ATF brace rule is out

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Id be very careful about things here and make sure you really have a grasp and understanding of what really has to be done and the consequences if you fail to meet their requirements. The video posted up by that gun lawyer on this was pretty informative on things I haven't seen discussed and he may be right about it all being a trap.

Seems like a lot of people seem to think they are getting a free pass on an SBR tax stamp, when in reality, I dont see the ATF being so accommodating and giving out free passes so easily. The thinking/feeling its a trap of sorts is a strong one.

As that video shows too, according to their requirements, you need to send a picture of the gun, to prove it is the gun with a brace, among other things, and show that it meets their requirements for this. You just cant start registering lowers willy nilly. And whos to say if they deny it, you wont have to surrender it as contraband?

Lots of speculation flying around right now, and the only ones who have the answer that counts, are the ATF.
 
Note that if you want to register a firearm as an SBR under this "amnesty" mechanism, and you want the SBR to be held in your NFA Trust, then the firearm has to be held in your trust as of the date of publication of the new rules in the federal register.
 
trackskippy said:
As that video shows too, according to their requirements, you need to send a picture of the gun, to prove it is the gun with a brace, among other things, and show that it meets their requirements for this. You just cant start registering lowers willy nilly. And whos to say if they deny it, you wont have to surrender it as contraband.
Click to expand...

That is not true, the instructions when filling out the form only asks for a picture of the serial number. You do have to confirm that the weapon does fall within the amnesty guidelines, but you do not need to provide a picture to prove it.


trackskippy said:
Lots of speculation flying around right now, and the only ones who have the answer that counts, are the ATF.
Click to expand...

Indeed, which is why people should read the 292 page document rather than relying on the speculations of YouTubers who also didn’t read it.
 
I was going by what the lawyer (NFA gun lawyer apparently) in the video was saying you needed to do to jump through the right hoops. Not saying hes right or wrong, but Im a bit more comfortable with his interpretations and responses than a lot of those Ive seen here and other places.

Personally, if I was going to do it, Id go down to my local ATF office and get it from the horses mouth. Ive been dealing with NFA stuff since the early 80's, and that was always the best source of info and help that Ive found.

And contrary to what you usually hear, they were always very helpful and professional. Now, if you call down to DC to ask, youre on your own. :p
 
Just came across this and from the looks of it, its "current" and from a lawyer somehow related to the GOA.

Take it for what its worth and we all now fear sells, and business is good in that respect. Not sure if its there to inform us, or for them to get you to send them some money, but regardless, Id be paying close attention here.

 
Normally I won't watch any video made by Chicken Little from Guns and Gadgets. He hypes things up and sensationalizes stories for ratings.
 
Last edited:
So, if I'm reading the rule correctly, one of the options is to remove the brace and alter it so it cannot be reattached....does this mean the possession of a functional brace (attached or not) becomes illegal if not registered? Example; since ATF does not regulate accessories, does the mere possession of an unaltered brace that could be attached to a firearm constitute a violation of this rule? How will the ATF regulate the sale or trade of these braces in the future?
 
jr45 said:
So, if I'm reading the rule correctly, one of the options is to remove the brace and alter it so it cannot be reattached....does this mean the possession of a functional brace (attached or not) becomes illegal if not registered? Example; since ATF does not regulate accessories, does the mere possession of an unaltered brace that could be attached to a firearm constitute a violation of this rule? How will the ATF regulate the sale or trade of these braces in the future?
Click to expand...

That would fall under constructive possession. This would be the same as having an upper with a barrel less than 16" but no lower to legally use it with. Now getting charged on that alone may or may not happen. But they will add it to the list of charges if they arrest you for other reasons.
 
jr45 said:
So, if I'm reading the rule correctly, one of the options is to remove the brace and alter it so it cannot be reattached....does this mean the possession of a functional brace (attached or not) becomes illegal if not registered? Example; since ATF does not regulate accessories, does the mere possession of an unaltered brace that could be attached to a firearm constitute a violation of this rule? How will the ATF regulate the sale or trade of these braces in the future?
Click to expand...

As the rule is written there is effectively no such thing as a brace anymore. Your brace is now a stock as they see it. Possessing a stock and an AR pistol that it will fit on is constructive possession of an SBR. So you can either put your brace (stock) on a rifle, or get rid of it. It’s okay to have it on a rifle, you just can’t have a spare stock laying around while you also possess a pistol that it will fit on.

If you didn’t have any pistols that it would fit on you could have 1000 braces in your closet if you wanted because they are just spare stocks now.
 
LOL. "Land of the Free" baby.

About all it seems we are free to do anymore, is bitch, and even that is questionable. :p
 
trackskippy said:
whos to say if they deny it, you wont have to surrender it as contraband?
Click to expand...

They do. They say it.

The owner has the right to remove the brace and revert the firearm back to a pistol configuration. So take the picture. Send in the application. Remove the brace and throw it away to comply with the new interpretation that the pistol would otherwise be an SBR, and then:

A) When the stamp comes in, stick a proper stock on it.

or…

B) If the application is denied, continue using the pistol as a legally configured pistol forevermore…

Either way, we don’t need the brace ever again. Braces suck as stocks, so whether we’re throwing it away 1) because the pistol now has become a registered SBR and we want a better stock, or 2) because we get denied and DON’T own an SBR such ownership of the brace would constitute constructive possession of an NFA item - unless of course, another rifle is owned, SBR or otherwise, which could accept the brace, which cycles us back to item 1 above and, in doing so, is a moot point. But removing the brace during the application review process eliminates any grey area which seems to scare so many folks, AND does not preclude the brace or a better stock from going back onto the pistol when/if the Form 1 is approved. Where’s the downside?

Some folks (like the GOA video) are trying to make this sound a hell of a lot more difficult than it needs to be. It’s pretty simple to comply with the law here.
 
someguy2800 said:
If you didn’t have any pistols that it would fit on you could have 1000 braces in your closet if you wanted because they are just spare stocks now.
Click to expand...

Clarification here: an individual CAN have a pistol and a closet full of braces/stocks - as long as they also own a 16” or longer barrel.

Constructive possession only occurs when the parts present can ONLY be assembled into an NFA configuration. Not “can be,” but “can ONLY be.” The T/C letter and its saga have been the precedent there for many years, before AR braces were even a thing. So owning a pistol and a brace won’t be the problem, unless you ONLY own a pistol and a brace. Keeping a $75 chromie sitting around a closet - hell, even a used up take-off barrel - circumvents any culpability for constructive possession.
 
I am down to one braced AR pistol. What I did for now is to take the SB15 brace off and I also put a Kak Retro 6" extended flash hider on the barrel. I have not done the pin and weld job to the flash hider yet nor have I gotten rid of the brace. I will wait for 30-60 days to see what happens.

It has been stated multiple times what your options are. And one option is to remove the brace all together. Now if you have an adjustable brace that uses a standard carbine buffer tube, then I would suggest getting a smooth pistol buffer tube.

And I will not put too much stock in Chicken Little's video until that information is confirmed by other sources. He is known to hype and sensationalize things. He was all doom and gloom - the word is ending- everyone will get arrested if in possession of a 80% receiver when the Frame/Receiver rule change was announced/published.
 
If the 6" gives you a legal barrel length, why bother with the brace? Put a stock on it.

I agree, if it werent for the GOA lawyer taking on things there, I wouldnt have posted that. He has some things you may want to think about and get some clarification from the ATF over. I would not take the word of anyone on a gun board or elsewhere if I was going to do this. The answer is at the ATF, no matter how well you think you can read or interpret things. And you may want to ask them directly that what he says is or isnt the case, and a nice letter stating so would be prudent.
 
jr45 said:
So, if I'm reading the rule correctly, one of the options is to remove the brace and alter it so it cannot be reattached....does this mean the possession of a functional brace (attached or not) becomes illegal if not registered? Example; since ATF does not regulate accessories, does the mere possession of an unaltered brace that could be attached to a firearm constitute a violation of this rule? How will the ATF regulate the sale or trade of these braces in the future?
Click to expand...

I hope that your first sentence means that the brace is what is to be altered, so that it cannot be reattached. I hope that this does not mean that the receiver extension, a.k.a. “Buffer Tube,” itself, must be altered, so that a brace cannot be attached, because, there are braces that will slip into place, onto a “featureless” receiver extension. I am thinking that I want my DDM4 V7P to remain a legal pistol/handgun, so that I can possess it in places that prohibit long guns. The 2021 Texas legislature threw long guns under the legal bus, when they passed the “permit-less carry” bill, so, I can now carry/possess a handgun more places than I can carry/possess a long gun, in my home state.

I reckon that the worst-case scenario would be that I would need to remove the brace, “alter” the brace, and separate the pistol upper and lower, then store them all at separate locations, until this is sorted-out. Sigh. It is just as well that my DDM4 V7P had not yet become part of my defensive weapon plan. (Still working-out which optic mount and optic I like.)
 
Here is a photo that the GOA posted to their Facebook page. And it almost looks like it was photo shopped to me. But I will post the phot and let everyone make their own decision.

GOA scare.jpeg

And the link to their Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/GunOwners

While I do feel that the brace rule is total BS, we don't need all of the sensationalized hype and scare tactics either.
 
wesmonster said:
I'm waiting for a one armed veteran who's once-legal firearm is declared an SBR to file a lawsuit citing the Americans with Disabilities act.
Click to expand...
Well, you'll be waiting a looooong time. Like the Hearing Protection Act long time.
You know how we know you've never read one word of the Americans with Disabilities Act?:scrutiny:
It has absolutely nothing to do with firearms.

Simply having a disability doesn't mean a person is exempt from the laws that everyone else has to abide by.



Many in ban states don't have form1 as an option, so surrender is their only legal recourse.
Click to expand...
You know how we know you didn't read this new ATF regulation?
Because that isn't correct at all. Simply remove the arm brace.




I think the ATF has overplayed their hand by dropping the worksheet and declaring that any brace WILL be shouldered and is therefore an NFA item.
Click to expand...
Thats not what ATF has written.

If braces have to be registered then wheelchairs should have license plates....
Click to expand...
Yet they aren't requiring arm braces to be registered. If you stop posting and start reading you would know why.
And your wheelchair analogy is nonsensical.
 
12Bravo20 said:
Here is a photo that the GOA posted to their Facebook page. And it almost looks like it was photo shopped to me. But I will post the phot and let everyone make their own decision.

View attachment 1128553

And the link to their Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/GunOwners

While I do feel that the brace rule is total BS, we don't need all of the sensationalized hype and scare tactics either.
Click to expand...
That happens when ANY individual or Responsible Person on a trust does not get a "proceed" response from the FBI on their background check. It means the FBI was unable to resolve the applicants background check within the time limit. After 88 days ATF disapproves the Form 1 or Form 4. IT AIN'T NEW, it's been the standard protocol for over a decade.

The GOA should know better.....or does and is using this to suck in new members,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

someguy2800
  • Locked
New ATF pistol brace ruling
Replies
8
Views
610
Robert
Robert
O
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Direct Link to Stabilizing Brace Ban
Replies
1
Views
504
hso
hso
kje54
  • Locked
ATF Rule 2021R8 goes into effect January 31, 2023
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
210
Views
12K
kje54
kje54
F-111 John
  • Locked
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” [ATF Proposed Rulemaking]
Replies
9
Views
756
GEM
G
SharpDog
  • Locked
Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
hso
hso
Back
Top