Brace v Stock finalization & enforcement schedules

[Gordon]

Most of us knew this was going to happen under the new administration, sooner or later. Rifles with barrels less than 16" become SBR with the brace. Infact it looks like possession of a brace and something it fits on is now banned. I had a few. I cut off the ones that jammed over the pistol buffer tubes , which actually worked very well and cost about $50-60
The fancy folding triangle ones I liked for non AR 1913 pic attachment, I removed to somewhere else and filed form one for SBR stamp for the Ruger PCC Charger.
What are your Legal solutions ? Actually I guess one could build an all polymer AR that would qualify with the rules to allow it, but for me that is a waste of time. Either put a 16" barrel on them or stick to a padded pistol buffer tube for a real pistol and use work around techniques.

 

[mcb]

Not doing anything until an actual law/rule is released. As it stand my AR braced pistols are legal under current law/rulings and until I have definitive rules for what is and is not allowed on an AR pistol I am not changing anything. The preliminary rule release several months ago were exactly that preliminary. Until they are enforced I am not changing anything.

 

[horsemen61]

I haven’t heard anything to this effect yet please cite your source!

 

[halfmoonclip]

Been there, done that. Finally said the hell with it, and went with a tax stamp.
At least the brace let me shoot my Scorpion until the tax stamp arrived.
Moon

 

[12Bravo20]

I know that the rule changes on the definition of what a frame/receiver is goes into effect this month. I haven't seen where the brace rule change as been stated to go into effect in August. As far as we all know it won't be until December 2022.

Here is another thread about this. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ce-rule-now-dropping-in-december-2022.907528/

And here is what is on the ATF website. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces

 

[dogtown tom]

Most of us knew this was going to happen under the new administration, sooner or later. Rifles with barrels less than 16" become SBR with the brace.

Well, thats been Federal law since 1934. Having a brace on a Short Barreled Rifle does nothing to its status as an NFA firearm.

Infact it looks like possession of a brace and something it fits on is now banned.

Well, no. In fact your facts are not facts.

What are your Legal solutions ?

First, get your facts straight, yours aren't. Here is the https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces
Second, use ATF's Worksheet to determine if your braced pistol is in fact, a braced pistol: https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download

Actually I guess one could build an all polymer AR that would qualify with the rules to allow it, but for me that is a waste of time. Either put a 16" barrel on them or stick to a padded pistol buffer tube for a real pistol and use work around techniques.

Don't ever guess.

 

[12Bravo20]

And if you read the actual rulings that dogtown tom and myself have posted links too, you will see what all of your options are.

Here are your options:

ª1) Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached, thus converting the firearm back to its original pistol configuration (as long as it was originally configured without a stock and as a pistol) and thereby removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA. Exercising this option would mean the pistol would no longer be “equipped with” the stabilizing brace within the meaning of the proposed rule.

(2) Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer barrel to the firearm thus removing it from the provisions of the NFA.

(3) Destroy the firearm. ATF will publish information regarding proper destruction on its website, www.atf.gov.

(4) Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.

(5) Complete and submit an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF Form 1 (“Form 1”). As part of the submission, the $200 tax payment is required with the application. Pursuant to 27 CFR 479.102, the name, city, and state of the maker of the firearm must be properly marked on the firearm. All other markings, placed by the original manufacturer, should be adopted. Proof of submission of the Form 1 should be maintained by all possessors. Documentation establishing submission of Form 1 includes, but is not limited to, eForm submission acknowledgement, proof of payment, or copy of Form 1 submission with postmark documentation.

All this can be found in Section V. Options for Affected Persons https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-86

 

[mcb]

When that rule is published I believe we will have 120 days to come into compliance. That is more than enough time for me to again configure my AR pistols in legal manner.

And if you read the actual rulings that dogtown tom and myself have posted links too, you will see what all of your options are.

Here are your options:



All this can be found in Section V. Options for Affected Persons https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2021-12176/p-86

But those are not rulings those are proposed ruling and are not yet enforced. When the actually rulings are released they could be dramatically different. I will wait for the official rulings before I do anything. Once those official rulings come out we will still have plenty of time to come into compliance with the new rules or join a challenge to them in the court system.

 

[The Glockodile]

Nooo!

I like my fully - loaded, legally - transported "pistol" in my vehicle configured the way it is!

 

[12Bravo20]

When that rule is published I believe we will have 120 days to come into compliance. That is more than enough time for me to again configure my AR pistols in legal manner.


But those are not rulings those are proposed ruling and are not yet enforced. When the actually rulings are released they could be dramatically different. I will wait for the official rulings before I do anything. Once those official rulings come out we will still have plenty of time to come into compliance with the new rules or join a challenge to them in the court system.

Which is why we must wait for the official rule change to be published. But unless there are major changes between now and then, those are the options.

 

[gotboostvr]

Well, I used a rifle buffer tube and a foam cover before and it worked well enough.

Either that, or I'll start SBR'ing a few recievers.

 

[Jeff H]

Either that, or I'll start SBR'ing a few recievers.

I have my Eform1 all filled out as a draft copy and fingerprint cards on my desk just in case, but I'm not jumping the gun yet. I'll wait until December and see what the actual rule change says.

 

[rust collector]

I edited the thread title to avoid misunderstanding. When you have more information on final form and timeline for the proposed stock rules, please post.

 

[N555]

There's a few million AR pistol owners who bought their gun "as is" from a gun shop and simply have no idea what's coming and at least several million more that don't care.

 

[usaral63]

What about the stuff marketed by major makers ie: Ruger. Have a friend that bought his braced ar new.......................are the projected rulings applying to those folks?

 

[N555]

What about the stuff marketed by major makers ie: Ruger. Have a friend that bought his braced ar new.......................are the projected rulings applying to those folks?

Ya.
It's almost like they want to motivate a few million people who never heard of the NFA to demand it be abolished.
Now tens of millions of people are being introduced to the concept that you can buy something legally and in good faith that you aren't breaking the law be turned into a criminal just by the changing political winds of a bloated obsolete bureaucracy.

 

[rust collector]

One wonders if, as with bump stocks, rules may be changed by future administrations or courts after all the newly declared contraband is destroyed. How long will the Shockwaves be acceptable? Thirty round mags? Glocks (now that the switch is in wide circulation)? Stay tuned, we're in for a ride.

 

[Catshooter]

Not doing anything until an actual law/rule is released. As it stand my AR braced pistols are legal under current law/rulings and until I have definitive rules for what is and is not allowed on an AR pistol I am not changing anything. The preliminary rule release several months ago were exactly that preliminary. Until they are enforced I am not changing anything.

This post aged very well.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Question.
When ATF changed original pre-1934 Trapper rifles from Title II (NFA) SBR to Title I (GCA) C&R rifle and changed pre-1945 C96 Mauser pistols with shoulder stocks from Title II SBR to Title I C&R handgun, was anyone owning a Trapper rifle or stocked C96 pistol afterwards ever asked about the whereabouts or whohadits of the firearm if it had been unpapered contraband?

 

[dogtown tom]

Question.
When ATF changed original pre-1934 Trapper rifles from Title II (NFA) SBR to Title I (GCA) C&R rifle and changed pre-1945 C96 Mauser pistols with shoulder stocks from Title II SBR to Title I C&R handgun, was anyone owning a Trapper rifle or stocked C96 pistol afterwards ever asked about the whereabouts or whohadits of the firearm if it had been unpapered contraband?

Wouldn't matter. Once removed from the NFA, they weren't NFA and didn't require a Form 4.

 

[Spats McGee]

....Second, use ATF's Worksheet to determine if your braced pistol is in fact, a braced pistol: https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download
....

So, I'm looking at the form that dogtown tom linked. As a big-time Word Nerd, the first thing I noticed was this: "The [BATFE] reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a "stabilizing brace" for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score, but is an attempt to make a "short-barreled rifle" and circumvent the GCA or NFA." . . . . In other words, you can follow the worksheet, do everything by the book, but BATFE reserves the right to call it an SBR.

 

[mcb]

So, I'm looking at the form that dogtown tom linked. As a big-time Word Nerd, the first thing I noticed was this: "The [BATFE] reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a "stabilizing brace" for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score, but is an attempt to make a "short-barreled rifle" and circumvent the GCA or NFA." . . . . In other words, you can follow the worksheet, do everything by the book, but BATFE reserves the right to call it an SBR.

So much for blind justice...

 

[Spats McGee]

I guess I just need to read the proposed rule more closely . . . .

 

[12Bravo20]

Yes the way the Form/worksheet 4999 is written, no matter if you follow all of the rules and score the correct amount of points, the ATF can still consider your braced pistol as an illegal SBR.

NOTE:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a “stabilizing braces” for any firearm that achieves an apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a “short-barreled rifle” and circumvent the GCA or NFA.

*As used in this worksheet, the term “accessory” is intended as a general term to describe the marketing of items commonly known as “stabilizing braces” and does not affect any ATF determinations whether such items when attached to a handgun are, in fact, “accessories” not necessary for the operation of the handgun, but which enhance its usefulness

or effectiveness, or whether they are component parts necessary to properly operate a weapon, such as a rifle. Furthermore, use of that term does not affect any determinationswhether such items are “defense articles” under the Arms Export Control Act. Please direct all inquiries as to possible liability for the firearms and ammunition excise tax,
26 U.S.C. sections 4181-4182 to the United States Department of Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB).

Bold text added by me to emphasize what the worksheet states.

Here is the link again for the worksheet. https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download

 

[Spats McGee]

Here is another lawyer’s take on it, and it’s a little discomforting.