Op-Ed on ATF Pistol Brace ruling.

[berettaprofessor]

I recently pointed out to one of the “I will not comply” crowd that he complied when he bought the brace instead of just building an unregistered SBR from the start.

For God's sake, don't apply logic...it just confuses the weak-minded.

 

[Pudge]

The firearms community has hardly covered itself in glory through this whole brace fiasco. I recently pointed out to one of the “I will not comply” crowd that he complied when he bought the brace instead of just building an unregistered SBR from the start.

He was not amused.

That nicely illustrates the futility of thinking compliance is of any lasting value.

I don't have any interest in an AR pistol, with or without a brace, but the BATFE is making compliance look less like abiding by the law and more like being jerked around.

 

[Elkins45]

That nicely illustrates the futility of thinking compliance is of any lasting value.

Compliance with the NFA remained essentially unchanged since 1934.

It was only about 10 years ago when someone got “clever.” and created a mess. Pistol braces were a recently-invented loophole for everyone except maybe the 0.01% of users who actually only had one arm. And the loudmouths had to go and ruin it for those few people who actually needed a braced pistol.

Compliance isn’t of any lasting value? Get back to me when they start confiscating the legally-held pre-86 machine guns and maybe I’ll agree then, because those are the NFA items they really want to throw in the smelter.

 

[DoubleMag]

In my assessment, the trap is far simpler than that. Every registration the trap elicits is a success, because that's one more arm that's a trivial administrative step away from being taken away. No detective work, just a name, address, and a work order.

"They'd never!" "They can't!" Brother, you are a waste of the eyes God put in your head if you think they won't, the instant they believe they can pull it off. They reason they can't pull it off is because they don't have the resources, yet. Don't make their job easier.

OK, turn about is fair play how can it get easier for ''them'', they don't have enough agents staff help as of now, to do everything they need (or even want) to do?

Has anyone looked at the REALITY of, adding 3-4-6-20 MILLION more items to the registry will bust it faster then feeding that last mint to Mr. Creosote in the Monty Python skit?

So, an argument COULD be made, it's a good idea to add more weights that simply no camel can bear.

 

[Captains1911]

I’ve just been surprised at the staunch defense the ATF is getting. Didn’t expect that from a gun forum.

Who is defending the ATF?

 

[KansasTrapper77]

Perhaps “Defending the ATF” is the the wrong way to put it.

I’m just not excited to jump through hoops for whatever new rule the ATF come up with on a whim.

 

[dogtown tom]

Perhaps “Defending the ATF” is the the wrong way to put it.

I’m just not excited to jump through hoops for whatever new rule the ATF come up with on a whim.

Well, who is?
No one likes a hassle, hoops, reading through regulations, determination letters, rulings or federal laws. But if I want to continue being a gun dealer and lawfully possessing firearms I have to abide by those rules and regulations. Whether I like it or not, thems the rules.

When people come to a gun forum and ask questions about some new law or regulation, its most helpful that they get factual information and not just post after post whining about " BUT ATF BE EVIL!!!". WE ALL KNOW. Literally, WE ALL KNOW that about ATF. This isn't new, ATF has been busily regulating the firearms industry since the first day Congress told them to. It's noise. It's preaching to the choir. It gets old.

 

[Pudge]

Compliance with the NFA remained essentially unchanged since 1934.

It was only about 10 years ago when someone got “clever.” and created a mess. Pistol braces were a recently-invented loophole for everyone except maybe the 0.01% of users who actually only had one arm. And the loudmouths had to go and ruin it for those few people who actually needed a braced pistol.

Compliance isn’t of any lasting value? Get back to me when they start confiscating the legally-held pre-86 machine guns and maybe I’ll agree then, because those are the NFA items they really want to throw in the smelter.

The BATFE created the mess, and they invented the loophole. They certified the braces themselves. That wasn't done by someone being clever and finding something that was always there and exploiting it. The BATFE did not need to approve the design of a stabilizing brace in 2012. And the BATFE certainly did not need to issue multiple contradictory letters regarding the stabilizing braces. You may believe that the new rule will never change, and you may be right, past performance isn't a guarantee of future performance and all that. But intentional or not, the BATFE is projecting an image of being a legislative menace to law-abiding firearms owners. They are creating an impression that trying to comply will get you screwed. Where that takes us is not socially beneficial.

 

[Elkins45]

The BATFE created the mess, and they invented the loophole. They certified the braces themselves. That wasn't done by someone being clever and finding something that was always there and exploiting it. The BATFE did not need to approve the design of a stabilizing brace in 2012. And the BATFE certainly did not need to issue multiple contradictory letters regarding the stabilizing braces. You may believe that the new rule will never change, and you may be right, past performance isn't a guarantee of future performance and all that. But intentional or not, the BATFE is projecting an image of being a legislative menace to law-abiding firearms owners. They are creating an impression that trying to comply will get you screwed. Where that takes us is not socially beneficial.

They are just doing what they are told. Trump told them to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns so they did. Biden told them to reclassify pistol braces as SBRs so they did. The true blame lies with Congress for allowing this to happen.

 

[SterlingBullet]

Actually, there are several parties who must share the blame for this fiasco.
First, the BATFE approved the braces for disabled Americans that were designed based on holes in the law which established confusion on compliance.
Second, every single manufacturer and gun owner that filmed themselves using the braces, showed themselves shouldering the weapon, forcing the agency to re-clarify their position several times and allow gun owners to shoulder a short barrel rifle that is clearly an NFA item.
Third, the BATFE failed to advise Congress that millions of their constituents desired a short barrel rifle that needed no tax stamp. Most of these AR pistols are too long to conceal, which is what the original law tried to prevent, concealable rifles and shotguns wielded by criminals. A federal agency’s mission is not just to write and enforce rules to implement laws. They also have a duty to advise Congress what laws they believe citizens want and what laws do not accomplish their intended purpose.
Finally, the citizenry has failed to elect a truly representative legislature, and also, in our day to day interactions with federal agencies, strongly insist that agency management and agency employees stay in their proper roles as servants of the people.

 

[Overkill870]

I agree with the article. I don't trust the feds at all, they have a long history of entrapment. I'm not going to send them evidence that I violated the law according to their new definition of it.

This whole situation really illustrates how stupid the SBR law is in the first place.

 

[jmorris]

And the ATF will require a photo for regular tax paid Form 1's if the manufacturer or type of firearm is not in the data base yet.

I have never sent in a photo of any of my form 1’s. That is of course because I can’t build the item until I get my Approved Form 1 back from the NFA branch.

I can’t send you a photo of something that doesn’t exist and I can’t build it until you tell me it’s OK.

One problem I see is that if left constructed they will become contraband in May, probably before anyone gets their approval back. Unless the NFA branch really speeds up their game.

 

[12Bravo20]

I have never sent in a photo of any of my form 1’s. That is of course because I can’t build the item until I get my Approved Form 1 back from the NFA branch.

I can’t send you a photo of something that doesn’t exist and I can’t build it until you tell me it’s OK.

Photos are not always required when filing a normal tax paid Form 1. But some people have had to submit photos.

 

[jmorris]

So people are completing something before receiving approval? That sounds very, very, risky, because one would be building an illegal firearm, doing so without an approved form 1.

I think I would need that in writing if my examiner ever told me that.

 

[12Bravo20]

So people are completing something before receiving approval? That sounds very, very, risky, because one would be building an illegal firearm, doing so without an approved form 1.

I think I would need that in writing if my examiner ever told me that.

In the case of braced pistols, yes the ATF is making an acceptation to the NFA laws. It is clearly stated in the final brace rule as posted to the federal register. Now if you are making a SBR from a rifle or even from a pistol that has never had a brace installed, then you can not assemble it before receiving your approved Form 1.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Actually, there are several parties who must share the blame for this fiasco.....
Second, every single manufacturer and gun owner that filmed themselves using the braces, showed themselves shouldering the weapon, forcing the agency to re-clarify their position several times and allow gun owners to shoulder a short barrel rifle that is clearly an NFA item.

This.

Same as with the solvent trap/fuel filter/condiment cup market making silencers that just needed holes drilled.

I don't agree with any of the laws, but they exist, and if you try to use clever semantics to skirt the law and then continually poke the bear, you get these rulings that put the kibosh on all of it. When the solvent traps went from empty tubes with caps to things which not only mimicked the form of production silencers, but which were stuffed with parts made from superalloys that had state of the art baffle geometry, the intent became too overt to ignore. Same thing when braces ended up looking exactly like stocks except with a split down the bottom or a strap, and were utterly useless as a stabilizing brace.

We don't do ourselves any favors sometimes.

On that note, the new brace rule has probably given us the best shot we've ever had at getting SBR struck from the NFA.

 

[12Bravo20]

This.

Same as with the solvent trap/fuel filter/condiment cup market making silencers that just needed holes drilled.

I don't agree with any of the laws, but they exist, and if you try to use clever semantics to skirt the law and then continually poke the bear, you get these rulings that put the kibosh on all of it. When the solvent traps went from empty tubes with caps to things which not only mimicked the form of production silencers, but which were stuffed with parts made from superalloys that had state of the art baffle geometry, the intent became too overt to ignore. Same thing when braces ended up looking exactly like stocks except with a split down the bottom or a strap, and were utterly useless as a stabilizing brace.

We don't do ourselves any favors sometimes.

On that note, the new brace rule has probably given us the best shot we've ever had at getting SBR struck from the NFA.

The same can be said about the auto key cards too. That was just poking the bear to see how long it took to get mauled.

And yes SBRs need to be struck from the NFA or at a minimum the OAL lengths and barrel lengths need to be adjusted. Most AR pistols with a 10.5" or longer barrel will be right at 25 to 26 inches in overall length. Barrels 11 inches or more will be over 26 inches with a 4 or 6 position carbine buffer tube or smooth pistol tube. A firearm that is 25 inches is not exactly easy to conceal, unless you like wearing a trench coat all of the time.

 

[KansasTrapper77]

They are just doing what they are told. Trump told them to reclassify bump stocks as machine guns so they did. Biden told them to reclassify pistol braces as SBRs so they did. The true blame lies with Congress for allowing this to happen.

Completely agree that a large portion of the blame is at the feet of Congress.

 

[dogtown tom]

I have never sent in a photo of any of my form 1’s. That is of course because I can’t build the item until I get my Approved Form 1 back from the NFA branch.
I can’t send you a photo of something that doesn’t exist and I can’t build it until you tell me it’s OK.

Sure you can. ATF isn't asking for photos of the completed NFA firearm, but photos of MARKINGS on an existing firearm.

One problem I see is that if left constructed they will become contraband in May, probably before anyone gets their approval back. Unless the NFA branch really speeds up their game.

At which point you exercise one of the other options....like removing the arm brace.

 

[jmorris]

Sure you can. ATF isn't asking for photos of the completed NFA firearm, but photos of MARKINGS on an existing firearm.

Under what conditions do they do this? Is it just some examiners or new/old policy?

They have never asked me and always told me to list my trust as the original mfg on the form 1, if I wasn’t creating all of the parts, ie. factory receiver.

 

[DustyGmt]

The firearms community has hardly covered itself in glory through this whole brace fiasco. I recently pointed out to one of the “I will not comply” crowd that he complied when he bought the brace instead of just building an unregistered SBR from the start.

He was not amused.

It's a lil different because disregarding the NFA and the almost century year old SBR reg's doesn't put you in a class of somewhere between 15-40 million people who are doing something that for the next 97 days will be in compliance but in 98 days will make them felons if they don't comply.

I would be disappointed if there wasn't push back on this and I think the next best case scenario aside from ATF scrapping this ruling altogether or making changes to the NFA would be mass non compliance on the part of anybody who owns a braced pistol. I know alot of people are excited to get their gear registered without taking the $200 hit but I'm not......

 

[Elkins45]

It's a lil different because disregarding the NFA and the almost century year old SBR reg's doesn't put you in a class of somewhere between 15-40 million people who are doing something that for the next 97 days will be in compliance but in 98 days will make them felons if they don't comply.

I would be disappointed if there wasn't push back on this and I think the next best case scenario aside from ATF scrapping this ruling altogether or making changes to the NFA would be mass non compliance on the part of anybody who owns a braced pistol. I know alot of people are excited to get their gear registered without taking the $200 hit but I'm not......

I’m not sure I understand your point.

There’s already been push back. It’s a long shot but there’s a part of me that holds just a tiny glimmer of hope this will break the back of the NFA. Or at least cause a reexamination of the SBR regs.

Mass noncompliance is the last thing we need. All that accomplishes is allowing individuals to be picked off from the edge of the herd at ATF’s convenience. Heroin/oxy/fentanyl users are mass noncomplying with drug laws and yet they still go to jail daily.

 

[dogtown tom]

Under what conditions do they do this?

ATF can ask for photos anythime they feel like it. They want accuracy and a photo of the markings helps ensure that.
You don't have to include a photo, just understand it doesn't hurt and often helps.

Is it just some examiners or new/old policy?

The first time I was asked to submit a photo of marking was a decade ago. So its not exactly new.

They have never asked me and always told me to list my trust as the original mfg on the form 1, if I wasn’t creating all of the parts, ie. factory receiver.

I answered this in another threadhttps://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/batfe-factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-attached-“stabilizing-braces”.915502/page-4#post-12546980

The one I am looking at right now doesn’t even have the name of the original manufacturer on it at all, I did use the original serial number though.

Being you didn't manufacture, make or create the original firearm, you are still required to put that information in 4a.
For example, You have a Colt M4 carbine, and wish to file a Form 1 as an SBR:
-In 4a, "Colt" and their address because Colt is the original manufacturer, YOU are not the original mfg.
-4b, c, d, e, f, g, as described above.
Your "makers" marking is what is in 3b (the name/city/state of your trust that you will engrave on the receiver)

If you are creating a new firearm, not from an existing firearm:
-In 4a, you list the makers name/city/state
-4b, you choose "SBR"
-4c caliber
-4d the model, if you have an 80% that is already marked with the model name.
-4e & 4f the bbl & OAL
-4g Since you are the maker if the firearm, you must add a serial#. You cannot have used this serial# on a previous firearm you have made.

 

[dogtown tom]

It's a lil different because disregarding the NFA and the almost century year old SBR reg's doesn't put you in a class of somewhere between 15-40 million people who are doing something that for the next 97 days will be in compliance but in 98 days will make them felons if they don't comply.

I would be disappointed if there wasn't push back on this and I think the next best case scenario aside from ATF scrapping this ruling altogether or making changes to the NFA would be mass non compliance on the part of anybody who owns a braced pistol. I know alot of people are excited to get their gear registered without taking the $200 hit but I'm not......

I would imagine that in 1934 there were tens of thousands of firearms that required NFA registration. I don't think the number of firearms involved concerns ATF one bit.

 

[DustyGmt]

I would imagine that in 1934 there were tens of thousands of firearms that required NFA registration. I don't think the number of firearms involved concerns ATF one bit.

Maybe so but tens of thousands in 1934 compared to tens of millions present day? I would have to think the logistics of enforcement and compliance is something that concerns them at least a lil bit.... but maybe not, I think thousands vs millions is quite the gulf and if there are millions of these guns in circulation and 2.5% register them and 2.5% bring them into compliance, how do they bring cases against the remaining 95% of people who don't comply.


One by one?