ATF Rule 2021R8 goes into effect January 31, 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
nugi said:
What I've read elsewhere on here is that once you list item as an SBR it remains an SBR regardless of configuration until you unlist it?
Click to expand...
No. It’s only a short barreled rifle when it has a short barrel. You can switch back and forth freely between NFA and regular rifle configurations.
 
12Bravo20 said:
I have posted the answer to your question a few times now in this and other threads here on The High Road.

See the section titled "REGISTRATION AND OTHER COMPLIANCE OPTIONS", no 10 of the FAQ's found here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-correctedpdf/download
Click to expand...
Thank you, that was helpful.

Reading all the FAQ generated another thought. When I previously made an SBR on a Form 1 I was required to engrave my name, city and state. The new rules say no additional engraving is necessary when registering a braced gun as an SBR. Since the FAQ says I can remove the brace and use a conventional shoulder stock that creates a circumstance where some SBRs will be in compliance if not engraved with the additional information and some won’t.
 
Elkins45 said:
Thank you, that was helpful.

Reading all the FAQ generated another thought. When I previously made an SBR on a Form 1 I was required to engrave my name, city and state. The new rules say no additional engraving is necessary when registering a braced gun as an SBR. Since the FAQ says I can remove the brace and use a conventional shoulder stock that creates a circumstance where some SBRs will be in compliance if not engraved with the additional information and some won’t.
Click to expand...

I don't have an exact answer on that for you. But from my experience, once you have a registered SBR then you can change out parts as you see fit as long as you still retain the parts to return it to the original configuration as it was registered.
 
It just occurred to me that I don’t have to throw away my brace. I can just put it in a drawer.Since I already own a true registered SBR it wouldn’t be constructive possession to keep the brace.

I’ll probably still apply for a Form 1 since it’s essentially a free SBR.
 
I skimmed the ruling today; everyone should note the statements that if you don't register the braced pistols as SBR's by the end of the 120 day period, you will never be able to register them later. Whatever decision you make about registration or not is a final one. After that, what you have will be an unregistered SBR.

I also noted that on several of the charts (rifle length, LOP, etc), there is a curious reference to a rifle named the "Ruger 22-Oct". Took me a while to realize that they actually mean a Ruger 10-22. Do you think anyone actually proofread these 300 pages?
 
12Bravo20 said:
This falls under constructive possession if you have a brace that has not been "altered" so that it can not be reinstalled. The same goes for having an upper with a barrel less than 16" in OAL without having either a registered SBR lower or pistol lower to attach said upper to.
Click to expand...

Constructive possession wouldn't make sense for the brace. I could put said brace on any other rifle with a 16" barrel and it's just a rifle with a weird stock now, thanks to the ATF ruling. They even say you can keep the brace if you replace the barrel with a 16"+ barrel. They don't say "and dispose of or permanently alter the barrel so it can't be reinstalled", do they? No. To that end, I could take a regular carbine buttstock and buffer tube off any other AR rifle in the same gun safe and install it on the pistol instead of a pistol buffer. They can't say it's constructive possession to have an AR pistol and an AR rifle, right?
 
Navy_Guns said:
Constructive possession wouldn't make sense for the brace. I could put said brace on any other rifle with a 16" barrel and it's just a rifle with a weird stock now, thanks to the ATF ruling. They even say you can keep the brace if you replace the barrel with a 16"+ barrel. They don't say "and dispose of or permanently alter the barrel so it can't be reinstalled", do they? No. To that end, I could take a regular carbine buttstock and buffer tube off any other AR rifle in the same gun safe and install it on the pistol instead of a pistol buffer. They can't say it's constructive possession to have an AR pistol and an AR rifle, right?
Click to expand...

I will quote Number 6 under the Compliance Options section of the FAQ again.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-correctedpdf/download

WHAT ARE THE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL (NON-LICENSEE) IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM EQUIPPED WITH A “STABILIZING BRACE,” WHICH IS A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR), AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE?
  • Submit through the eForms system an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF Form 1 (E- Form 1) within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.

  • Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” so that it cannot be reattached and thereby removing it from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA.

  • Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm thus removing it from the provisions of the NFA.

  • Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.

  • Destroy the firearm. For more information go to How to Properly Destroy Firearms | Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov).
Click to expand...

As you can see, they do state that one option is to remove or alter the brace so that it can not be reattached. This is one option if you want to keep a barrel that is less than 16" in OAL. Another option is to replace the barrel with one that is over 16" OAL and/or pin/weld an extension to the barrel (again so that it is over 16").

The last two options they give are not viable options as far as I am concerned.
 
They can't say it's constructive possession to have an AR pistol and an AR rifle, right?
Click to expand...
Generally, if you can take the parts you have and assemble them in such a way as to create a legal/non-NFA firearm then you are good. If you want to put a brace on your rifle and it still meets the minimum length requirement for a rifle, then you're good**. If the ONLY firearm you have that the brace will attach to is a pistol and your brace is one that meets the definition of a stock as far as the BATF is concerned, then that's construction possession even if you don't have it installed.

**There might be one other fly in the ointment and that is if by putting a brace onto a rifle that fits the definition of redesigning it into a firearm intended to be fired with one hand. I think that could also be a problem but someone who is better versed in the NFA than I am needs to comment on that.
 


I always appreciate WGL level headed approach to these issues. I think the above video is a good summary and good advice. I am still in a holding pattern for the new few weeks to see how this shakes out legally. Maybe if we are lucky some legal action will stop this but I am not holding my breath. In the mean time I will start collecting the need stuff to have a Form 1 ready to submit before the 120 day dead line.
 
Does anyone know where angled foregrips stand? I know it won't matter on an SBR, but if we don't SBR and keep a plain-buffer tube and no brace, can we have an angled foregrip?

And are plain KAK pistol buffer tubes no longer okay at 7.25" length?
 
This really sucks as I have a braced pistol. I figured that one day, the ATF would finally ban braces and when that day came, I'd just convert my pistol to some flavor of rifle. Getting a SBR in Illinois is an act of congress and I did not want to carry a C&R license (long story on that one)

...but Illinois just passed the "ban everything" law, meaning I cannot get any parts, period. So...in the timeline of one week; my braced pistol was made illegal...and Illinois banned any chance I had of getting parts.

Wonderful.
 
Typetwelve said:
This really sucks as I have a braced pistol. I figured that one day, the ATF would finally ban braces and when that day came, I'd just convert my pistol to some flavor of rifle. Getting a SBR in Illinois is an act of congress and I did not want to carry a C&R license (long story on that one)

...but Illinois just passed the "ban everything" law, meaning I cannot get any parts, period. So...in the timeline of one week; my braced pistol was made illegal...and Illinois banned any chance I had of getting parts.

Wonderful.
Click to expand...
Might be worth driving across a border to a gun show or shop to pick up some parts. It’s still legal to purchase them in some of your surrounding states.
 
Elkins45 said:
Reading all the FAQ generated another thought. When I previously made an SBR on a Form 1 I was required to engrave my name, city and state. The new rules say no additional engraving is necessary when registering a braced gun as an SBR. Since the FAQ says I can remove the brace and use a conventional shoulder stock that creates a circumstance where some SBRs will be in compliance if not engraved with the additional information and some won’t.
Click to expand...

Which is why we're telling people to disregard the FAQ on that (which also conflates the terms "manufactured" and "made", important distinctions between licensee built firearms and those assembled or altered into NFA configurations by non- licensees) and do the required maker engraving. I don't think the ATF has the legal authority to waive that requirement, but even if they do, it's still a potential pitfall down the road.

We're also generally recommending to people who ask us not registering under the tax forbearance, instead either doing a normal Form 1 application and paying the tax, or making the weapon a title I GCA pistol or rifle. We're following our own advise, will be transferring our 7.5" to the company and doing Form 2 for SBR, and the other 3 braced pistols will get suppressors pinned & welded to bring the barrels over 16", since they wear the cans full time anyway.

JohnKSa said:
**There might be one other fly in the ointment and that is if by putting a brace onto a rifle that fits the definition of redesigning it into a firearm intended to be fired with one hand. I think that could also be a problem but someone who is better versed in the NFA than I am needs to comment on that.
Click to expand...

Some states do have maximum lengths for pistols and other weirdness, but federally, there is no such language. As long as it remains over 26" with a barrel over 16", it's still a GCA rifle whether you replace the stock with a brace or remove it entirely. It's only a "weapon made from a rifle" if you go shorter than 16" barrel and/or 26" OAL
 
MachIVshooter said:
As long as it remains over 26" with a barrel over 16", it's still a GCA rifle whether you replace the stock with a brace or remove it entirely. It's only a "weapon made from a rifle" if you go shorter than 16" barrel and/or 26" OAL
Click to expand...

I will just add to what he said. Yes you can have what ever type of shoulder stock or arm brace you want on a rifle that has a barrel at least 16" long and the overall length is at least 26", measured with stock completely extended if adjustable. As long as the rifle meets the two length requirements then it is simply a rifle per federal law.

I swapped barrels on my 10.5" 5.56 pistol back in 2020 when the AFT proposed the first brace rule change. The craptastic Radical Firearms barrel was junk anyway and patterned like a shotgun. I purposely left the brace on and also put a fake slip over suppressor on the barrel too. I built it this way to mess with range nazis, Karens and other busy bodies. I call it my FATF build. And no that is not stamped/engraved anywhere on the rifle.

FATF build.jpg

With the 16" barrel installed, the overall length is over 26". So this is a Title 1/non NFA rifle and will remain legally a rifle in this configuration.

I will have fun if some range nazi Karen tries to turn me in for an illegal SBR and silencer.
 
MachIVshooter said:
We're also generally recommending to people who ask us not registering under the tax forbearance, instead either doing a normal Form 1 application and paying the tax, or making the weapon a title I GCA pistol or rifle.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it somewhere earlier in the thread but why is it that you are recommending not using the tax forbearance?
 
zdc1775 said:
Maybe I missed it somewhere earlier in the thread but why is it that you are recommending not using the tax forbearance?
Click to expand...

Because the $200 tax is required by law, and I haven't seen any statute, or provision within, that allows ATF discretion in collecting it except as provided by 27 CFR § 479.69 & § 479.70, which doesn't include firearms made for personal use by a private citizen.

Perhaps one of our resident attorneys can weigh in on the matter and provide clarification, but to this lay person, the misnomered "amnesty" registration is just riddled with legally problematic things that will take years to sort out in the courts, if ever, and at great expense & hardship to the unlucky ones who are ensnared.
 
Last edited:
MachIVshooter said:
Because the $200 tax is required by law, and I haven't seen any statute, or provision within, that allows ATF discretion in collecting it except as provided by 27 CFR § 479.69 & § 479.70, which doesn't include firearms made for personal use by a private citizen.

Perhaps one of our resident attorneys can weigh in on the matter and provide clarification, but to this lay person, the misnomered "amnesty" registration is just riddled with legally problematic things that will take years to sort out in the courts, if ever, and at great expense & hardship to the unlucky ones who are ensnared.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Since I haven't read the entire ruling, I would have thought that would be specifically addressed somewhere in the 300 pages but that would be too convenient.
 
Meh, whatever. I think the important thing here is to open up a new front now. We need to give them something new to get their panties in a wad about-something that will refocus them on the things that we want them focused on or, unfocused on the things that we don't want them focused on if you prefer. We need to seize the initiative and get on some kind of offense. We should continue to keep them busy defending their recent ruling of course and maybe we can even get it reversed but the last thing we want is for our adversary to have a lot of spare time on his hands. 3D printed parts perhaps?
 
Like @MachIVshooter I'm thinking that the ATF is getting ahead of themselves by thinking that a Congress approved tax is somehow ok for them to amnesty. This should have to go through Congress to get this amnesty approved. They are trying to get the "brace" owners to capitulate quickly with this so as to avoid governmental oversight into the dumpster fire that is the ATF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F-111 John
  • Locked
Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” [ATF Proposed Rulemaking]
Replies
9
Views
754
GEM
G
O
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Direct Link to Stabilizing Brace Ban
Replies
1
Views
501
hso
hso
F-111 John
  • Locked
Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms (Final Rule)
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
DoubleMag
D
someguy2800
  • Locked
ATF brace rule is out
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Replies
264
Views
10K
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
someguy2800
  • Locked
New ATF pistol brace ruling
Replies
8
Views
608
Robert
Robert
Back
Top