BATFE - Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spats McGee

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 15, 2012
Messages
7,482
Location
Arkansas
This long-awaited rule has now been published in the federal register. It can be found here: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces

NOTE: This is the thread in Legal for discussion of this topic. Now that we have a final rule, we can dispense with all of the older, speculative threads on the issue. Accordingly, they have been closed. If I have missed any, please let me or one of the other mods know.
 
Most of the legal challenges seem to be focused on 2A issues. I'm thinking that there is a strong 5A Takings Clause case that should also be made.

ATF can make a defensible claim that the arm brace approvals were improvidently granted. But they were granted, and people have purchased firearms in good faith. ATF is now trying to revoke the approvals and compel the owners to either register the firearms as SBRs, modify them, or forfeit/destroy them. All of these responses involve a loss of value, loss of utility, or both.

SBR registration means that the firearm suffers a loss of value due to the requirement for a $200 tax to be paid for every transfer of ownership, plus the 8-12 month delay in processing a Form 4. Modification carries with it a loss of utility - the firearm no longer does what the purchaser bought it to do. Forfeiture/destruction is obviously a taking.

The way I look at it, ATF had three legal courses of action, and took none of them. Their first option was to do nothing. If they were convinced that the arm brace approvals were improvidently granted, this might not be an acceptable option. The second option was to pay compensation at full market value. Where the funds would come from to do that is another question...perhaps ATF could sell their issued sidearms. The third option is the most interesting...they have the ability to take firearms off the NFA. Go take a look at the C&R list that is published, and there's a list of firearms (mostly short-barreled rifles) that are NOT considered NFA items. Mostly lever-action rifles made with 14-15 inch barrels. ATF had the option to allow people to list the firearms, have them classified as non-NFA, and addressed the problem in that manner.

In any event, we need to throw the book at ATF...which includes the 5A Takings case that I suspect is being neglected. It might be our best shot.
 
@Mike OTDP well said.

And yes option three that you stated would be a valid option though I don't see the ATF doing so with braced pistols/SBRs or any SBR in general.

After reading the final rule as posted to the federal register, I find that Section V. Final Rule to be a bit more clear and easier to understand that what was released on Jan 13th. Though there are still areas that are ambiguous and need better clarification.

@Spats McGee I hope that this thread does not turn into all the other threads about the brace rule. Those threads are full of rants and personal attacks on fellow forum members. Myself and a few others that have tried to explain things have been attacked and told that we do not know what we are talking about.

I do hope that this thread can remain civil and we can objectively discuss things without the nonsense.
 
I'm afraid I don't see a takings claim here. The braces still aren't illegal in and of themselves you can do a few things besides destroy them. If you wanted to sell it on down the road you could you could convert the pistol into a rifle put the brace on a different rifle register it on the nfa. None of these options may be what you want to do but there are options. So while I'm sure that there's a lawyer and an amount of money you could combine to try running that through the court I suspect any serious and ethical lawyer would consider that a dead end.
 
I know there is the original SAF lawsuit from around a year or so going on as well as a few more submitted since then. Can we get a list in this thread and keep tabs on their status ?
 
Having read several pages in, I am wholly unsure as to what I possess at present and whether now single-action revolvers constitute an SBR as rifle length, stock equipped versions are available from at least one manufacturer.

That but aside, I think I’m reading that a braced AR pistol, originally assembled by me from an “Other” as previously defined by the ATF Form 4473 is now an SBR. I am unclear without reading further if it is so because of the brace or regardless of it and that barrel length ultimately determines what’s what?

Then of course comes the registration portion where it registered before the deadline it becomes a free SBR? Apologies for the rambling, time has been severely limited of late but perhaps someone has a quick run down.
 
Skylerbone,

A pistol length AR with a brace that you assembled from an "other" lower is now considered a SBR, but there is a 120 day grace period before you have to do anything.

If you want, you can legally convert it to a pistol (special allowance by this rule) by removing the brace. If you do not have a rifle upper, you should get rid of the brace. If you want to keep the brace for use with a rifle upper, you can. You can alternately install a rifle upper on the braced lower and treat it like a regular rifle. Converting it back to a pistol in the future should be ok.

If you want a "free SBR stamp" you will need to submit the usual Form 1 stuff (including fingerprints & your photo) plus photo(s) of the gun. If you submit for a Form 1, the documentation of the submittal allows you to keep the gun as is until you get approved or until they deny your form.
 
Last edited:
f you want a "free SBR stamp" you will need to submit the usual Form 1 stuff (including fingerprints & your photo) plus photo(s) of the gun. If you submit for a Form 1, the documentation of the submittal allows you to keep the gun as is until you get approved or until they deny your form.

Just beware that for the amnesty tax stamp, the ATF has a special eForm 1 created on their eForm website that you must use to apply for the tax stamp and have the $200 tax forgiven. I suppose you could also use a regular paper Form 1 or the regular eForm 1, but you will not receive the tax forgiveness.

(The following is displayed on the eForms website when you initiate an eForm 1:

If you are intending to submit an eForm 1 pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F, you MUST visit the ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F eForms website.)

Also, if you have a trust, you cannot register your braced pistol in your trust unless you have documented proof that the braced pistol was owned by the trust prior to the date of the publishing of the final rule. Otherwise it must be registered to an individual. If you want, after it is registered to an individual you can then transfer it to your trust, with I presume a $200 transfer fee.
 
Skylerbone,

With the rifle revolvers, as long as they have barrel that is at least 16" long and the overall length with stock is over 26" long, then they are a rifle and not a SBR. Now if you can remove the stock and the overall length is under 26" without the stock, that could be a different issue.

The Heritage Rough Rider Rancher carbine would not be an issue since it is designed to have a shoulder stock and can not easily be converted for use with a pistol grip (without disassembly and additional parts). I know with the Rough Rider revolvers you can easily switch the grip portions out for different grips. But I haven't messed with the Rancher carbine to see if that is possible. Granted that is only one example of revolver carbines/rifles.
 
The ATF was granted its current so called "power" by legal deference. It is running with that power and will not stop until stopped.
SAF just filed Motion for Summary Judgement for another ATF case involving Final Rule on frames/receivers under VanDerStok v Garland - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/#post-12542719

ATF was required under the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to take Bruen decision into account before promulgating the Final Rule on frames/receivers (Likely applies for pistol braces too). ATF did not perform the required "Text as informed by relevant history and tradition analysis" which violated Bruen decision and APA requirement.

If ATF loses VanDerStok case based on violating Bruen ruling and APA procedures requirement, then same could apply to pistol braces cases.

Recently, 5th Circuit ruled against ATF on Cargill v Garland bump stocks case where ATF violated APA requirements - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...hat-congress-not-atf-declares-what-the-law-is

"... The APA specifically sets forth standards by which courts must review agency actions—arbitrary and capricious, abuse of discretion, in excess of statutory authority, and so on ... The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the APA. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to enter judgment for Cargill." - https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/5th-Cir-en-banc-opinion.pdf
 
Last edited:
The ATF was granted its current so called "power" by legal deference. It is running with that power and will not stop until stopped.
From 1934 until a decade ago, ATF held that anything attached to a pistol that could be used as a shoulder stock resulted in the making of a short barreled rifle......and no one disagreed.

A decade ago, ATF issued a determination letter that said the SIG arm brace when attached to an AR pistol did not result in the making of a short barreled rifle.....and no one disagreed. In fact the gun loving public was elated and reveled in the idea that an arm brace could be used as a shoulder stock.

Now, ATF decides an arm brace attached to a pistol may likely result in the making of an SBR and people poop their pants while screaming that ATF doesn't have the authority.....the same authority they had when they issued that determination letter.:rofl:

If ATF doesn't have the authority to say an arm brace on a pistol is an SBR, they sure didn't have the authority to say an arm brace on a pistol is not an SBR.

This Clown World brought to you by Congress. You know, the people we elect.
 
ATF issued a determination letter that said the SIG arm brace when attached to an AR pistol did not result in the making of a short barreled rifle.....and no one disagreed. In fact the gun loving public was elated and reveled ... Now, ATF decides an arm brace attached to a pistol may likely result in the making of an SBR and people poop their pants while screaming that ATF doesn't have the authority.....the same authority they had when they issued that determination letter.:rofl:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson

The reason why I am focusing on ATF violating Bruen and APA is because when ATF published previous Final Rules, we did not have the Bruen ruling which eliminated the two-step approach and now only "Text and history" applied for the Second Amendment.

Since Final Rules (Or clarifications) for Bump Stocks, Pistol Braces and 80 Percent/Blanks/Paper Weights did not factor Bruen ruling of "Text and history" approach only since 6/23/22, violating the APA requirement also of not conducting analysis of applicable court rulings before publishing Final Rules; I believe there is a difference now especially since 5th Circuit just ruled "... Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the APA" for bump stocks.

To this layperson, 5th Circuit ruling that ATF violated APA applies to pistol braces and 80 percent/blanks/paper weights as Final Rules published for them also didn't factor Bruen ruling. If Summary Judgement is issued for 80 percent, then same would apply to pistol braces.
 
To this layperson, 5th Circuit ruling that ATF violated APA applies to pistol braces and 80 percent/blanks/paper weights as Final Rules published for them also didn't factor Bruen ruling. If Summary Judgement is issued for 80 percent, then same would apply to pistol braces.
ATF doesn't regulate blanks or paperweights as it is.;)

We know why ATF violated the APA....Donald Trump told them to.
 
So in summary braced ARs that are unregistered after the deadline may be illegal or the ruling may be thrown out. If I want a non-$200 SBR registered simply apply and wait with crossed fingers, but if approved said SBR will be subject to NFA rules forevermore. That’s what I was gathering, thank you all for clarification.
 
I'd like to know why a non-braced AR pistol suddenly becomes an SBR under ATF determination, simply for having flip up rifle sights or magnified optics. Wouldn't a T. Contender or an S&W M frame with a scope then also become an SBR?

I think ATF is now officially in the logic free zone. They surely deserve to be bi##h slapped by the courts.
 
Now, ATF decides an arm brace attached to a pistol may likely result in the making of an SBR and people poop their pants while screaming that ATF doesn't have the authority.....the same authority they had when they issued that determination letter.:rofl:

They rewrote the definition of a rifle. So its not quite as simple as brace, no brace, letters, etc.
 
So in summary braced ARs that are unregistered after the deadline may be illegal or the ruling may be thrown out. If I want a non-$200 SBR registered simply apply and wait with crossed fingers, but if approved said SBR will be subject to NFA rules forevermore. That’s what I was gathering, thank you all for clarification.
I may be wrong, but understand that an SBR that started out as a pistol can be removed from SBR status down the road by removal of the stock. The ATF wants us to notify them when that happens, but in any event that would enable sale without the transfer tax and possession in prohibited states. I hope someone will correct me if this is not accurate.
 
I may be wrong, but understand that an SBR that started out as a pistol can be removed from SBR status down the road by removal of the stock. The ATF wants us to notify them when that happens, but in any event that would enable sale without the transfer tax and possession in prohibited states. I hope someone will correct me if this is not accurate.
To remove an NFA firearm from the registry after it has been converted back to a Title I firearm, you must send a letter to the ATF requesting the status change of the firearm. Here is a sample letter:

https://blog.princelaw.com/2009/03/25/batfe-letter-requesting-removal-of-a-sbrsbs-from-the-nfrtr/

HOWEVER, note that if you register one of these "braced pistols" as an SBR under the amnesty period, AND the firearm was originally bought by you with the brace attached, then it is my understanding that as far as the ATF is concerned it started life as a 'rifle' and can ONLY BE CONVERTED to a 16" bbl rifle, not into a pistol.

If you bought it as a pistol and put the brace on yourself, then you might be able to remove the brace down the road and reconvert it to a pistol again and remove it from the NFA registry, but the ATF would have the final say in the matter with these amnesty firearms.

During the amnesty period, you can remove the brace if desired and turn the firearm into a pistol, even if you originally bought the pistol with a brace attached. The ATF will waive the enforcement of making a weapon out of a rifle ONLY DURING THE AMNESTY period.

ATF final rule:

3. Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached, thereby removing the weapon from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA. The Department recognizes that the removal of a “stabilizing brace” from a firearm that was originally manufactured or received as a “short-barreled rifle” results in the production of a “weapon made from a rifle” as defined by the NFA. However, the Department in its enforcement discretion will allow persons to reconfigure the firearm to a pistol by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and will not require the registration of these firearms as a “weapon made from a rifle.”​
 
Seems my other post was deleted?
Even as a higher education person,who read lots of Govt legislation in the past, I can not make heads or tails of the 95 page PDF??
How does anyone decipher this? Seems like the same confusion is going on and on/

If a firearm started life (purchased) as a pistol and then a brace added. it is now a SBR?? Then if the brace is removed, does it then revert back to a pistol and is OK with the ATF?
Then if there is a angled fore grip(which was OK for pistols) on it is that now not allowed?

It makes no sense to me?

I am attempting to get information here, not speculation. If this is not the place then where??
 
I'd like to know why a non-braced AR pistol suddenly becomes an SBR under ATF determination, simply for having flip up rifle sights or magnified optics. Wouldn't a T. Contender or an S&W M frame with a scope then also become an SBR?

I think ATF is now officially in the logic free zone. They surely deserve to be bi##h slapped by the courts.

Where did you find that?
 
If a firearm started life (purchased) as a pistol and then a brace added. it is now a SBR??
If nothing else, that should be readily apparent in reading the rule.

Then if the brace is removed, does it then revert back to a pistol and is OK with the ATF?
The two responses immediately preceding address that issue.

Then if there is a angled fore grip(which was OK for pistols) on it is that now not allowed?
That is a separate question and you will want to clarify if your question relates to a pistol or SBR

It makes no sense to me?
These observations may be true but do not add useful information. State of mind commentary will be deleted from time to time for this reason.
 
Here is one section in the final rule that talks about sights: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-01001/p-350

Third, the standard for sights or a scope that require shouldering to be used as designed can be measured by testing the sights or scope from the shoulder versus use with one hand. If the sights or scope can be used only while shouldering the firearm, this feature supports a conclusion that the firearm is a rifle. For further discussion, refer to section IV.B.3.b.xi of this preamble.

In earlier versions (before posting to the federal register), the rule talks about eye relief. Basically the ATF is saying that if the optic has a short eye relief that requires the firearm to be shouldered, it indicated that it is a SBR. The 4999 stated the same. While the 4999 is not being used, the information contained there is.

I am not interpreting the rule, just posting what it states.
 
I'd like to know why a non-braced AR pistol suddenly becomes an SBR under ATF determination, simply for having flip up rifle sights or magnified optics. Wouldn't a T. Contender or an S&W M frame with a scope then also become an SBR?

I think ATF is now officially in the logic free zone. They surely deserve to be bi##h slapped by the courts.
You are requesting logical answers while noting the absence of logic. We are not here to defend BATFE, and we do not claim to know what they were thinking. Your frustration is not relevant in Legal.
 
To remove an NFA firearm from the registry after it has been converted back to a Title I firearm, you must send a letter to the ATF requesting the status change of the firearm.
Nothing is ever "removed" from the Registry, ATF just makes a notation that the firearm is no longer an NFA firearm.


HOWEVER, note that if you register one of these "braced pistols" as an SBR under the amnesty period, AND the firearm was originally bought by you with the brace attached, then it is my understanding that as far as the ATF is concerned it started life as a 'rifle' and can ONLY BE CONVERTED to a 16" bbl rifle, not into a pistol.
Not true.
Until the Rule was published last week, pistols with an arm brace were pistols with an arm brace. During the forbearance period, all one has to do is remove that arm brace and its still a pistol.

Ifyou bought it as a pistol and put the brace on yourself, then you might be able to remove the brace down the road and reconvert it to a pistol again and remove it from the NFA registry, but the ATF would have the final say in the matter with these amnesty firearms.
Who attached the arm brace to the pistol has nothing to do with anything.

During the amnesty period, you can remove the brace if desired and turn the firearm into a pistol, even if you originally bought the pistol with a brace attached. The ATF will waive the enforcement of making a weapon out of a rifle ONLY DURING THE AMNESTY period.
Forbearance, not amnesty.




ATF final rule:

3. Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached, thereby removing the weapon from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA. The Department recognizes that the removal of a “stabilizing brace” from a firearm that was originally manufactured or received as a “short-barreled rifle” results in the production of a “weapon made from a rifle” as defined by the NFA. However, the Department in its enforcement discretion will allow persons to reconfigure the firearm to a pistol by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and will not require the registration of these firearms as a “weapon made from a rifle.”​
And that portion of the Rule you bolded is nonsensical.
Only 07FFL/SOT's "manufacture", and the manufacturing of an SBR requires NFA registration on a Form 2 and subsequent transfers require either a Form 3 or Form 4.
They weren't originally manufactured as SBR's, but as pistols.
They weren't "received" as an SBR either. That would have required a Form 4 tax stamp.

Prior to the publication of this rule, they were pistols. Meaning they were never rifles. ATF with a staff of lawyers doesn't read what they write.
ATF got spanked in US vs Thompson Center over "weapon made from a rifle"..........in 1992.

Rule 2021R-08F changes the definition of "rifle" to include pistols if "...equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as listed in the definition, indicate the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top