N555
Member
That's in a nut shell what I think is going to happen.
Brace v Stock finalization & enforcement schedules
- Thread starter Gordon
- Start date
That's in a nut shell what I think is going to happen.
kimberkid
Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,654
I SBR’d 6 braced pistols first time this crap went around I’ve still got them in a box under my bench. I think I’ve only braced a Ruger Charger since they reversed the reversal of the original rule. I’m 65 now, tired of playing the game and don’t plan to pay for a 28th stamp to my collection. If they get grandfathered in I’ll fill out the paperwork. Other than that I’m not sure what I’ll do if they reverse it again. Probably just remove the first Gen Tail Hook and put a foam cover over the receiver extension. If that’s not legal I’ll leave the tail hook on it because I’m done buying stamps.
To add to the confusion, Palmetto State Armory is still selling complete AR, AK Pistols and kits and it is now 2023. If I happen to buy an AR pistol now ( and my new state only does Brady background checks) am I potentially breaking the law? I agree with the poster that says he's not doing anything until something is finalized.
Welcome to THR. As you can see if you read the other responses in this thread, the rule has not been finalized. There are many pistols with braces on dealers' shelves and in the wild that may be reclassified at some point, but at this time there is no new rule to enforce. Once the final rule is filed, a copy will be linked here. Most expect that there will be a window of time to bring non-compliant devices into compliance or register as an SBR. Until that time it serves no purpose to speculate on what that rule will be nor on the compliance window.
Yes, I saw those posts and the video by the lawyer. Seems like ATF is taking their cues by how California, New York, New Jersey treat Lawful firearm owners. I personally would not use a form one to register my legally purchased pistol, to declare it a rifle. Of course, saving reciepts and copies of form 4473 will be my standard practice.
I'm thinking most of the AR pistol/SBR debate is caused because people will buy naked AR lowers from their FFL as a rifle, then assemble it as a pistol.
I would buy the frame as a pistol ( form 4473, and dealer's reciepts) and go from there.
I think that is where this whole AR pistol SBR amnesty comes from. If you buy the receiver as a rifle, and configure it as a pistol, then yes, it is an SBR and needs a tax stamp.
I would buy the frame as a pistol ( form 4473, and dealer's reciepts) and go from there.
I think that is where this whole AR pistol SBR amnesty comes from. If you buy the receiver as a rifle, and configure it as a pistol, then yes, it is an SBR and needs a tax stamp.
mcb
Member
You buy a stripped AR lower receiver as [Other] on the 4473 is is not a rifle or pistol and you cannot select a rifle or pistol for a stripped receiver.
dogtown tom
Member
You can't use a Form 1 to make a rifle. A Form 1 is for making an NFA firearm, one type is Short Barreled Rifle.
A firearm that was originally a pistol, can be reassembled or reconfigured as a rifle by meeting the definition of "rifle". No Form 1 needed and you can go back and forth pistol>rifle>pistol as often as you wish.
Neither of which has anything to do with anything. If your pistol with an arm brace fails to meet the criteria in the ATF worksheet and is determined to be an NFA firearm your 4473 and receipts won't save you.
dogtown tom
Member
A stripped AR lower, an AR lower with a shoulder stock are "Other firearms", recorded on the Form 4473 as a receiver. They do not meet the definition of handgun or long gun because they are not either a handgun or long gun.
Any dealer who transfers an AR lower as a handgun or long gun is doing so illegally. The Form 4473 instructions to Question 24 are explicit.
No, you wouldn't for the reasons above.
What amnesty?
1. You cannot buy a receiver as a rifle. A firearm frame or receiver is a firearm frame or receiver because they do not meet the definition of rifle or pistol in federal law.
2. A receiver with a shoulder stock can legally be made into a pistol by removing the shoulder stock before attaching a barrel.....no tax stamp needed because it isn't an NFA firearm.
All I know is that AR pistols are still being marketed and sold by wholesalers, and dealers now in Jan 2023. I didn't see any December update to ATF's redetermination of AR pistols as SBR's. Many state forms require the FFL to designate wether a firearm sold is a pistol or a rifle. I'm still trying to sort through all of this and see what makes sense.
With all of ATF'S two step dancing on this subject, I can't see how a judge would not grant a restraining order on whatever the agency comes up with next. What a cluster they have made for themselves!
With all of ATF'S two step dancing on this subject, I can't see how a judge would not grant a restraining order on whatever the agency comes up with next. What a cluster they have made for themselves!
A stripped AR lower, an AR lower with a shoulder stock are "Other firearms", recorded on the Form 4473 as a receiver. They do not meet the definition of handgun or long gun because they are not either a handgun or long gun.
Any dealer who transfers an AR lower as a handgun or long gun is doing so illegally. The Form 4473 instructions to Question 24 are explicit.
No, you wouldn't for the reasons above.
What amnesty?
1. You cannot buy a receiver as a rifle. A firearm frame or receiver is a firearm frame or receiver because they do not meet the definition of rifle or pistol in federal law.
I know that for instance, in California, an AR cannot be legally sold as a pistol. The state background forms will only allow even bare receivers to be sold as rifles. There are No AR pistols on their Roster of approved handguns that can be sold.
The term "Amnesty" that I'm referring to comes from federal forms being considered to convert your AR pistol into a legal SBR. This came from the video of the lawyer in the video from a few posts back.
dogtown tom
Member
And?
What may be offered for sale today, may be illegal tomorrow. Ask Washington and California how that works.
That's because ATF never made any such determination to begin with. You can't have a "redetermination" unless you first had a determination.
I think you are very confused about what is actually at issue. This regulatory change is not whether AR pistols are SBRs. It is whether a pistol with an arm brace is an NFA firearm. ATF seeks to use the worksheet to determine that.
What a state may require has no effect on federal law or ATF regulations or the dealers duty to follow ATF regulations in transferring a firearm. If State X requires a firearm frame or receiver to be designated as a handgun or rifle by the dealer.....that isn't done on the Form 4473.
Please read what dogtown tom wrote
Again. if someone buys a complete AR lower with a shoulder stock attached, it still transfers as "other" on the 4473. The reason is that the lower by itself does NOT meet the definition of a pistol or rifle since it has NEVER had an upper attached to it. Again the instructions on the 4473 are very clear on this. And again, one can buy a complete lower with shoulder stock attached (that has never had an upper installed) and legally build an AR pistol with said lower as long as the stock is removed FIRST.
Now if one buys a complete rifle then turns it into a pistol, then yes that is illegal since it started out as a rifle FIRST.
dogtown tom
Member
Well that doesn't mean a dealer can mark "Long gun" on the 4473.
So?
The dealer must still comply with the federal recordkeeping requirements as well as the GCA '68......which says a receiver is NOT a rifle and cannot be transferred to someone under age 21.
So guess what.......Californians won't have to worry about whether their AR pistol with an arm brace can pass the ATF worksheet will they?
ATF doesn't have the authority to declare an "amnesty" and exempt people from taxes imposed by Congress.
Further, and very importantly, an "amnesty" is defined as:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/amnesty
Currently, no one is in violation of any federal law or ATF regulation by attaching an arm brace to a pistol. If this regulation is implemented in the future, the ATF can't go back and charge you with a violation that wasn't a violation before the regulatory change. That's called ex post facto.
ATF doesn't have the authority to declare an "amnesty" and exempt people from taxes imposed by Congress.
Further, and very importantly, an "amnesty" is defined as:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/amnesty
Currently, no one is in violation of any federal law or ATF regulation by attaching an arm brace to a pistol. If this regulation is implemented in the future, the ATF can't go back and charge you with a violation that wasn't a violation before the regulatory change. That's called ex post facto.[/QUOTE]
This last paragraph of yours is exactly my point, and that of the Lawyer. A firearm legally transfered to a buyer as a "Pistol", cannot subsequently be redefined or reclassified as an SBR, with penalties imposed for not complying with an administrative reclassification by ATF.
Further, and very importantly, an "amnesty" is defined as:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/amnesty
Currently, no one is in violation of any federal law or ATF regulation by attaching an arm brace to a pistol. If this regulation is implemented in the future, the ATF can't go back and charge you with a violation that wasn't a violation before the regulatory change. That's called ex post facto.[/QUOTE]
This last paragraph of yours is exactly my point, and that of the Lawyer. A firearm legally transfered to a buyer as a "Pistol", cannot subsequently be redefined or reclassified as an SBR, with penalties imposed for not complying with an administrative reclassification by ATF.
dogtown tom
Member
Nonsense.
If you have a Glock 17, add a shoulder stock........you have an SBR. If you don't have a tax stamp you committed a federal felony when you attached that shoulder stock.
Further, what do you think happened in 1934? Prior to passage of the National Firearm Act of 1934, there were no SBR's......yet when that law became effective it redefined what was/was not a rifle and if it didn't meet the definition of rifle due to bbl length or OAL it was an SBR.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,184
Last edited:
MachIVshooter
Member
Correct.
However, ex post facto cover past acts that were legal at the time, not continuing to engage in said activities after they become illegal. In the context of contraband items, that would require a "grandfather clause", which is not in the cards here.
Catshooter
Member
Correct.
The enemy learned that they didn't like a grandfather clause during the '94 AWB.
dogtown tom
Member
And?????
You need to read the Administrative Procedures Act to see how government agencies formulate regulations. Such regulations carry the force of law.
Looks like they finalized the rule yesterday (1/13/23). I haven't read all the way through it yet, but I have provided a link to it below directly from the ATF's website.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
I especially like the part of definition of "amnesty" I (and others) have done nothing illegal or wrong to warrant "amnesty"!!
In the documents generated, there are over 300 pages of legal stuff.
This is all about money, even though they claim it is to to protect lives!
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 referred to as a short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the laws that regulate those rifles, including the National Firearms Act (NFA). In April 2021, at an event with President Biden, the Attorney General directed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to address the issue of stabilizing braces.
“Keeping our communities safe from gun violence is among the Department’s highest priorities,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to heightened requirements. Today’s rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles.”
“This rule enhances public safety and prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago. In the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns. The reason for that is that short-barreled rifles have the greater capability of long guns, yet are easier to conceal, like a pistol,” said ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. “But certain so-called stabilizing braces are designed to just attach to pistols, essentially converting them into short-barreled rifles to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, they must be treated in the same way under the statute.”
Since the 1930s, the NFA has imposed requirements on short-barreled rifles because they are more easily concealable than long-barreled rifles but have more destructive power than traditional handguns. Beyond background checks and serial numbers, those heightened requirements include taxation and registration requirements that include background checks for all transfers including private transfers. Often, when pistols are converted to rifles by the use of a stabilizing brace covered by the rule, they have barrels less than 16 inches in length and must comply with the same heightened requirements that apply to short-barreled rifles under the NFA.
The rule goes into effect on the date of publication in the Federal Register. The rule allows for a 120-day period for manufacturers, dealers, and individuals to register tax-free any existing NFA short-barreled rifles covered by the rule. Other options including removing the stabilizing brace to return the firearm to a pistol or surrendering covered short-barreled rifles to ATF. Nothing in this rule bans stabilizing braces or the use of stabilizing braces on pistols.
On June 7, 2021, the Department of Justice issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, and during the 90-day open comment period, the ATF received more than 237,000 comments.
Soonerpesek
Member
To make it clear----------I "liked" the fact you posted the link
...........not the fact the rule was finalized 
....
Last edited:
MachIVshooter
Member
For those who don't want to read through it, in a nutshell, pretty much anything that was originally designed as a rifle and which has some protrusion off the back which extends far enough that it could adequately space the weapon off your shoulder is gonna be considered SBR. That includes most receiver extensions (buffer tubes) even without a brace, especially if the weapon has a short eye relief optic or any other features/accessories which would make it difficult to use or unwieldy if held as a typical pistol.
The AR is gonna be the most challenging one here, pretty much gonna have to use one of the super short receiver extensions if you don't want to put a longer barrel on, pin & weld something to the muzzle or register it. Most other things like AKs, HK pattern stuff, etc, are easy to replace the brace assembly with a pistol end cap.
The AR is gonna be the most challenging one here, pretty much gonna have to use one of the super short receiver extensions if you don't want to put a longer barrel on, pin & weld something to the muzzle or register it. Most other things like AKs, HK pattern stuff, etc, are easy to replace the brace assembly with a pistol end cap.
Similar threads
