ATF pistol brace amnesty vs. MD law

[PeteW]

ATF has formally reclassified braces as stocks.

Justice Department Announces New Rule to Address Stabilizing Braces, Accessories Used to Convert Pistols into Short-Barreled Rifles

Today, the Department of Justice announced it has submitted to the Federal Register the “Stabilizing Braces” Final Rule, which makes clear that when manufacturers, dealers, and individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into rifles with a barrel of less than 16 inches, commonly...

www.justice.gov

Owners have 120 days to file for a tax stamp as part of an amnesty period. Those of us in MD with braced pistols under 29" are probably going to get screwed.

Thoughts?

Ok so hear me out.....

 

[jkeys]

If you have a post-2013 16" AR-15 >29" OAL pistol do you have to remove the brace to comply with Maryland Law or would it still be considered a pistol or other?

Based on previous ATF guidelines, you can just place a dildo in the pistol brace to get up to the 29" OAL. According to the ATF prior guidance any solid object attached to a brace that increases rear surface area is a stock. That's what I plan to do when submitting my form 1's. Maliscious compliance, because **** the ATF. I am not getting rid of anything I legally bought.

 

[Tihsho]

I've yet to see it brought up, in here or another post (if I missed it, my bad) but the 'free' Form 1 process is ONLY for individual applications and not Trusts. If your pistol was not purchased/registered to a Trust prior to the ruling, then you will not be able to get the grandfathered 'free' SBR application if you plan on migrating your pistol to an SBR on a current or new NFA Trust. It was interesting that this information was not published in the new ruling guidance, but more so in their FAQ section.

 

[outrider58]

Based on previous ATF guidelines, you can just place a dildo in the pistol brace to get up to the 29" OAL. According to the ATF prior guidance any solid object attached to a brace that increases rear surface area is a stock. That's what I plan to do when submitting my form 1's. Maliscious compliance, because **** the ATF. I am not getting rid of anything I legally bought.

Have you begun shopping for that perfect fit yet?

 

[outrider58]

I've yet to see it brought up, in here or another post (if I missed it, my bad) but the 'free' Form 1 process is ONLY for individual applications and not Trusts. If your pistol was not purchased/registered to a Trust prior to the ruling, then you will not be able to get the grandfathered 'free' SBR application. It was interesting that this information was not published in the new ruling guidance, but more so in their FAQ section.

Most people don't put non-NFA items into their NFA trust. Would they disallow placement into a trust afterwards? Who knows?

 

[Tihsho]

Most people don't put non-NFA items into their NFA trust. Would they disallow placement into a trust afterwards? Who knows?

This is the issue. 99% of people with an NFA Trust use it solely to manage their NFA items for access for family/friends or for estate management of their NFA items. The problem is that unless you purchased this pistol with a brace (or the receiver that the brace is attached to) with your NFA Trust (not purchased as an individual) you're not able to get the free stamp. If you plan on putting it on a Trust, then you need to pay.

The FAQ of the ruling (link) states this obscurely on page 5 section 12. Here is a screen shot of of section 12:

If this is on a personally manufactered firearm (PMF) you're all sorts of hosed on this as well as even the amendment claims that PMF's were not factored into the ruling because they consist of "too few" of firearms out there with the braces. Specifically, the ATF and Justice Department didn't have qualifying data to use as PMF's are undocumented so they pulled some excuse out rather than saying "we don't know what's out there."

 

[outrider58]

The FAQ of the ruling (link) states this obscurely on page 5 section 12. Here is a screen shot of of section 12:

View attachment 396622

If this is on a personally manufactered firearm (PMF) you're all sorts of hosed on this as well as even the amendment claims that PMF's were not factored into the ruling because they consist of "too few" of firearms out there with the braces. Specifically, the ATF and Justice Department didn't have qualifying data to use as PMF's are undocumented so they pulled some excuse out rather than saying "we don't know what's out there."

Thanks for the link.

The bolded is curious.

Me, I'll make my braced guns Md legal until which time I'm able to depart this communist utopia of a state and SBR them. The only reason for the braces, in my case, were because of Md's stupid OAL requirements for SBRs in the first place. Merryland can kiss my ass goodbye.

 

[balttigger]

In the end, none of this will matter as the courts will strike this down as being in violation of Supreme Court case law.

In the mean time, I have 2 lowers I wanted to SBR eventually anyway, so why not take advantage of the 120 day FREE registration? I can spend that $400 on ammo.

 

[Tihsho]

Two things should happen short term (ideally) until this is overturned.

1) BATFE 'should' get push back and modify their limitations to the registration to include transfers of these pistols to Trusts to promote the registration rather than destruction of the firearm or removal of the braces if they want compliance to this. I'm sure a lot of us would happily apply for free SBR's.

2) MD should amend their OAL requirement of SBR's in order to promote their citizens to comply with this new ruling.

Mind you, neither of these would happen, but in the fight of the overlords trying to force compliance there should be some give and take. None of this should be going on, but again, I'm sure a lot of us would happily convert our pistols into free SBR's if the BATFE and MD amended their BS nitpicking limitations.

 

[Tihsho]

In the end, none of this will matter as the courts will strike this down as being in violation of Supreme Court case law.

In the mean time, I have 2 lowers I wanted to SBR eventually anyway, so why not take advantage of the 120 day FREE registration? I can spend that $400 on ammo.

Just remember, if you file these as individuals you're the only person who will have access to these firearms. This includes access, so if there are others in your home you're going to have to make sure they do not have access to the NFA items (so a seperate safe in the case of those with spouses who have access to their safe.) For some this isn't an issue, but if you like to be prepared and do not like to see your firearms lost or destroyed in the system, putting them in an NFA Trust makes the most sense. It was brought up to me years ago the hypothetical situation of "You're on the way to/from the range and get into a car accident and need medical attention. What happens to your NFA items?" In the best case scenario you might be well off enough in this situation to make a call and have someone on your trust pickup the NFA items from the scene. Otherwise the local PD/towing company will unlawfully (because of the restrictions of the NFA) take possession of the vehicle and its contents (the NFA items being the unlawful part.) I've read stories where PD have taken possession of NFA items in these situations and there was a lot of red tape/issues getting them back as the PD that took possession knew they were in possession of an NFA controlled firearm and either reported it to the ATF or it got lost in their system as they didn’t know how to handle the storage of an NFA item that wasn’t considered evidence from a crime.

The NFA in general makes the physical ownership and possession of the items so complex in terms of who can have what in terms of registration, so making sure you have a Trust somewhat opens the doors to managing the items easier. Also, in the bigger situation, if something happens to you and someone needs to manage your estate, having these items on a Trust makes it easier on those already carrying the burden of estate management.

 

[outrider58]

I borrowed this from one of the other pistol brace threads...

Very informative.

 

[jrumann59]

So for us 300 blackout owners we have to somehow reach 29”

Not possible.

Depends on how short the barrel is but it can be done, pin and weld direct thread suppressors, lengthening stock components. I have 10.5 300blk I am going to use an Armaspec PDW Stock on once I get the stamp for it. 3D printed a spacer for the PDW stock and can get to about 28-28.5 with no muzzle device on it. I actually have room to lengthen the spacer about 1 inch and be fine with no muzzle device.

 

[Tihsho]

In terms of the MD OAL, is the limitation for the 'stored' configuration (i.e. what the ATF regulation says) or is it the in use configuration?

 

[outrider58]

In terms of the MD OAL, is the limitation for the 'stored' configuration (i.e. what the ATF regulation says) or is it the in use configuration?

Stock fully extended. In the case of an AR platform.

To anyone planning on keeping their brace as the stock, you will be giving up OAL, so better to go ahead and add a real stock(there's really no reason the keep the brace, at this point).

 

[0621]

Based on previous ATF guidelines, you can just place a dildo in the pistol brace to get up to the 29" OAL. According to the ATF prior guidance any solid object attached to a brace that increases rear surface area is a stock. That's what I plan to do when submitting my form 1's. Maliscious compliance, because **** the ATF. I am not getting rid of anything I legally bought.

My question had more to do with Maryland specifically and their AR-15 ban as I understand it. Federally I am fine because it is over 16" barrel and they don't care if I put a stock on it. They don't consider a brace a stock but they do consider putting a brace on it to now render my pistol in a rifle configuration until I remove the brace. Would I be able to use my brace without violating Maryland's AR-15 ban? Can you currently put a stock on a 16" AR-15 pistol? This might be some new territory given the rule change. I suppose most natives would have used a heavy barrel upper for this.

 

[Tihsho]

Can you currently put a stock on a 16" AR-15 pistol? This might be some new territory given the rule change. I suppose most natives would have used a heavy barrel upper for this.

So are you basically asking if you can have something like a Colt 6920 with a brace and it being compliant? A rifle length upper on lower that has a brace would technically define it as a 'firearm' as there is no stock, it would neither be a rifle or a pistol.

 

[0621]

My question had more to do with Maryland specifically and their AR-15 ban as I understand it. Federally I am fine because it is over 16" barrel and they don't care if I put a stock on it. They don't consider a brace a stock but they do consider putting a brace on it to now render my pistol in a rifle configuration until I remove the brace. Would I be able to use my brace without violating Maryland's AR-15 ban? Can you currently put a stock on a 16" AR-15 pistol? This might be some new territory given the rule change. I suppose most natives would have used a heavy barrel upper for this.

I guess a work around for the range I will just put my nicer upper on my pre-2013 lower.

 

[0621]

So are you basically asking if you can have something like a Colt 6920 with a brace and it being compliant? A rifle length upper on lower that has a brace would technically define it as a 'firearm' as there is no stock, it would neither be a rifle or a pistol.

Yes, that is my question. Would it still be a 'firearm' under Maryland law if that same brace turns a shorter pistol into a SBR under federal law?

 

[Imthewarrior87]

So if I have something that I was planning on building to SBR and it’s not built. If I Form 1 it take a picture with a brace on it then after paper work comes back can it be changed to a stock?

 

[inkd]

Me, I'll make my braced guns Md legal until which time I'm able to depart this communist utopia of a state and SBR them. The only reason for the braces, in my case, were because of Md's stupid OAL requirements for SBRs in the first place. Merryland can kiss my ass goodbye.

I am going to have to do the same thing to my CMMG Banshee, if I can find a barrel and make sure that turning a "pistol" into a "rifle" is allowed in this fvcked up state.

I resisted the braces for a long time and finally gave in for the same reason, the dumbass OAL requirement here.