sticky]

16" upper with a brace now becomes a rifle then the hbar rule would come into play???

Or is a 16" upper with a brace now a AOW??

Clear as mud....

Not if it's a pre 2013.. Long live us old guys!

 

[HaveBlue]

I believe the ATF refers to this as "constructive intent". You don't have them together but you could so it's no-go.

If anyone who owns any firearm with 16+” barrel and also happens to own a hacksaw would that be “constructive intent”?

Without a doubt.

 

[HaveBlue]

ARs are literally like Legos. If you have a barrel under 16" it could be made into an SBR. So anyone with a 16" AR and a spare 10.5" barrel lying around could be considered constructive intent?

My non lawyer thoughts are: If you have a 10.5” upper and no SBR’d lowers, you could have a problem if the AFT took you to court.

 

[Darkemp]

As they say in crypto- HODL

 

[TinCuda]

My non lawyer thoughts are: If you have a 10.5” upper and no SBR’d lowers, you could have a problem if the AFT took you to court.

I don't know, but I would think if you had pistol (non-braced) lowers, you would be fine.

Remember folks, if your AR lower was ever a rifle, it is always a rifle. If the lower was purchased from the manufacturer as a fully assembled rifle, it can never legally be a pistol.

 

[smdub]

Remember folks, if your AR lower was ever a rifle, it is always a rifle.

^that is not true. Pistol -> Rifle -> Pistol is legal.
Rifle -> Pistol is illegal.
It all depends on how it started life. Sort of like transgender. A pistol can identify as a rifle but we all know what it really is

 

[smdub]

Congratulations! You found a way to call someone out on a minor technicality today! You the MAN! I personally think you are wrong but I am not going to redo the research that I did on this years ago. Things might have changed, but not my firearms collection structure.

Calm down dude. I didn't didn't attack you.
Committing a felony or not is hardly a "minor" technicality. Here you go:

Can I lawfully make a pistol into a rifle without registering that firearm? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Assuming that the firearm was originally a pistol, the resulting firearm, with an attached shoulder stock, is not an NFA firearm if it has a barrel of 16 inches or more in length. Pursuant to ATF Ruling 2011-4, such rifle may later be unassembled and again configured as a pistol. Such...

www.atf.gov

 

[RJRjr]

At this point, I'll do what I want to do.

 

[Decoy]

Written in the Stabilizing Brace Final Rule, ATF has concluded that any foreign-made pistols with stabilizing braces would be assembled in violation of 922(r), (as the firearms are retroactively being considered rifles). As such, registration or removal of the brace would not

bring the firearm into compliance. According to ATF, this leaves destruction or surrender as the only available options for foreign firearms with braces. This would include imported pistols where the brace was added at any stage, regardless if done by the user or the importer.

 

[Occam]

Man, I can think of several CZ Scorpion EVO owners who aren’t going to like where that is headed.

 

[rbird7282]

Written in the Stabilizing Brace Final Rule, ATF has concluded that any foreign-made pistols with stabilizing braces would be assembled in violation of 922(r), (as the firearms are retroactively being considered rifles). As such, registration or removal of the brace would not

bring the firearm into compliance. According to ATF, this leaves destruction or surrender as the only available options for foreign firearms with braces. This would include imported pistols where the brace was added at any stage, regardless if done by the user or the importer.

How the fvck can they do that? This whole thing needs to get tossed by the courts. The ATF needs to be tossed too


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk