ATF Rule 2021R8 goes into effect January 31, 2023

[F-111 John]

Summary of the video:

If you have a braced pistol and you apply for the amnesty Form 1 for your firearm and your application gets rejected for any reason (including an automatic denial for a background check that takes more than 88 days), then you are in possession of an unregistered SBR and an ATF agent at the SHOT Show ATF Booth said that the ATF would then initiate an "enforcement action."

 

[berettaprofessor]

With this rule coming out, it may be a little late to ask, but is it legal to add a brace to a Ruger 22 Charger with a 10" barrel via those little picatinny rear adapters? And if you add one before publication of the rule and want to keep it that way, will it be eligible as an SBR registration under the new rule?

 

[Elkins45]

Someone please let me know when ATF starts these mass arrests and prosecutions of millions of people. That should probably be covered on the news, right?

If all this handwringing generated electricity we could power the country for a year.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Interesting video by GOA on the SBR pistol fiasco.

This is MORE than interesting. EVERYBODY HERE SHOULD WATCH THIS. GOA attorney discovered that anybody who tries to go through the process of getting an NFA stamp for their braced pistol is going to fall into a very bad trap.

 

[Elkins45]

This is MORE than interesting. EVERYBODY HERE SHOULD WATCH THIS. GOA attorney discovered that anybody who tries to go through the process of getting an NFA stamp for their braced pistol is going to fall into a very bad trap.

That’s a paranoid fever dream IMO. Some low-level employee at the SHOT show does not make policy that will send 40 million people to jail. There’s so much wrong with that guy’s thought process I don’t know where to begin, but I will say this: if he’s all that worried about the 88 day background check denial then on day 89 he can just saw his pistol brace in half. Problem solved.

Someone please let me know when the first person who actually filled out a Form 1 application for a pistol brace is charged in federal court.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

Would one of these need the tax stamp?

 

[12Bravo20]

Would one of these need the tax stamp?
View attachment 1128466

It would absolute need a tax stamp as long as the brace is attached.

See the following for examples that are considered SBR's by the ATF.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...acefinalruleguidance-commerciallypdf/download

 

[mcb]

The 120 day timer had not started. It's still not published...

https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-bureau

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

It would absolute need a tax stamp as long as the brace is attached.

See the following for examples that are considered SBR's by the ATF.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...acefinalruleguidance-commerciallypdf/download

Thanks for the info. My brother has a AR pistol with a stock on it. I'll let him know.

 

[lsudave]

Thanks for the info. My brother has a AR pistol with a stock on it. I'll let him know.

I hope you meant "brace", not "stock".

Because THAT'S not what's currently in discussion; having a stock is already a 100% no-no.

I'm leery of both sides of this argument; I do understand the concern about filing and not getting approved. I also recall reading some article from a place I thought respected and knowledgeable, that talked about this ruling- but neglected to even mention the 'file as SBR for free' option. It read totally as a scare tactic.

On the surface, if I were 100% certain the tax stamp for SBR was legit... I have no reason to believe I would be denied. I have bought firearms legally, always get a proceed on my 4473. There's no law in my area banning or prohibiting SBRs. I purchased the components to build stuff in good faith that everything I was doing was legal and not prohibited to me. If the option to buy a SBR had been as easy (no extra fee, no extra filings to wait on), I would have taken it in the past.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

It may be a brace. He said it's registered as a pistol. I didn't look at it real close.

 

[hso]

This attorney appears to give a good review of the rule.

 

[12Bravo20]

It may be a brace. He said it's registered as a pistol. I didn't look at it real close.

If you are talking about that AK pistol with brace you posted earlier, then the ATF has specifically stated that any pistol that does NOT need a buffer tube to operate but has one with a brace attached is a SBR. See the link I posted above along with the Factoring Criteria link. It is stated inn both documents.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

His is an AR 15 pistol. The pic is from my LGS. More like this one.

 

[12Bravo20]

First, pistols are not registered federally when bought from a FFL. I do not know if hand gun registration is required where your brother lives. Some states still require handguns to be registered.

For your brother's AR pistol. If it has a brace and he wants to keep the brace, then YES he will have to follow the rule change to stay legal.

To keep the brace, he will either have to register the pistol as a SBR or install a >16" barrel. If he decides to get rid of the brace and keep it a pistol, then he needs to make sure to have a smooth pistol buffer tube installed.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

My brother is in Pa too. Im guessing what he meant by registered. He meant classified as a pistol. His buddy built the gun. And when he did the transfer . It was as a pistol. My brother is new to the gun world. He started when the world went to pot.

 

[JumboJVT]

That’s a paranoid fever dream IMO. Some low-level employee at the SHOT show does not make policy that will send 40 million people to jail. There’s so much wrong with that guy’s thought process I don’t know where to begin, but I will say this: if he’s all that worried about the 88 day background check denial then on day 89 he can just saw his pistol brace in half. Problem solved.

Someone please let me know when the first person who actually filled out a Form 1 application for a pistol brace is charged in federal court.

This. The Notice of Denial will do no more than require the brace be destroyed...or not if you also own a rifle that it could be attached to...no constructive possession.

What I don't get is why, as a class who don't believe a word out of any bureaucrats mouth, let alone the ATF, why any gunowner would have relied on the 2012 brace determination when it simply didn't pass the straight face test...then or now. Is seems that poor reasoning in government officials is OK when they're making bad Rules that one agrees with. I mean this not as endorsement of the idea that SBR's should be NFA registered: they shouldn't. But its the law until changed or SCOTUS says different.

 

[lsudave]

The Notice of Denial will do no more than require the brace be destroyed...or not if you also own a rifle that it could be attached to...no constructive possession.

I'm not challenging, but rather, asking if you're sure about that.

As I understand it, we will have 120 days to come into compliance, once this becomes official. Can we do more than one option? Apply for the SBR stamp, and simultaneously remove brace/buffer tube to make it a pistol? Or apply, and put a different barrel (or full upper) on it?

I picked up a couple smooth pistol buffer tubes, for the option to go brace-free and compliant. But I honestly would like an SBR, especially if there's no fee.

 

[kcofohio]

I'm not challenging, but rather, asking if you're sure about that.

As I understand it, we will have 120 days to come into compliance, once this becomes official. Can we do more than one option? Apply for the SBR stamp, and simultaneously remove brace/buffer tube to make it a pistol? Or apply, and put a different barrel (or full upper) on it?

I picked up a couple smooth pistol buffer tubes, for the option to go brace-free and compliant. But I honestly would like an SBR, especially if there's no fee.

If I were to apply for the tax exempt SBR stamp. Take the pictures required, submit paperwork with fingerprints and pictures. Come the 120th day, if you haven't received the stamp, get rid of braces and tube. Place smooth tube on receiver. If by chance you were to actually able to receive SBR stamp, get a real stock and notify ATF of change.
Anybody, am I wrong with this?

 

[Elkins45]

If I were to apply for the tax exempt SBR stamp. Take the pictures required, submit paperwork with fingerprints and pictures. Come the 120th day, if you haven't received the stamp, get rid of braces and tube. Place smooth tube on receiver. If by chance you were to actually able to receive SBR stamp, get a real stock and notify ATF of change.
Anybody, am I wrong with this?

I wouldn’t do anything different after the 120 days because they explicitly state you can continue to use it as long as you have submitted. The 120 days is a deadline to apply for the stamp, not to receive it. If you’re really worried than remove the brace and loan it to someone who doesn’t own an AR while you wait. There’s nothing intrinsically illegal about owning the brace itself.

 

[Lennyjoe]

If by chance you were to actually able to receive SBR stamp, get a real stock and notify ATF of change.
Anybody, am I wrong with this?

Not sure you’d have to notify ATF when adding a stock after you’ve received the stamp.

 

[kcofohio]

Not sure you’d have to notify ATF when adding a stock after you’ve received the stamp.

Maybe I misunderstood something. But I recall reading that if the length of SBR changes, one was suppose to notify them?

 

[kcofohio]

I wouldn’t do anything different after the 120 days because they explicitly state you can continue to use it as long as you have submitted. The 120 days is a deadline to apply for the stamp, not to receive it. If you’re really worried than remove the brace and loan it to someone who doesn’t own an AR while you wait. There’s nothing intrinsically illegal about owning the brace itself.

Okay, I'll reread to see where I missed that.

 

[Elkins45]

This. The Notice of Denial will do no more than require the brace be destroyed...or not if you also own a rifle that it could be attached to...no constructive possession.

What I don't get is why, as a class who don't believe a word out of any bureaucrats mouth, let alone the ATF, why any gunowner would have relied on the 2012 brace determination when it simply didn't pass the straight face test...then or now. Is seems that poor reasoning in government officials is OK when they're making bad Rules that one agrees with. I mean this not as endorsement of the idea that SBR's should be NFA registered: they shouldn't. But it’s the law until changed or SCOTUS says different.

It wasn’t all that long ago that the braced AR pistol essentially didn’t exist. Fast forward to today and people are crapping themselves over losing a “right” they didn’t even know existed a decade ago. The real law that’s at issue here is NFA 34 and if people would raise as much stink about it as they are about braces it could have been repealed or at least amended to remove SBRs and made the whole brace issue moot.

 

[Elkins45]

Okay, I'll reread to see where I missed that.

It’s in the FAQ document available here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-correctedpdf/download