OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
I have owned a 16” 300 blackout for many years. I recently shortened it to 14” with a krink brake pinned and welded to 16” and in that configuration it’s one of my favorite uppers.
ATF brace rule is out
- Thread starter someguy2800
- Start date
- Status
I have owned a 16” 300 blackout for many years. I recently shortened it to 14” with a krink brake pinned and welded to 16” and in that configuration it’s one of my favorite uppers.
rdnktrkr
Member
I currently have a couple of Anderson lowers I purchased when they were 5 for $150 and I found some great deals on Aero lowers locally, if they wave the tax stamp fee I would consider all of them SBRs and get them documented at least. I've always thought a 450BM or 458socom SBR would be wicked
That would be illegal, in case that matters to you.
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
They need to have been configured as a braced pistol as of yesterday in order to qualify. I’ll let you decide whether you or they can prove that they were or not.
it should be noted though for those not understanding what this means, you cannot go out today and buy a stripped lower, configure it as a braced pistol, and then register it for free. You needed to be in possession of it yesterday. Filing a form 4473 to take possession of it now will prove that you were not in possession of it in time because the serial number is recorded on the 4473 which remains in the possession of your FFL.
Last edited:
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
I was pointing out three things:Whatever you do, don't read either link in the OP.
If you did, you would know that while ATF doesn't regulate accessories, they sure as heck regulate firearms, including NFA firearms. This regulation shows how they determine if the attachment of a stabilizing brace actually is creating a short barreled rifle. WHEN ATTACHED that brace may create a short barreled rifle.
- In the ATF FAQ document, in multiple FAQs, ATF states that permanently removing the brace OR altering it is a sufficient compliance option. The word "OR" means the two choices are independent and separate of each other. You can permanently remove it OR alter it so it cannot be re-attached.
- Then, the link provided in FAQ #4, states: "...or permanently remove and dispose of...." Therefore the FAQ and the ATF's "Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached 'Stabilizing Braces'" (the link in FAQ #4) don't agree. The FAQ states "permanent removal" is adequate whereas the ATF "Factoring Criteria" document states "permanent removal and dispose of".
- When the brace is removed from the firearm then the brace is no longer subject to regulatation by ATF because it's an "accessory" not a firearm (as stated by ATF in FAQ #4: "ATF does not regulate accessories such as 'stabilizing braces.'” When the brace is removed then the firearm is no longer "equipped" and ATF has no authority to regulate the simple possession of a brace. Therefore ATF has no authority to demand that the brace be disposed of or altered.
dogtown tom
Member
Google "constructive possession". That will answer the question of why ATF says "and dispose of..."
CapnMac
Member
To be pedantic, it's as of the publication date in the Federal register. Given that this is a federal office 3 day weekend, the Effective Date may not be until next week.
Not that "they" may use yesterday as a cutoff anyway.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
"Constructive possession", eh?Google "constructive possession". That will answer the question of why ATF says "and dispose of..."
You permanently remove and dispose of an adjustable SBA4 pistol brace that attaches to a carbine receiver extension (keeping the firearm legally a "pistol") but...
...you also have in your possession an actual buttstock that can be fitted to the pistol's carbine reciever extension.
So... owning a pistol brace is "constuctive possession" of an unregistered SBR, but owning an actual buttstock that can also be fitted onto the pistol's carbine receiver extension is NOT "constructive possession" of an SBR?
I believe the general rule is that if you can assemble the parts you have into a legal/non-NFA configuration then you are good. If there's no way for you to assemble the brace to any of your firearms without resulting in an NFA configuration then that's constructive possession. Same would be be true if you had a buttstock and the only firearm you owned that it fit could only be configured as a pistol.
If the brace could be assembled to one of your other firearms and result in a non NFA configuration you should be ok.
If the brace could be assembled to one of your other firearms and result in a non NFA configuration you should be ok.
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
I may has misunderstood but my understanding is that the 120 days starts from the date that it is published on the national register, but that the rule is effective as of yesterday
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
"However, if the firearm with the 'stabilizing brace' is a short-barreled rifle, it needs to be registered within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
"This rule is effective the date it is published in the Federal Register.
"The rule will go into effect once it is published in the Federal Register."
See: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
thank you, good clarification
Lennyjoe
Member
Yea thanks, I guess I need to get up to speed but ya didn’t need to….ah nvm[/QUOTE]
I don't think that dogtown tom was trying to be rude. Quite a few of us have been answering questions that can easily be answered by reading the pertinent regulations, laws, and other publications.
I know that not everyone keeps up with all of the NFA rules and regulations. But a simple check of even the NFA FAQ's can and will answer a lot of questions.
Sistema1927
Member
Pictures are easy. These two will have Form 1's filed.
I predict the practical life of the rule (un-stayed, un-restrained) will be less than the 120-day grace period. It looks like they knew they would lose the case if they went through with their 4999 nonsense which the GOA and other groups have been fully armed against and are just punting a vague rule trying to withstand the inevitable lawsuits. This rule will be dead soon, it's an ex-parrot!
DustyGmt
Member
So this kind of doesn't make sense to me in regards to the "permanently remove or alter the brace so that it cannot be reattached".
So you cannot even be in possession of a brace now? What if you wanted the brace to use as a stock on another build since you're already out of your braced pistol and now you have to be out of the brace on top of it. What's saying I don't want to build a 16" Carbine and use my existing brace for the build since I'm not using it for my pistol/SBR anymore.
It's not like it's a bump stock or something, they've essentially ruled that a brace is a stock and makes an AR pistol an "SBR" so doesn't that basically render your brace just another stock? Why should you have to permantly alter it?
I hope this blows up in their faces and gets defeated. My stuff will be legal by then, I'll alter things as they need to be because I don't need the headaches, I love the idea of a free stamp but I won't register something and have it micromanaged to the extent that it is.... not worth it to me. I made the AR pistols I have to make a more weildy, lighter more compact very capable defensive pistol that my wife could use effectively and was completely legal in doing so, it seems so messed up that one day that could just change without any respect to grandfathering existing guns. I'm going to have to figure something else out now.
So you cannot even be in possession of a brace now? What if you wanted the brace to use as a stock on another build since you're already out of your braced pistol and now you have to be out of the brace on top of it. What's saying I don't want to build a 16" Carbine and use my existing brace for the build since I'm not using it for my pistol/SBR anymore.
It's not like it's a bump stock or something, they've essentially ruled that a brace is a stock and makes an AR pistol an "SBR" so doesn't that basically render your brace just another stock? Why should you have to permantly alter it?
I hope this blows up in their faces and gets defeated. My stuff will be legal by then, I'll alter things as they need to be because I don't need the headaches, I love the idea of a free stamp but I won't register something and have it micromanaged to the extent that it is.... not worth it to me. I made the AR pistols I have to make a more weildy, lighter more compact very capable defensive pistol that my wife could use effectively and was completely legal in doing so, it seems so messed up that one day that could just change without any respect to grandfathering existing guns. I'm going to have to figure something else out now.
Last edited:
If it is a real brace--the new rule makes it clear that there are stabilizing braces out there that are legal--and it's assembled to a pistol that meets the definition of a pistol as explained in the ruling then there's no problem.
If the brace isn't really a brace but is a disguised stock as explained in the ruling then as long as it could be assembled to one of your other firearms and result in a non NFA configuration you should be ok without destroying it. What you can't have is a situation where the only gun(s) it could be assembled to would result in an NFA configuration.
There is one more issue. It seems that there is the potential to put a brace (or even a brace that qualifies as a stock) on a firearm other than a pistol and potentially end up with an NFA configuration. That's something to be aware of.
dogtown tom
Member
Ummm........I didn't write that.
I have two braced firearms under the following circumstances, here's how I'm understanding my options:
I have a single AR15 10.5", all other ARs are over 16".
- I can apply for a SBR tax stamp and keep my silly brace and it's not constructive? Especially if I have rifle stocks on my other AR rifles?
- The buffer tube is now a rifle stock? So any AR with a buffer tube must have a barrel over 16" or a SBR tax stamp?
My Ruger 9mm PC Charger (6.5" barrel) has a 1913 rail on the backend and I have a folding brace that mounts on the rail.
- I need to dispose/destroy the 1913 brace or get a SBR tax stamp because it's the only firearm that I can mount the brace on and it's just a hex-head bolt and 10 seconds?
I have a single AR15 10.5", all other ARs are over 16".
- I can apply for a SBR tax stamp and keep my silly brace and it's not constructive? Especially if I have rifle stocks on my other AR rifles?
- The buffer tube is now a rifle stock? So any AR with a buffer tube must have a barrel over 16" or a SBR tax stamp?
My Ruger 9mm PC Charger (6.5" barrel) has a 1913 rail on the backend and I have a folding brace that mounts on the rail.
- I need to dispose/destroy the 1913 brace or get a SBR tax stamp because it's the only firearm that I can mount the brace on and it's just a hex-head bolt and 10 seconds?
wesmonster
Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2019
- Messages
- 383
I'm waiting for a one armed veteran who's once-legal firearm is declared an SBR to file a lawsuit citing the Americans with Disabilities act. Many in ban states don't have form1 as an option, so surrender is their only legal recourse.
I think the ATF has overplayed their hand by dropping the worksheet and declaring that any brace WILL be shouldered and is therefore an NFA item.
If braces have to be registered then wheelchairs should have license plates....
And yes, it's my understanding that removing a brace from a pistol including an AR pistol makes the pistol non-NFA. But possesion of the brace is illegal without form1.
The part I'm foggy on is a pic of an AR pistol sporting a Tailhook mod 1 that I interpreted as 'OK'. I know the Tailhook mod 2s didn't pass the mustard cause they're adjustable, but thought the previous worksheet blocked both of the Tailhooks?
I think the ATF has overplayed their hand by dropping the worksheet and declaring that any brace WILL be shouldered and is therefore an NFA item.
If braces have to be registered then wheelchairs should have license plates....
And yes, it's my understanding that removing a brace from a pistol including an AR pistol makes the pistol non-NFA. But possesion of the brace is illegal without form1.
The part I'm foggy on is a pic of an AR pistol sporting a Tailhook mod 1 that I interpreted as 'OK'. I know the Tailhook mod 2s didn't pass the mustard cause they're adjustable, but thought the previous worksheet blocked both of the Tailhooks?
Last edited:
DustyGmt
Member
So there are still braced pistol configurations that are legal? Sorry, I was told it was like a 300pg document, just wondering if the KAK Shockwave made the list of approved braces or not. I doubt the ATF was so kind as to spell it out in clear and concise terms or named any specific manufacturers. I just downloaded the document, I'm gonna read as much as I can. Just wondering if anybody knows if the KAK blade is no bueno....
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/eformone-externalguidancewithqapdf/download
Instructions for the E-Form 1
I am thinking I will not see my cans for several years now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
