Pistol brace SBR free registration?

[houndog]

IDK - there has to come a point where the ATF has changed direction so many times that no reasonable person could be expected to continue trying to follow their rules. I could have said requiring registration of SBR's is stupid and serves no legitimate purpose, so I'm just going to buy a lower, buy an upper with a 10.5" barrel and attach them. But I try to be a law abiding citizen, so I waited until ATF said if you put a pistol brace on it, you're ok. Went out and bought a couple of pistols then spent the money to put pistol braces on them.

Then, the ATF said, "whoops, I guess unregistered guns with pistol braces aren't ok after all". But you can register your gun for free, and it will be legal. I could have said, "FU ATF, I'm just going to pretend I never heard about this new rule, not register anything, and keep my guns with pistol braces". But still trying to be a law abiding citizen, so I register my guns.

But if they reverse direction again and say "whoops I guess you do have to pay $200 for each gun you registered" to me that's a bridge too far. My response will be "can you believe it, I loaded all the guns I registered under Form 1 into a boat and the boat sank?"

The problem with all these reversals is that, with each reversal the ATF turns more law abiding citizens into felons. If we're being honest, the requirement that we register all SBR's and pay a tax is stupid. It serves no legitimate purpose and it is extremely easy to just buy an upper with a short barrel, buy a lower and attach them. I have no doubt some gun owners have done this.

Similarly, requiring us to now register guns that previously the ATF said we didn't have to register, is even more stupid and fundamentally an illegitimate exercise of the ATF's rule making authority. It seems clear that many gun owners will simply ignore this latest requirement, creating even more felons out of previously law abiding citizens.

Reverse direction again and a large number of us are going to decide we're tired of being played for suckers. There will be massive non-compliance, and the government will soon realize that it has neither the resources nor the prisons to do anything about it.

 

[ToddM]

I can actually see a (semi) logical reason for revocation. Let's say the Final Rule was struck down by the Supreme Court and rendered moot. At that point, the "condition" in the conditional approval is triggered, and the ATF revokes all those approvals. That opens back up the steady revenue stream for people (like me) that have, in the past, paid the $200 to SBR a braced pistol in order to rebuild with hard stocks, vertical grips, etc.. If just a small percentage ... say ... 100,000 braced pistol owners did this, that results in $20M (million) in incremental revenue to the ATF. If I was running the ATF, and the Supreme Court shit-canned my precious rule, I'd immediately revoke every single one of those conditional approvals, and just sit back and bankroll the tax stamp fees from whatever percentage re-filed for fee-based SBR status. I'd even go one step further ... every conditionally approved braced pistol owner would immediately receive a note telling them that the benevolent and all-caring ATF wants to make it easy. You don't have to re-apply ... all you have to do is send in your $200 and they'll switch it over from "Conditional" to "Approved". For those saying "Why would the ATF ever revoke the conditional approval?" ... that's why ... it's all about the Benjamins baby. It's EXACTLY what I would do if I was a soul-less gun-hater running the ATF, and the courts shit-canned my precious pistol brace final rule

Yep, It's like they are using free form 1's as a gateway drug. Get you to fill out the form 1, get used to having an SBR where the stock doesn't suck, unlike almost every brace out there, then pro-gun folks get it struck down and the ATF simply says "okay, return your SBR with a solid stock and pistol grip to a shitty brace and no pistol grip, or send us $200". Lot of folks are not going to want to go back to braces once they have an SBR setup. Plus if you don't send them $200, they are going to assume you still have it setup as an SBR, kick in your door, and of course shoot you and your dog.

Personally I don't think we're going to see the supreme court strike this down, and that's the only way I see it getting reversed without a major political shift in power, which seems unlikely the way things are going. The party of hand outs is only getting more popular and controlling more and more of the education system, media, etc. I can see them dealing with major gun rights issues, but not bothering with a configuration/equipment/accessory issue. I'm sure that was the whole motivation the ATF had for offering the free Form 1's in the first place, because they can claim they are giving gun owners a free and easy path to coming into compliance. That said, I'd love to see them delivery a huge slap in the face to the ATF flip flopping on these things, but sadly I think it has about as much chance of happening as defunding the ATF.

I mean really the case for making suppressors non-NFA items would be WAY more solid and logical than trying to justify the average non-disabled American to use an accessory marketed for disabled people that is clearly was designed to mimic something that is regulated under NFA, regardless of how unconstitutional we feel it is. Trying to get the supreme court to say that braces are legal again, would be like trying to get oil filter/solvent trap suppressor kits non-regulated while suppressors stay regulated.

 

[ActualCryptid]

If the rule is overturned; why should you, or any other Joe schmoe get free SBR stamps, while the rest of us don't? Because you bought a "pistol"? GTFO with that shit.

The problem is; when it is overturned, all the registrants have openly admitted to making an SBR (or, what the owner thinks is, because you admitted it), and are now on an also illegal gun registry.

You don't see the problem with those things?

1. I don't care about "waaaah why did you get a free tax stamp" and I don't think that will go anywhere with anyone who matters. the why is because of the rule. If you didn't register your other option was to yeet your brace. That's just how compliance operates.
2. Its the same registry as all the other SBRs. I registered an SBR. Why is this registry any more "illegal" than the NFA registry as a whole, and why would that be my problem?

I’m quite confident that, if the rule is invalidated, the ATF will be quite content in sending tax notices to all of those that wish to retain their new SBRs. Or, you can revert the guns back to their pistol contig…

A lot of people are quite confident in a great number of things, but that confidence is usually unearned. I for example am quite confident that ATF trying toi say "the rule was overturned so now you owe us tax" would be rejected by the court.

They are not the same as any other SBR.

First- they were registered via an amnesty form1, which does not require a NFA tax payment and does not get a stamp when approved.

Second- The position of the ATF is that the braced pistols were SBRs when you purchased them. A complete SBR must be transferred via a form4, not a form 1. Hmm.

Third- Back to the form1. The form1 is for manufacturing an NFA item. However, the ATF explicitly says that you are NOT the maker. Note that you were not required to mark your receiver with your name and city, state. Hmm.

If the brace rule is overturned all the ATF will need to do is say “Oops, we did it again” and invalidate the amnesty form1s. And, there is precedent from the form1 suppressor builder kits from DM and others.

I’m not saying that the ATF will be coming to kick down doors and shoot dogs. But, I’d expect a few rounds of “The ATF regrets to inform you that your amnesty form1 has been revoked. You may apply for a tax paid SBR via the standard eform1 process. Please return the illegal SBR to the pistol configuration until the form is approved. You may also surrender the rifle at an ATF field office. You may also destroy the rifle. We don’t really apologize for any inconvenience, and are confused as to why you think we might.”

That said, if the rule is walked back, go ahead and get a plate carrier for your dog, just in case.

Machineguns registered under the '68 amnesty are registered and transferred the same as any other machinegun. Even ones stolen from military or police armories. Even ones owned by felons. Even ones with the serial numbers filed off.

The rules for marking were waived explicitly to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. As it sits now my SBR'd Elf owl is indistinguishable from a Elf Owl converted by JTAC. It is registered as an SBR same as if I f1'd it for $200 or bought it on a Form 4. From a legal standpoint it is identical, it just has "tax exempt" marked rather than a $200 tax-paid stamp.

With DM I didn't pay much attention because I saw the writing on the wall way early on that one. I know ATF denied a large number of Form 1 applications, did they also void the stamps of people who had manufactured a can previously? Cuz I'm pretty sure they didn't announce an amnesty for people who bought solvent traps to register them tax exempt, which makes this a horse of a different color.

can you point to an example of ATF invalidating an F1 after a rule of theirs was rescinded?

 

[hlee]

 

[hlee]

@ActualCryptid I’m not going to do the research again, but the ATF most certainly revoked approved form1s for solvent trap builds once they changed the rules to classify unfinished “silencer parts” as NFA items. In that case, owners didn’t have any remedy other than to destroy the contraband (including approved and completed builds) or turn them over at an ATF office. And, yes, they went door to door looking for them too. This actually happened. An actual precedent.

And, and, yeah the solvent trap fiasco is a honey trap I’m glad I didn’t wade in to as well.

 

[AMGtuned]

1. I don't care about "waaaah why did you get a free tax stamp" and I don't think that will go anywhere with anyone who matters. the why is because of the rule. If you didn't register your other option was to yeet your brace. That's just how compliance operates.
2. Its the same registry as all the other SBRs. I registered an SBR. Why is this registry any more "illegal" than the NFA registry as a whole, and why would that be my problem?

1. I did not say "wah, why DID you", I said specifically; "why SHOULD you", in response to your thinking your approval would stay legit after overturning. You used the word, "compliance", and that is your problem. Comply with what? Some desk jockey's flavor of the week? A law stated by an agency that can't make laws?

2. The current NFA list is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and that's a different argument. I said that one would be on an ILLEGAL gun REGISTRY. Which they are not supposed to have. You have the choice to register NFA items, and be on said list. But Americans for years, have been under the impression that their purchases and ownership is not logged. Because it's not supposed to be. The fact that it is, is again, a different argument. As an American, and an assumed gun owner, illegal registries and infringement on your rights, should concern you.

 

[CaptArab]

I just don't see a situation where the ATF will respect a legitimate stamp but won't respect a conditional. It could happen, and I'm well prepared for that situation, it just seems like unnecessary fud to me.

As we speak there's proposed legislation to confiscate suppressors so I just can't see a situation where these people will really care one way or another once they get enough power.

I think we should probably just go ahead and assume they'll go after ever SBR and/or silencer they know about and plan accordingly.

Nevertheless, I like taking my braced ARs out in public so I registered a couple, fully understanding I'm on borrowed time. If a man wants to guarantee access to an AR15 5, 10, 20 years from now, he better pay cash or build his own lower and bury it somewhere safe.

 

[BCP]

Deadline is coming up, how many people are gonna bum rush the site on the 30th?

 

[mewillis]

My crystal ball says this will be overturned as unconstitutional, your "conditional approval form" will be voided and you will then put your brace back on to meet the legal allowable use of a brace. If you want to use a "stock" you will now pay $200 just like everybody else that has ever SBR'd a rifle. This is just a bump in the road because it really doesn't mean shit to most logical people. I have disposed of my brace and totally compliant with the overlords for now. YMMV

 

[Charger442]

My crystal ball says this will be overturned as unconstitutional, your "conditional approval form" will be voided and you will then put your brace back on to meet the legal allowable use of a brace. If you want to use a "stock" you will now pay $200 just like everybody else that has ever SBR'd a rifle. This is just a bump in the road because it really doesn't mean shit to most logical people. I have disposed of my brace and totally compliant with the overlords for now. YMMV

The other option is this is not going to get overturned because the braces were always a stock.

At that point everyone with a conditional has to hope they don't come calling for the tax. Because along with that option, Congress passes a law that says ATF cannot waive a tax, since that's what Congress gets to do.

Therefore your brace is still a stock and if you want to keep it or keep your lower as an SBR, they're going to collect the tax money.

Always remember, no one is coming to help us.

 

[BCP]

The other option is this is not going to get overturned because the braces were always a stock.

Yeah I think if the courts were going to save the braces it would've happened by now.

 

[Asiparks]

Here's my question. What happens if someone submits an "amnesty" form 1 and then gets denied for whatever reason? Maybe you made a typo on the form, etc. Happens all the time.

Well now you have voluntarily admitted you have possession of what ATF considers an illegal SBR, and they have denied your ass. I'm sure they'd just let that go, right??? Not a position I'd wanna be in.

Also wouldn't wanna be in the position of a tax "forbearance" situation with an agency that changes positions more than a porn star whore. I can think of all kinds of ways that could go to shit real quick.

I made a mistake. They told me I had made a mistake and asked me to resubmit. That's as dramatic as that got.

If it gets overturned, I'd have been in possession of a legally braced pistol, not an illegal SBR. As long as I were smart enough to keep the brace handy....

If the rule is overturned; why should you, or any other Joe schmoe get free SBR stamps, while the rest of us don't? Because you bought a "pistol"? GTFO with that shit.

The problem is; when it is overturned, all the registrants have openly admitted to making an SBR (or, what the owner thinks is, because you admitted it), and are now on an also illegal gun registry.

You don't see the problem with those things?

If it's overturned, we don't have free SBRs -they're just back to being braced pistols. Then we SBR if we want proper stocks and pay $200. And again, if overturned, then they were neither SBRs or illegally anythings

My crystal ball says this will be overturned as unconstitutional, your "conditional approval form" will be voided and you will then put your brace back on to meet the legal allowable use of a brace. If you want to use a "stock" you will now pay $200 just like everybody else that has ever SBR'd a rifle. This is just a bump in the road because it really doesn't mean shit to most logical people. I have disposed of my brace and totally compliant with the overlords for now. YMMV

agree, except I fear your crystal ball is wrong on the overturning- deadline is closing and there's been some noise and angry YouTube vids but little legal movement.

Yeah I think if the courts were going to save the braces it would've happened by now.

^^ This ^^

 

[darkfader]

Sounds like an injunction was granted in the Mock case just a little while ago.


ETA: I think this only applies to the plaintiffs in that particular case, but this can set precedent for an injunction for everyone.

 

[mewillis]

Yeah I think if the courts were going to save the braces it would've happened by now.

There have been multiple cases filed over the ATF attempting to pass off "rule making" as in this brace fiasco as law which clearly it isn't the same thing. It took years for the bump stock ban where it suddenly became a machine gun only because the "rule" stated it was. The case was overturned and it was shown to be a serious over reach in the definition of the law, much the same as the forced reset trigger will be overturned as well as the brace issue. Bump stocks aren't machine guns, forced reset triggers aren't machine guns, braces aren't stocks (the ATF said so for many years) Then suddenly the puppet masters said they are stocks thus an SBR. How many years were PCC's sold as pistols with braces without issues?? I will wait for the reversal personally, everybody has their own situations.
Injunction granted!!
Breaking news; https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...unction-against-atfs-pistol-brace-rule-n70770

 

[BCP]

That may only apply to plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

 

[nikonNUT]

Remember when ATF said braces on AR pistols were ok? Remember when they said you could shoulder them too because the intent was still as a pistol? I do.

I’ll also remember these free stamps when ATF renigs again and says “ohh BTW, about those free tax stamps, we weren’t actually allowed to waive a federal tax after all so now you’re all guilty of tax evasion…ooopsies”.

Remember when Dettlebach testified, in front of congress, under oath, that all you had to do was remove the brace to be compliant? And then ATF HQ stated "... removed and destroyed..."? Ooopsies!

 

[nikonNUT]

Sounds like an injunction was granted in the Mock case just a little while ago.


ETA: I think this only applies to the plaintiffs in that particular case, but this can set precedent for an injunction for everyone.

Unless it went to a higher court and I missed it (and this is very possible) I don't think so. Here is the last part of Mock V. Garland...
"
IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief or, in the alternative, for postponement of the Final Rule's effective date (ECF No. 33).

SO ORDERED."
And source material... https://casetext.com/case/mock-v-garland

 

[Campguy308]

Unless it went to a higher court and I missed it (and this is very possible) I don't think so. Here is the last part of Mock V. Garland...
"
IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief or, in the alternative, for postponement of the Final Rule's effective date (ECF No. 33).

SO ORDERED."
And source material... https://casetext.com/case/mock-v-garland

That was from the district judge several weeks ago. A 3 judge panel of the 5th circuit granted injunction to the plaintiffs in the Mock case today. Unknown who all is included in Plaintiffs, but it's not anything nationwide or circuit wide at this point in time.

 

[Campguy308]

I made a mistake. They told me I had made a mistake and asked me to resubmit. That's as dramatic as that got.

That's a far cry from what usually happens with form 4 items. Granted this is a different situation but it's usually something like "after 9 months of waiting, your application was denied because of an incomplete form. Try again and we will maybe approve you in another 9 months."

 

[darkfader]

Right. 5th circuit granted injunctive relief to the Mock V. Garland plaintiffs only today. It doesn’t help anyone but those plaintiffs right now, but does set precedent for circuit-wide and nationwide injunctive relief in the future.

 

[nikonNUT]

That was from the district judge several weeks ago. A 3 judge panel of the 5th circuit granted injunction to the plaintiffs in the Mock case today. Unknown who all is included in Plaintiffs, but it's not anything nationwide or circuit wide at this point in time.

Right. 5th circuit granted injunctive relief to the Mock V. Garland plaintiffs only today. It doesn’t help anyone but those plaintiffs right now, but does set precedent for circuit-wide and nationwide injunctive relief in the future.

I stand corrected and am happy to be so!

 

[darkfader]

It also opens the door for more lawsuits. GOA has already filed briefs to hop on the Movk v Garland train. Hopefully all this moves in our direction.

 

[strikeeagle1]

.......and then there's this.

 

[Budrichard]

The world is full of Felons both incarcerated and out of jail that believed that they could ‘beat’ the system.
The Ruling was published and bears the Rule of Law, Federal Law, Pass GO, go directly to Jail.
As some one what has twice been investigated by the Feds for violations in Managing Nuclear Power, I can tell you, it’s not fun, waiting to find out if the Justice Department is going to indict you.
I Registered my braced pistols and am awaiting approval.
I don’t expect the Feds to come to my house and confiscate my firearms and arrest me because of the filings.
At least, not yet……………………………..
-Richard

 

[matt33]

The world is full of Felons both incarcerated and out of jail that believed that they could ‘beat’ the system.
The Ruling was published and bears the Rule of Law, Federal Law, Pass GO, go directly to Jail.
As some one what has twice been investigated by the Feds for violations in Managing Nuclear Power, I can tell you, it’s not fun, waiting to find out if the Justice Department is going to indict you.
I Registered my braced pistols and am awaiting approval.
I don’t expect the Feds to come to my house and confiscate my firearms and arrest me because of the filings.
At least, not yet……………………………..
-Richard

Just show them your post on page 1 praising them, lick their boots some more, let them shoot your dog, and maybe they'll go easy on you.

 

[FuhQ]

Just show them your post on page 1 praising them, lick their boots some more, let them shoot your dog, and maybe they'll go easy on you.

He's either an undercover glowie, or just a really soy-filled beta... I can't tell which as they jumprope with the fine line between them...

He could have just waited it out, and then joined FPC, GOA, or SAF and been just fine until the SC gets to rule on it. It's going to get struck down... The Supreme Court just bitch-slapped the EPA...AGAIN...For attempting to use Chevron Deference when they had no jurisdictional authority because they made shit up as they went along and were harassing innocent people, and threatening them with prison time and huge fines all because they had a bug up their ass. ALL of these bullshit agencies are fixing to lose the power of Chevron, and then they will be toothless dogs, because they will have to play by the rules Congress sets forth for them, and NOT at the whims of political tyrant or party in power. The vindication will be sweet.

I paid $30 for the year, and joined FPC a few days ago, when I found out that all members were covered by the injunction. Cheap insurance until the SC rules on it.

 

[Budrichard]

“He's either an undercover glowie, or just a really soy-filled beta... I can't tell which as they jumprope with the fine line between them...”

Actually, neither!
NRA Benefactor Member, worked hard for Concealed Carry in Wisconsin.
Member CMP and various Shooting Clubs.
But, I am a realist and I know how some Federal Governmental Agencies work along with the Justice System.
Pistol Brace Regulation or not, your probability of having an ATF Pistol Brace interaction is extremely low whether you Register as an SBR or not.
But, the consequences of an interaction with the ATF over an unregistered brace could range from simple confiscation to prosecution.
It all depends on the Direction that the ATF Director gets from the Administration which at the present time is Democratic and anti-2nd Amendment.
With that in mind, I chose to minimize my chances of ATF interaction and SBR the braces.
The real problem is that the National Firearms Act of 1934 needs to be changed!
There was no Disabilities Act in 1934 but I am sure that the reason the ATF was initially compliant with the manufacture and use of Pistol Braces was due to that Act.
I believe the Standard for Prosecution should be if you are using the Pistol Brace in a manner for which it was not designed.
Anyway EOT for me.
-Richard

 

[TonyTheTiger]

I believe the Standard for Prosecution should be if you are using the Pistol Brace in a manner for which it was not designed.

Sounds like infringement to me.

 

[FuhQ]

“He's either an undercover glowie, or just a really soy-filled beta... I can't tell which as they jumprope with the fine line between them...”

Actually, neither!
NRA Benefactor Member, worked hard for Concealed Carry in Wisconsin.
Member CMP and various Shooting Clubs.
But, I am a realist and I know how some Federal Governmental Agencies work along with the Justice System.
Pistol Brace Regulation or not, your probability of having an ATF Pistol Brace interaction is extremely low whether you Register as an SBR or not.
But, the consequences of an interaction with the ATF over an unregistered brace could range from simple confiscation to prosecution.
It all depends on the Direction that the ATF Director gets from the Administration which at the present time is Democratic and anti-2nd Amendment.
With that in mind, I chose to minimize my chances of ATF interaction and SBR the braces.
The real problem is that the National Firearms Act of 1934 needs to be changed!
There was no Disabilities Act in 1934 but I am sure that the reason the ATF was initially compliant with the manufacture and use of Pistol Braces was due to that Act.
I believe the Standard for Prosecution should be if you are using the Pistol Brace in a manner for which it was not designed.
Anyway EOT for me.
-Richard

Praising an illegally-existing agency for committing constitutionally-violating mass-tyranny and violating 40 Million people’s 2A rights sounds weak or Glowie…Full-Stop. They ATF does NOT have the authority to create law…That is Congresses job. No law was passed saying the braces were now illegal. The fact you said they did “a good job” on the ruling is pathetic. You are being a Fudd claiming that people are just skirting the NFA with pistol braces. Also, being an NRA member hasn’t been something to be proud of for 25+ years…I wonder how many custom Armani suits and range rovers you bought LaPierre and Cox…

 

[atomic41]

Praising an illegally-existing agency for committing constitutionally-violating mass-tyranny and violating 40 Million people’s 2A rights sounds weak or Glowie…Full-Stop.

Yeah and it's good enough to grow my ignore list by 1. I doubt he's a glowjogger, probably just a retard but that qualifies for the list!

 

[Charger442]

He's either an undercover glowie, or just a really soy-filled beta... I can't tell which as they jumprope with the fine line between them...

He could have just waited it out, and then joined FPC, GOA, or SAF and been just fine until the SC gets to rule on it. It's going to get struck down... The ATF just bitch-slapped the EPA...AGAIN...For attempting to use Chevron Deference when they had no jurisdictional authority because they made shit up as they went along and were harassing innocent people, and threatening them with prison time and huge fines all because they had a bug up their ass. ALL of these bullshit agencies are fixing to lose the power of Chevron, and then they will be toothless dogs, because they will have to play by the rules Congress sets forth for them, and NOT at the whims of political tyrant or party in power. The vindication will be sweet.

I paid $30 for the year, and joined FPC a few days ago, when I found out that all members were covered by the injunction. Cheap insurance until the SC rules on it.

i think you are talking about seperate things here, but before you call me a glowie, maybe hear me out some.

i dont think the SC is going to rule that the brace is not a stock. i think they are going to rule that the brace is a stock and that regardless of Chevron, they havent created any laws, they have just placed a particular feature into a existing and defined category.

the precedence will be machine guns and their various forms : lighting link, RDIAS, Akins Accelerator and so forth. Unfortunately those have stood up to legal scrutiny that they are, under the law, machine guns.

just because i think this, doesnt mean i want it to happen. but i think everyone needs to realize what we are actually dealing with here and the SC is likely not going to see it the way we do. Hope im wrong, wont be surprised at all if im right.

 

[houndog]

Richard - I have to take issue with your statement that:

"The world is full of Felons both incarcerated and out of jail that believed that they could ‘beat’ the system."

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that anyone who fails to fill out all the appropriate paperwork and register their brace with the ATF is a "felon" trying to "beat the system". The millions (and we are talking millions) of lawful gun owners who relied on specific determinations by the ATF (determinations that the ATF said we could rely on) that attaching a pistol brace to your pistol did not make it an illegal SBR are not felons trying to beat the system.

I'm have no idea how many honest, law-abiding individuals are not going to now fill out the paperwork to register their newly classified SBR's. I would guess that it's a very large number - like hundreds and hundreds of thousands. Some because they legitimately feel this new "rule" adopted by the ATF either violates the second amendment or exceeds the scope of its authority. Some because they deliberately relied on this ruling and spent their hard earned money because they didn't want to register their weapon with the ATF. Some because they don't want to now be subjected to the burdensome requirement of notifying the ATF every time they want to take their newly minted SBR out of state. Some because they don't trust the government/ATF not to use said registration as a means of subsequently confiscating their guns all together. Some because they want to be able to sell their guns down the road without placing a burden on the purchaser of having to do all the SBR paperwork, pay the tax and wait a year for approval before they can take possession of the gun. And many because they are blissfully unaware that the ATF has just made them felons. (Remember only a small fraction of the millions of people who own braces actually hang out on these forums or are aware of any flip flop made by the ATF).

For you to imply that all these individuals basically deserve what they get if they are incarcerated for failing to register their previously legal pistol braces seems kind of "glowie" to me - even if I'm not sure exactly what that term means. That old saying "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" doesn't seem to really apply here.

 

[xciapup]

250,000 out of 30 million registered

 

[FuhQ]

250,000 out of 30 million registered

Saw that video earlier... About 0.6% of estimated braces got registered. Mass non-compliance is how we beat this thing.

To the 99.4% of REAL patriots out there that didn't fall for this bullshit, I salute you.

 

[Serenitynow]

WOW.
0.6%
What number of braces in circulation are they basing this on ? Are they going by the 10-40 million number or the smaller number ?
Either way, it's not as many as I thought would "register" their pistol braced firearms.
I guess we'll still have to wait and see what happens.

 

[ToddM]

That would basically be assuming the highest estimate of ~40 million it seems, if the ~255,000 is registered is correct.

That would assume basically 4 million braces sold per year since they came out. That seems fairly high to me honestly. Over the last 10 years the average number of total guns sold per year is only around 15 million. If we're to believe 40 million total braced guns, that would mean every year for the last 10 years, braced guns made up 27% of all gun sales the last 10 years. Seems extremely unlikely, even if you factor in that lots of people probably buying uppers and braces to convert the number still seems unlikely.

 

[nikonNUT]

Even at the 10 million the SB Tactical owner estimates are out there that is still only 2.55%. Far from mass compliance.

 

[gunsnjeeps]

Not to get into a ‘pissing contest’ but I think the ATF had done a good job on the Ruling.
The ATF is charged with enforcing the NFA of 1934 and as such SBR are required to be Registered and a $200 Tax paid. Due to the ATF in the past wanting to allow people with disabilities the use of Pistols, the ATF did not contest the selling of these Braces. But the use of Pistol Braces has obviously expanded well beyond people with disabilities.
My reading of the Ruling is that if you use the Pistol Brace as designed strapped to your arm, you are Legal.
If the Brace is not strapped to your arm and braced against your shoulder, you are not legal.
So you do not have to do anything if you use the Brace as designed.
The ATF has waved the $200 fee but I don’t know how the ATF can do that as it is Federal Law.
You must have owned the Brace at the time of the Publication of the Ruling to avoid the $200.
I have submitted two braced firearms so far with .eft finger print files and picture files.
They have both been accepted.
The hardest thing was acquiring .eft files for $60 each.
But once you have them, there is no additional cost for any ATF submission for prints.
If you are not computer savvy, then you will have a problem.
The Real Problem is that the 1934 NFA Act is outdated and needs to be updated.
Technology has progressed with bump Stocks, FRT Triggers and who knows what else is out there in fertile minds. Suppressors need to be eliminated from the NFA for Health Reasons.
I intend to spend my Energy on getting the NFA overhauled just as I did for Concealed Carry in Wisconsin.
-Richard

You are wrong. ATF issued more than one statement allowing braces and shouldering under Obama. This decision is a change in policy pushed by Biden's handlers.

 

[Charger442]

You are wrong. ATF issued more than one statement allowing braces and shouldering under Obama. This decision is a change in policy pushed by Biden's handlers.

It was always just a technical branch letter. It was " guidance" but those letters rarely ever hold water legally. It could have been easily overturned if a court had determined the brace was actually a stock because it was used like one. I'm not sure if anyone has used one of the tech letters as a defense. Didn't FRTs have a letter before the ATF turned on it?

I don't agree with budrichard that the ATF has ever done a good job with anything. I think all of this was orchestrated as a honey pot scheme by ATF. The only consistent thing the ATF has ever done besides shooting dogs and burning children is changing their minds about what they say is "legal".

Anyone remember when they classified a shoelace as a machine gun? This is all a mess and likely by design.

 

[Naaman]

That would basically be assuming the highest estimate of ~40 million it seems, if the ~255,000 is registered is correct.

That would assume basically 4 million braces sold per year since they came out. That seems fairly high to me honestly. Over the last 10 years the average number of total guns sold per year is only around 15 million. If we're to believe 40 million total braced guns, that would mean every year for the last 10 years, braced guns made up 27% of all gun sales the last 10 years. Seems extremely unlikely, even if you factor in that lots of people probably buying uppers and braces to convert the number still seems unlikely.

I was never a fan of the "pistol" receiver extension, but those were being sold for a while before the brace came out. I have no idea how that would affect the numbers, but, buying a brace and a mil-spec buffer tube would also go "under the radar" of guns sold, and costs way less than a complete upper.

However, taking your numbers of gun sales, we'd have to remember that a "pistol lower" would count as a gun sale, just as the whole pistol would.

In a year where 10s of millions of people are buying guns (many being first time gun owners), I would also think that gun-related-parts sales would be even higher than complete firearms sold. In any case, I think the numbers are at least believable.

 

[LawnMM]

Given that none of the lawsuits have not stopped this BS, its time to register.

May your chains rest lightly

The way I look at it, paid or not, you’re still on the nfa list so you’re fucked either way if they are coming for sbr’s.

Maybe they'll start with everyone that got a free stamp since they're also on the list of known compliant bitches

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Maybe they'll start with everyone that got a free stamp since they're also on the list of known compliant bitches

Post a picture of your unregistered SBR.

Pistol braces were always about being compliant otherwise gun owners, and manufacturers, would have just ignored the NFA and put stocks on the short rifles. It's ironic calling people "compliant bitches" while simultaneously being a "compliant bitch".

 

[LawnMM]

Post a picture of your unregistered SBR.

Pistol braces were always about being compliant otherwise gun owners, and manufacturers, would have just ignored the NFA and put stocks on the short rifles. It's ironic calling people "compliant bitches" while simultaneously being a "compliant bitch".

I love this argument, because it's always one of the bitches that uses it.

To begin, there's a huge difference between following existing law (for as long as most of us have been alive anyway) and caving to new shit that isn't even a law.

You can make the argument that by being a compliant bitch, you're the same as everyone else who bought a braced pistol because it was a clever legal loophole... but you aren't.

The people that bought or built one, and refused to cave to the bullshit, they WERE following existing law. Then the fedbois moved the goalpost after they said it was all good. Some of us can see where that road leads and said, no thanks, and some of us are compliant bitches.

Then there's the old "pOsT a PiC oF yOuR uNrEgiStErEd SbR" argument" L oh L

How would you know if any photo I posted was registered or not? How about I post a photo of your mom's battered beef curtains instead?

I don't need to post photos to prove anything. You're the one who's outed himself as a compliant bitch looking for absolution.

 

[Cascade Hemi]

Mighty big deflection with an awful lot of words. Talk is cheap, if you're all about noncompliance then show us. Registration wasn't the only form of compliance, for all anyone knows you fed some pistol braces through a chipper shredder.

 

[JohnCarter17]

"If you are not computer savvy, then you will have a problem" should be highlighted and in bold. I am not a complete ignoramus when it comes to computers, but I have been really struggling to do an e-filing. Probably spent 4-5 hours already, without success. First problem is that they want a picture of the receiver. No problem, I have a nice Nikon camera. Unfortunately, because it is a nice camera it takes high resolution pictures. Well, that's no good because I then exceed the forms 3 MB cap. Tried readjusting the quality of the images in the camera, but can't get it below 3 MB. Am now going to try taking pics with my cell phone and somehow try to transfer them to my computer- but when it comes to cell phones I am a complete idiot. I just hate them.

Then there's loading fingerprints. I actually recently did a suppressor transfer and had my fingerprints electronically scanned. Had them e-mail me what I guess are .eft finger print files. But I can't open this attachment and have no idea how to download this file to my e-file. Going to spend a couple of more hours on this and then give up and I guess do a paper filing (if that's even an option). That means go to the police station and get multiple finger prints taken (since I'm doing more than one), and get multiple passport pictures taken. Have no idea what to do if they still want pictures of the receivers with serial numbers and if so what to do about this.

Can't believe I'm the only person with a pistol brace that's struggling with this. Ultimately, I'm going to reach a point where I just say "f*ck it, if they want to kick in my door, shoot my dog and take me into custody there's not much I can do about it."

Every windows PC has come with an app to handle this for over 30 years. It's called Paint. Open up jpg file, click resize under image, with percentage selected (default) lower the horizontal to 50, hit OK, save and check size. Rinse and repeat.

 

[LawnMM]

Mighty big deflection with an awful lot of words. Talk is cheap, if you're all about noncompliance then show us. Registration wasn't the only form of compliance, for all anyone knows you fed some pistol braces through a chipper shredder.

 

[houndog]

JohnCarter - Apple not Windows, but I did figure it out. Once I knew what to do it was pretty straightforward. It was the first one that took a while and was frustrating. But I also made it easier on myself because I'd recently bought a couple of suppressors and the place doing the transfer to me took my picture, electronically scanned my fingerprints, etc. So I was able to re-use those when I did my form 1.

And yes, I guess I'm a compliant bitch. But I own multiple suppressors and have previously done a couple of SBR's, so I figure I'm already on the Fed's radar. Just easier to do the paperwork. And once the paperwork comes through will probably pull the brace and add a stock.

Finally, many thanks to the guys posting the latest figure of how many people actually registered their braces. Personally, I always figured a significant majority of owners would not register their guns (like 70%+). Kind of amazing that even, if you are conservative about the number of braces out there, it's like 95-96% of people aren't complying - although I suspect for many of these people it's less about non-compliance than it is about simple ignorance of the new rule.

In fact, I will point out that I actually submitted a comment to the ATF about this rule. Argued that adopting this rule would turn hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens into felons. Looks like I was wrong. It's actually millions of law abiding citizens.