ATF Rule 2021R8 goes into effect January 31, 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
Over the weekend another wrinkle has been uncovered in the ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces:



Summary of the video:

According to pages 246-247 of the final rule, if an imported pistol has ever had a stabilizing brace attached, the only recourse is to either destroy it or turn in the firearm to the ATF. The reason being is that since a "rifle" was created, the firearm violated 922(r) and cannot be cured by either removing the brace or replacing non-922(r) compliant parts because the "assembly of a semiautomatic rifle" has already occurred.

Relevant text of the final rule:

The Department disagrees with the commenter who suggested that there will be financial implications resulting from the removal and replacement of imported parts for owners who imported pistols and added a “stabilizing brace.” The commenter incorrectly interpreted 18 U.S.C. 922(r) as requiring the removal and replacement of imported parts to comply with section 922(r). Section 922(r) generally makes it unlawful “for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle,” and 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. The criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 922(r) is for the “assembl[y]” of the semi-automatic rifle; therefore, modification of this kind of firearm through the removal of the relevant parts would not cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembl[y]” has already occurred. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the costs outlined in the standalone RIA, ATF assumes this group may use another scenario,such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy.​

Of course, if a private individual is the one who put the brace on, they could take it back off and nobody would be the wiser, but legally speaking, according to the ATF once a brace has been added the only recourse is to destroy or surrender the firearm.

If the importer of the pistol added the brace prior to sale, there may be a way for the ATF to determine that a given imported pistol did at one time come with a brace, and would need to be destroyed/surrendered.
 
Last edited:
F-111 John said:
Over the weekend another wrinkle has been uncovered in the ATF Final Rule on Stabilizing Braces:



Summary of the video:

According to pages 246-247 of the final rule, if an imported pistol has ever had a stabilizing brace attached, the only recourse is to either destroy or turn in the firearm to the ATF. The reason being is that since a "rifle" was created, the firearm violated 922(r) and cannot be cured by either removing the brace or replacing non-922(r) compliant parts because the "assembly of a semiautomatic rifle" has already occurred.

Relevant text of the final rule:

The Department disagrees with the commenter who suggested that there will be financial implications resulting from the removal and replacement of imported parts for owners who imported pistols and added a “stabilizing brace.” The commenter incorrectly interpreted 18 U.S.C. 922(r) as requiring the removal and replacement of imported parts to comply with section 922(r). Section 922(r) generally makes it unlawful “for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle,” and 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. The criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 922(r) is for the “assembl[y]” of the semi-automatic rifle; therefore, modification of this kind of firearm through the removal of the relevant parts would not cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembl[y]” has already occurred. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the costs outlined in the standalone RIA, ATF assumes this group may use another scenario,such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy.​

Of course, if a private individual is the one who put the brace on, they could take it back off and nobody would be the wiser, but legally speaking, according to the ATF once a brace has been added the only recourse is to destroy or surrender the firearm.
Click to expand...


So correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean that every CZ Scorpion that was either sold with a brace or had a brace added is illegal?
 
DoubleMag said:
Separately , I do not see how any changes can be allowed to go into force without another comment period. If it has been changed significantly. Something others have mentioned here (THR) and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I do not like to quote self but in this for instance...

That was post #18 of this thread. The actual true final rule as hit the airwaves two Fridays ago, is it so radically different from what people commented on that, outside of the title and basic premise of braces, it is a whole new rule?

People commented on the score sheet, other portions of that rule etc. to the tune of 100s of thousands. I did NOT get the opportunity to challenge, read, refute or rebut ''new'' definitions of rifle! Amnesty or not, etc.

I also remember but cannot cite where the .gov was making ''minor changes'' within the rule, that's probably normal. But again I ask, is this so vastly different as to require another comment period?
 
DoubleMag said:
Also Am I looking at the correct Rules location, for the actual date of publication that starts the 120 day time ticker please. Thanks:thumbup:!

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions[publication_date][is]=2023-01-23&conditions[type][]=RULE#
Click to expand...

Hopefully that publication date keeps getting kicked down the road, but I think I read somewhere last week that the federal register is published every day and generally it takes around 30 days or so to get in the publication cycle.
 
DoubleMag said:
I do not like to quote self but in this for instance...

That was post #18 of this thread. The actual true final rule as hit the airwaves two Fridays ago, is it so radically different from what people commented on that, outside of the title and basic premise of braces, it is a whole new rule?

People commented on the score sheet, other portions of that rule etc. to the tune of 100s of thousands. I did NOT get the opportunity to challenge, read, refute or rebut ''new'' definitions of rifle! Amnesty or not, etc.

I also remember but cannot cite where the .gov was making ''minor changes'' within the rule, that's probably normal. But again I ask, is this so vastly different as to require another comment period?
Click to expand...

So what comment would you provide that you didn't provide before? What's to be added?
 
JumboJVT said:
So what comment would you provide that you didn't provide before? What's to be added?
Click to expand...

I believed then it had shifted sufficiently to have another comment. Now that the finished rule is out I believe more so then in November...

The 6 things they ''added'' including what some other person placed on ?youtube?. I'm not responsible for another man's views or projections.
Buffer tube length vs. length of pull.
There seems to be a huge outcry , both yea and nay, on the so-called ''amnesty.'' My comment on that portion (and there was absolutely no way to foresee this) would have been, the processing wait for other good citizens applications for Form1s & Form4s just effectively came to a HALT.

I appreciate (notice, did not say agree) with detailed pictures of firearms they will consider NFA. Supposedly, the list of Ok good-to-go is much much shorter; why not show those pictures also?
Other various etc. Yes a vague catch-all, but I cannot digest all the new, previously unknown stuff to draw links (i.e. pg 6 is conflicted with pgs 20, 300, and 450), causes, outcomes, implications.

And to that, for some strange reason it's not published as of date. Yet it is their finished :cool:work.
 
So here's a question for the more learned:

Let's say you currently have multiple, but the uppers are all the same length. Just different calibers, or different charging style- side charger, left hand charger, etc. Say you pull the uppers off now, before anything has occurred.
How many lowers would you need to register for SBR, or put smooth pistol buffer tube on etc? Just one?
And clarifying for technicalities- none were 'complete pistols' at purchase, all were pieced together.
 
Another YouTuber from the Fudd Busters channel, a Florida lawyer that practices in the field of firearms law, had a slightly different take on the ATF document and it's implications.



Summary of video: 922(r) applies to construction of a rifle from imported parts, not possession of a rifle assembled from imported parts. According to him, if you purchased for example a CZ Scorpion with a brace, you didn't assemble the rifle so you are not in jeopardy, and the ATF should have no issue with registering it under the amnesty eForm 1. (He also addresses the second "sky is falling (I'm guilty)" issue of the 88 days and automatic rejection. He says that is only for FBI background checks that are still open after 88 days because the FBI can't reconcile something, not for all submissions. These sort of hanging background checks are only 1% of applications according to the video.)

He does not address the issue of an individual owner adding the brace. Can the owner simply remove the brace and be OK, or will the 922(r) violation already have occurred and cannot be cured by removing the brace? The fair thing is for the ATF to allow the removal of the brace within the 120 day period.
 
lsudave said:
So here's a question for the more learned:

Let's say you currently have multiple, but the uppers are all the same length. Just different calibers, or different charging style- side charger, left hand charger, etc. Say you pull the uppers off now, before anything has occurred.
How many lowers would you need to register for SBR, or put smooth pistol buffer tube on etc? Just one?
And clarifying for technicalities- none were 'complete pistols' at purchase, all were pieced together.
Click to expand...

You would only need one lower that can legally use all of the uppers with a barrel length less than 16". So as long as you have at least one legal pistol lower or at least one registered SBR lower, then you can own as many uppers as you want.

A lot of people might only have one single registered SBR lower and will have several uppers such as a 22lr upper, 5.56 upper, 300 BO upper and a 9mm upper and they are all completely legal. You can have multiple spare uppers as long as you have a legal way to use them.
 
I'm wondering how this may affect collectors of mil surp. Some of the pistols back then had shoulder stocks doubling as holsters. Luger and our own 1911 are 2 that come to mind
 
damyankee425 said:
I'm wondering how this may affect collectors of mil surp. Some of the pistols back then had shoulder stocks doubling as holsters. Luger and our own 1911 are 2 that come to mind
Click to expand...
Shouldn't affect them at all. The ATF already has exceptions for Curios & Relics such as stocked Lugers or Broomhandle Mausers. See: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/curios-relics
 
damyankee425 said:
I'm wondering how this may affect collectors of mil surp. Some of the pistols back then had shoulder stocks doubling as holsters. Luger and our own 1911 are 2 that come to mind
Click to expand...

This brace rule will not effect mil-sure pistols that have holsters that also double as shoulder stocks. This are already covered by the NFA, GCA, and other laws specifically addressing Curios and Relics. Some pistols such as certain variants of the Luger with shoulder stock holsters have actually been removed from the NFA since they are Curios and Relics. Other pistols still fall under NFA rules as short barreled rifles.

And just because a firearm meets the definition of a Curio and Relic does not mean that is it not regulated under the NFA. So double check both the Curio and Relic laws and NFA laws.
 
F-111 John said:
Another YouTuber from the Fudd Busters channel, a Florida lawyer that practices in the field of firearms law, had a slightly different take on the ATF document and it's implications.



Summary of video: 922(r) applies to construction of a rifle from imported parts, not possession of a rifle assembled from imported parts. According to him, if you purchased for example a CZ Scorpion with a brace, you didn't assemble the rifle so you are not in jeopardy, and the ATF should have no issue with registering it under the amnesty eForm 1. (He also addresses the second "sky is falling (I'm guilty)" issue of the 88 days and automatic rejection. He says that is only for FBI background checks that are still open after 88 days because the FBI can't reconcile something, not for all submissions. These sort of hanging background checks are only 1% of applications according to the video.)
Click to expand...

The GOA lawyer interviewed on Guns & Gadgets said the FBI is no longer doing the background checks for NFA items, ATF took that over.

He does not address the issue of an individual owner adding the brace. Can the owner simply remove the brace and be OK, or will the 922(r) violation already have occurred and cannot be cured by removing the brace? The fair thing is for the ATF to allow the removal of the brace within the 120 day period.
Click to expand...
According to what I've been reading, just removing the brace isn't good enough, you have to change out the buffer tube for a smooth one.
 
old lady new shooter said:
According to what I've been reading, just removing the brace isn't good enough, you have to change out the buffer tube for a smooth one.
Click to expand...

And the ATF also states that the buffer tube on a pistol can not be more than 6 1/2" long. The issue is that they did not specify exactly how they take that measurement. I have posted about this before along with photos showing measurements from the end plate to end of buffer tube and from castle nut to the end of buffer tube.
 
12Bravo20 said:
And the ATF also states that the buffer tube on a pistol can not be more than 6 1/2" long. The issue is that they did not specify exactly how they take that measurement. I have posted about this before along with photos showing measurements from the end plate to end of buffer tube and from castle nut to the end of buffer tube.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to see those photos, can you please post a link?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F-111 John
  • Locked
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” [ATF Proposed Rulemaking]
Replies
9
Views
726
GEM
G
O
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Direct Link to Stabilizing Brace Ban
Replies
1
Views
489
hso
hso
F-111 John
  • Locked
Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms (Final Rule)
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
DoubleMag
D
someguy2800
  • Locked
ATF brace rule is out
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Replies
264
Views
10K
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
someguy2800
  • Locked
New ATF pistol brace ruling
Replies
8
Views
596
Robert
Robert
Back
Top