Brace v Stock finalization & enforcement schedules

[tarosean]

That includes most receiver extensions (buffer tubes) even without a brace

I read it differently. pistol buffer tubes without adjustment were okay.

Page: 162

For example, an AR-type pistol with a standard 6- to 6-1/2-inch buffer tube may not be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder even if the buffer tube provides surface area that allows the firearm to be shoulder fired.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I read it differently. pistol buffer tubes without adjustment were okay.

Page: 162

We don't really know. They didn't give us a figure to go on for distance from trigger or some other datum point on the weapon, nor where they're measuring that "6 or 6-1/2 inches" from; Back of the receiver? Back of the plate or extension nut? Entire tube length as measured uninstalled? Is it 6" or 6.5"?

And of course we see the term "may not" rather than "is not".

Clear as mud, par for the course

 

[12Bravo20]

Yes they threw out those measurements of 6- 6.5 inches but as @MachIVshooter stated, the ATF did not clarify how to take that measurement.

As with any ATF ruling, it is clear as mud.

 

[Mini30SS]

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.

Just for clarification, you cannot build a pistol under the latest determination with a rifle (ie Carbine) buffer tube attached. It cannot be a tube that has notches for an adjustable stock. It must be a "pistol" buffer tube.

 

[12Bravo20]

Just for clarification, you cannot build a pistol under the latest determination with a rifle (ie Carbine) buffer tube attached. It cannot be a tube that has notches for an adjustable stock. It must be a "pistol" buffer tube.

Yes that is correct. And buried in the Factoring Criteria is a length for smooth pistol buffer tubes of 6 to 6.5 inches in length. The bad is they do not state how they measure the pistol length buffer tube.

 

[MachIVshooter]

In debating some other meat heads for the sake of quiet onlookers, another issue that is not particularly clear to people who aren't well versed in NFA needs to be addressed.

Part 27 of the FAQ which covers markings. There has been an exception made for engraving information on firearms which were transferred already configured with a brace; those do not need to be marked with additional information. The same question addresses that personally made firearms with braces do need to be marked in accordance with 27 CFR. The confusion surrounds what consititutes "making", with many people believing that is specifically addressing 80% receivers or weapons that were built on receivers that transferred as "firearm".

It applies to ANY firearm which was reconfigured by the end user/possessor into an NFA firearm, which now includes any firearm or pistol that had a brace added to it or was installed in a chassis with a brace. That is clearly outlined on the Form 1 (5320.1) itself under definitions, part J. If you added a brace to a pistol or installed a pistol in a braced chassis and are going to F1 register it as an SBR, you need to engrave your name/trust name and city & state in accordance with 27 CFR. If you built from a lower that has "multi" or nothing at all denoted for caliber, caliber will also need to be engraved on it. And if you built on an unmarked "80%" lower, you need to add a serial number as well as caliber, name and city & state.


And yet another issue that people can't agree on, partly because ATF has always been ambiguous and cryptic about it, is whether a pistol made into an SBR can be a title I GCA pistol again. There are some opinion letters out there supporting both yes and no answers, though the ones I've seen are not as definitive as they should be with such a serious matter. However, understand that turning a GCA firearm into an NFA firearm is considered the making of a new firearm, so if that happens to be an SBR, it is then a rifle, and where possession, transportation and disposition are concerned, it may be considered an SBR whenever it is configured with a barrel under 16" or a sub-26" OAL. Yes, you can take a Glock out of a chassis and use it as a handgun just like you can take the stock off an SBR, but that doesn't mean they aren't still considered SBRs when configured with the short barrel and/or short OAL. Until we have a truly definitive answer on that one, my recommendation is be conservative and do not loan out a firearm that is registered as an SBR without it meeting title I GCA rifle definition, do not travel interstate with it unless it is either configured as a GCA rifle or you have filed Form 5320.20, and do not transfer it without a Form 4 unless it is configured as a GCA rifle (and with full disclosure to the buyer). ATF may, on the particular day they find someone with such a firearm, decide to apply the pistol>rifle>pistol ruling (which took a lawsuit to get, mind you). Or they may decide that a handgun which was registered and configured as an SBR remains NFA unless configured with a >16" barrel and >26" OAL. If you played it safe, then it's a whole lot of nothing whichever way they lean based on the moon's phasing, the alignment of the planets or whatever arbitrary criteria ATF uses to decide on prosecuting or not in these instances. But if you decided to loan out, sell without F4 or take across state lines without F5320.20 a pistol which had been configured as an SBR, and on that day the powers that be decide it is a weapon made from a rifle, you're facing up to 10 years in prison, $100k in fines and a loss of gun & voting rights.

 

[12Bravo20]

Excellent information @MachIVshooter.

I don't know how many people actually read threads in the NFA section versus the Legal and Pistol sections. But I feel that what you posted is very important. And I would love to see 1 consolidated thread (preferably pinned) where it would get the most views.

Unfortunately there is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to the NFA. I know quite a few of us have tried to answer peoples questions (repeatedly in different thread).

 

[MachIVshooter]

Unfortunately there is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to the NFA. I know quite a few of us have tried to answer peoples questions (repeatedly in different thread).

It only gets worse as the years drag on.

This new rule and the FAQ surrounding it is particularly confusing, ambiguous, and full of things like conflating the distinctly different terms of "manufacture" and "make" and derivatives thereof.

The more I go over it, the more inclined I am to tell people just to avoid the tax forbearance and either do it as a normal form 1 SBR or reconfigure it into a title I GCA firearm.

Hopefully @Spats McGee can weigh in on this as a lawyer who better understands these things, but I'm of the opinion that ATF is offering things that they simply cannot offer because it violates codified statutes, especially with NFA being a tax code matter as well as title 18. With 87k new IRS agents to keep busy, it's not unimaginable that the IRS would act independently and without regard for this rule, come after people for tax evasion on their "free" SBR registration.

I can tell you that of our 4 braced pistols, not one will be registered as a Form 1 SBR under the forbearance period. One will be transfered to the company and Form 2 registered, the other 3 will have suppressors pinned and welded to bring the barrels over 16".

 

[Mini30SS]

I can tell you that of our 4 braced pistols, not one will be registered as a Form 1 SBR under the forbearance period. One will be transfered to the company and Form 2 registered, the other 3 will have suppressors pinned and welded to bring the barrels over 16".

I agree with this. My understanding is:

1) if you build an AR reciever from scratch, as a pistol ( meaning No rifle buffer) and No brace is attached, and it meets other "Pistol" criteria , then you are good to go.

2) You cannot convert a rifle that was transferred to your name as such, into a pistol. I. E, a complete built rifle, like a name brand S&W MP-15, Ruger 556, ect.

3) You cannot convert a firearm ( reciever) that is built, and already registered as an SBR into a pistol.

4) A firearm, manufactured, marketed and sold as a complete AR ( or AK and other) pistol is good to go, if the stabilizing brace is removed, and No other rifle accessories, such as a foregrip have been added.

5) An AR type pistol cannot have "Rifle sights" attached to it. My understanding is that sights that are considered "rifle sights", would be ones that would require shouldering for proper sight picture, or magnification higher than 1x.

I would invite simple, practical responses to Aid my understanding on this issue, not long quotes or interpretations of Federal code. Please just respond to my numbered above, and what does, or does not constitute a legal to possess and use "AR" pistol. Examples of anything on the market now, that would not be problematic, would be much appreciated. I would like to own a legal AR 300 BLK pistol, but if that is not now possible with current regs, I do not wish to push my luck.

 

[jmorris]

This is all about money, even though they claim it is to to protect lives!

I think it’s more about low hanging fruit and finding a step they can make towards their goal of disarming the population. If it was about saving lives they would keep killers locked up and we know they don’t do that.

They don’t care about money much, they don’t even spend money they have.

Called

def·i·cit spend·ing
/ˈdefəsət spendiNG/
noun

1. government spending, in excess of revenue, of funds raised by borrowing rather than from taxation.

Over 31 trillion dollars and no end in sight. https://www.usdebtclock.org/.

To put that in perspective there would need to be more than 155 billion form 1’s paid for to cover that…

 

[DukeConnor]

I have no idea which pistol I have came that way or which I added a brace too. I know which were rifles and which were pistols but the pistols have been reconfigured multiple times with various braces and components. I don't have a single AR that hasn't been modified in some way.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I agree with this. My understanding is:

1) if you build an AR reciever from scratch, as a pistol ( meaning No rifle buffer) and No brace is attached, and it meets other "Pistol" criteria , then you are good to go

Should be. The trouble is all the ambiguity in what is or isn't. Rule of lenity favors the citizen, but that is a defense in court, not something that will keep you out of handcuffs.

2) You cannot convert a rifle that was transferred to your name as such, into a pistol. I. E, a complete built rifle, like a name brand S&W MP-15, Ruger 556, ect

A rifle that was originally configured as such. If it was transferred to you as a rifle on Form 4473, that could be potentially problematic even if it had originally been manufactured/assembled as a pistol. Reconfiguring a rifle into a pistol would be a weapon made from a rifle, which is NFA.

3) You cannot convert a firearm ( reciever) that is built, and already registered as an SBR into a pistol.

You can physically, but legally it remains an SBR in any configuration that doesn't have at least a 26" OAL with a 16" or longer barrel

4) A firearm, manufactured, marketed and sold as a complete AR ( or AK and other) pistol is good to go, if the stabilizing brace is removed, and No other rifle accessories, such as a foregrip have been added.

Again, should be, but it's ultimately at their discretion in each case. However, adding a vertical foregrip to any pistol makes it an AOW.

5) An AR type pistol cannot have "Rifle sights" attached to it. My understanding is that sights that are considered "rifle sights", would be ones that would require shouldering for proper sight picture, or magnification higher than 1x.

There's nothing precluding magnified optics, lots of magnified handgun scopes exist. It's about the eye relief. Again, a pretty ambiguous/subjective thing that's wide open for arbitrary and capricious interpretation.

 

[Soonerpesek]

I am hoping that with the (pending to be) lawsuits...the finalization will be ruled UNconstitutional.....Different thread different time......

However, if it stays as is, with the 120 day tax stamp with no fee thing,
Didn't the ATF just inadvertently market and help sell million(s) of SBR's....?

 

[rbernie]

Hopefully @Spats McGee can weigh in on this as a lawyer who better understands these things, but I'm of the opinion that ATF is offering things that they simply cannot offer because it violates codified statutes, especially with NFA being a tax code matter as well as title 18. With 87k new IRS agents to keep busy, it's not unimaginable that the IRS would act independently and without regard for this rule, come after people for tax evasion on their "free" SBR registration.

Since the ATF is tasked to collect the relevant taxes for NFA items, it would seem to me (which I'll concede generally doesn't mean much in the real world) that the tax liability question has been addressed once the ATF issues the tax stamp - the ATF owes the IRS, not the individuals who followed the published instructions.

I can't see a path for the IRS to charge anyone with evasion for following the Goobermint's instruction explicitly and having their compliance demonstrated via issuance of the stamp.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Since the ATF is tasked to collect the relevant taxes for NFA items, it would seem to me (which I'll concede generally doesn't mean much in the real world) that the tax liability question has been addressed once the ATF issues the tax stamp - the ATF owes the IRS, not the individuals who followed the published instructions.

I can't see a path for the IRS to charge anyone with evasion for following the Goobermint's instruction explicitly and having their compliance demonstrated via issuance of the stamp.

You may well be correct, but 27 CFR 469 does explicitly state that the tax is to be collected from the maker.

I have no idea how that works now that ATF is under DOJ not Treasury Dept.

 

[12Bravo20]

You may well be correct, but 27 CFR 469 does explicitly state that the tax is to be collected from the maker.

I have no idea how that works now that ATF is under DOJ not Treasury Dept.

And even though the ruling states that the DOJ/ US Attorney General has authorized the waiving of the tax, he and the DOJ is still a separate department/agency from the IRS. The only way I can see any of this being cleared up is for both the Judicial and Legislative branches to step in and correct things. That means the courts are going to have to decide that the new brace rule is unconstitutional and Congress will need to pass new laws and/or amend existing laws.

 

[armoredman]

So, for example, a CZ BREN 2 MS pistol or an IWI Galil ACE, which does not use a buffer, sold as a pistol without a brace kit attached to it at the time of transfer from manufacturer/distributor/dealer to the buyer, does not qualify for the "free" tax stamp, (I can see the IRS saying after the fact that that one needs to be paid, as they love that filthy lucre, and coming after everyone who registered through those wonderful income tax returns - after all, they know who you are and where you are.), so any pistol sold that way must be properly engraved as any SBR would be, and must follow the normal SBR method, including the $200 transfer tax stamp, correct? I think that is very important as many people bought/built large format pistols and added brace kits afterwards.

 

[Rule3]

Send the ATF all your information, finger prints, detail of gun with pictures.
Sounds like a National Gun Registry to me!

 

[BreechFace]

I posted this in the other brace thread. Interesting choice of words for the ATF in their document. They use forebearance at the end of the paragraph talking about the "free" SBR stamp. This has, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help," written all over it. I wouldn't hold by breath that the IRS doesn't come back for the $2-8 billion tax "forebearance" (10-40million braces) that the ATF so generously gave in their "peace accord" with the law abiding citzenry.

I do believe they are operating outside of their purview, this NFA tax was established by Congress, only to be collected by the ATF. But I could be wrong...wouldn't be the first time or the last.

forbearance
fôr-bâr′əns
noun

1. Tolerance and restraint in the face of provocation; patience.
2. The act of giving a debtor more time to pay rather than immediately enforcing a debt that is due.
3. The act or state of forbearing; the cessation or intermission of an act commenced, or a refraining from beginning an act.

Page 204 of ATF's Dumpster Fire
Moreover, the rule expressly provides options for unlicensed individuals and
FFLs to comply with the requirements of the NFA if they are currently in possession of
firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” and a barrel length of less than 16 inches
that are short-barreled rifles. The Department, in its enforcement discretion, has
determined that current possessors of these affected firearms have until 120 days after
this rule is published to take the necessary actions, as described in this rule, to comply
with Federal law to avoid civil and criminal penalties. Additionally, in an exercise of its
enforcement discretion, the Department has determined that individuals and FFLs will
not be liable for paying past making and transfer taxes for weapons of the sort described
in this rule that are NFA firearms. For a further discussion on tax forbearance, see
sections IV.B.8.e, IV.B.9.b–c, and V.C of this preamble

 

[dogtown tom]

Send the ATF all your information, finger prints, detail of gun with pictures.
Sounds like a National Gun Registry to me!

Well.........it is and has been since the National Firearms Act of 1934. That ain't exactly a new law.
Don't want your gun on that registry? Then don't make have a firearm determined to me an NFA firearm.

 

[dogtown tom]

I posted this in the other brace thread. Interesting choice of words for the ATF in their document. They use forebearance at the end of the paragraph talking about the "free" SBR stamp. This has, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help," written all over it. I wouldn't hold by breath that the IRS doesn't come back for the $2-8 billion tax "forebearance" (10-40million braces) that the ATF so generously gave in their "peace accord" with the law abiding citzenry.

I do believe they are operating outside of their purview, this NFA tax was established by Congress, only to be collected by the ATF. But I could be wrong...wouldn't be the first time or the last.

ATF cannot on their own, as a federal agency, exempt people from paying the Form 1 "making" tax. BUT, federal law does authorize "the Secretary" to do so.

forbearance
fôr-bâr′əns
noun

1. Tolerance and restraint in the face of provocation; patience.
2. The act of giving a debtor more time to pay rather than immediately enforcing a debt that is due.
3. The act or state of forbearing; the cessation or intermission of an act commenced, or a refraining from beginning an act.

Seems that they are using the portion of the definition bolded in #3.

 

[Spats McGee]

....Hopefully @Spats McGee can weigh in on this as a lawyer who better understands these things,....

I'll dig into it as soon as I am able. Just know that I'm swamped with other stuff in my life right now. Until we can sort this all out, y'all be careful and do your best to stay on the outside of the jail.

 

[Elkins45]

People have been telling me the ATF is coming to kick down my door and take me to jail for 40 years now. I’m starting to suspect some of those folks might be a touch paranoid.

 

[Gordon]

I am in the next couple weeks engraving the required name, address ( partial) , and caliber on my four braced guns.
A Question on my Ruger Charger 9 mm Which I clipped on a SIG folding brace. The Charger is without a doubt a pistol and sold as one.It was designed with the 1913 tab to take a stock and yes some were sold by Ruger with a brace. So I guess I take a picture and apply just like the Three A R based ones are ? They all have " pistol" tubes and I'll replace the sort eyerelief 1-4 scope on one .300 with a Burris 1-4 Pistol scope I got hanging around and mount it more forward.
I guess after I receive SBR stamp e mail I can put real stocks on everything instead of those stupid braces.Also put on forward hand grips or bipods and grip lights on the registered SBR ?

 

[usaral63]

In my view it'll be a first if the ATF provides a "stamp" with an amnesty registration. I registered an MP40 when the 1968 law changed via the Haynes decision. As I recollect it took about5 months for the returned.......stampless......registration documents to be sent to me....!

Further, there was an IRS.......in those days ATTD provision that allowed a LEO to register an NFA weapon to himself tax free providing he had the approval of his CLEO.............I did so and papered a converted M1A1 (selective fire) to myself. Still own the thing and there is NO stamp associated with it. That document bears the signature of the then director, Harold Serr............the Amnesty '68' registration I believe carries another signature in the accepted for registration column.

Believe me, the ATF was just as screwed up way back as it is now...........they kept sending me the wrong papers on the first piece and one fella I worked with was more than a little disturbed at the ATF agent that kept waking him up after a night shift trying to get the paper work straight........

That agency is a joke, always has and always will be..............................Think of Weaver or the nuts at the Dividian compound......but then one must include the other alphabet boys too!

I was a cop for way over three decades and I just can't seem to find any justification for shooting women and dogs!