ATF Rule 2021R8 goes into effect January 31, 2023

[Elkins45]

Because then you would fall under the requirements for an SBR. Any time you want to take a rifle to another state, you have to file a ATF 5320.20 "Application to Transport NFA Firearms" and ask permission from the crown for each rifle and for each different location.

That thought crossed my mind too. However, I really do not want to be in the position of using a NFA item for SD. Plus I cross state lines quite a bit as all my family lives in surrounding states and keep an AR in my RV. So getting my permission slip every time might be a pain. (Form 5320.20)

My confusion is that I have one of those Micro Roni's Glock chassis. Since it was specifically called an SBR in one of the slide decks on their site, no mention of it in other documents. There is no serial number, maker address, etc. etc. Do they want me to register every Glock in my house? Or just the ones that could fit. (34/35/17L/24/etc. cannot fit). That one is likely trash can bound, unless I can find someone who wants to deal with it.

Examples from the ATF on Non commercial and commercial:
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...finalruleguidance-non-commercial1-10/download
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...acefinalruleguidance-commerciallypdf/download

That’s not really a problem. It’s only a NFA item when in NFA configuration. Stick a stock and 16” barrel on it and it’s a rifle. Or stick a plain pistol tube on it and it’s a pistol. It’s only an evil braced pistol when wearing both the brace and a <16” barrel.

They will request a photo of your braced pistol when you file a Form 1 and request the tax exemption. See my above post.

Now if you do not plan on registering your braced pistol as an ABR, then either remove the brace, swap the barrel out for one that is at least 16" and you are good to go.

So take a picture of each one of your AR receivers wearing a brace and a <16” upper. In each submission you would be telling the truth: at the time the photo was taken that firearm was indeed in a braced pistol configuration. Note that this would only work for those guns you had purchased as a pistol or a bare receiver, not as an assembled rifle. In those instances you would already have committed the crime of converting a rifle to a pistol in violation of the “first a rifle, always a rifle” rule.

This makes me glad I assembled each of my bare receivers in pistol configuration first.

 

[bearcreek]

Do we know it will be a felony? Has that been determined yet?

Yes. That was determined 89 years ago.

 

[12Bravo20]

Do we know it will be a felony? Has that been determined yet?

As bear creek stated, that was determined a long time ago.

Here is a link that will explain all of that.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-me/legacy/2012/06/01/Summary of Federal Firearms Laws - 2010.pdf

 

[CapnMac]

Given that we are talking about 10 to 40 million braced pistols, APA may require ATFE to collect the US$20 to US$80 billion in taxes--that's not chcken feed.

The FFL with braced inventory are hosed, as they all have to come out of the cases and Form 3 filed on each one. If they are in no sbr/no nfa States, their braced inventory just went to a negative value. Recall that ATFE is asserting that all braced pistols have always been SBR (ignore those previous Letters), and that status is as of the date of publication in the Federal Register, not in 120 days.

 

[bearcreek]

Given that we are talking about 10 to 40 million braced pistols, APA may require ATFE to collect the US$20 to US$80 billion in taxes--that's not chcken feed.

The FFL with braced inventory are hosed, as they all have to come out of the cases and Form 3 filed on each one. If they are in no sbr/no nfa States, their braced inventory just went to a negative value. Recall that ATFE is asserting that all braced pistols have always been SBR (ignore those previous Letters), and that status is as of the date of publication in the Federal Register, not in 120 days.

I strongly suspect that, of the (probably) minority of those 10-40 million braced pistols that are converted to a legal configuration, most will end up without a brace, not registered as an SBR.

 

[codytrucker]

I hope that in the legal challenges that surely will come , that the whole SBR slot limit on the size of firearms gets thrown out as unconstitutional . This stems from a newscaster coming up with the idea that a mass shooter in Boulder Co would of had to go thru a more rigorous background check , and a "year long waiting-cooling down period" to buy the braced AR he used . Even though any body with common sense knows he would of just bought another weapon the same day .

 

[JohnKSa]

So, with the options available it looks like we are going to have to fork over some money.
1: pay the tax fee.
2: spend money for a longer barrel.
OR
3: do nothing and keep your possessions to yourself and be a fellon


The options presented in the final [rule] are:
• Scenario 1: Turn in the entire firearm with the attached “stabilizing brace” to ATF;
• Scenario 2: Destroy the whole firearm;
• Scenario 3: Convert the short-barreled rifle into a long-barreled rifle;
• Scenario 4: Apply to register the weapon under the NFA; or
• Scenario 5: Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” from the firearm so that it cannot be reattached.

No and No. There's another option that is clearly spelled out in the rule.

If you want a stabilizing brace on your pistol then you can have one. It needs to really be a stabilizing brace, and not a shoulder stock that is masquerading as a stabilizing brace, or even a true stabilizing brace that is designed so that it contains features that are common to shoulder stocks but not required in a stabilizing brace. Reading the entire document in the link helps explain this.

What is over with as of this rule's issuance is the use of "stabilizing braces" (note the quotes) to circumvent NFA restrictions. If you want to have something that is designed to function as a shoulder stock on your pistol then you need to go through the NFA hoops.

I've emphasized "on your pistol" because if the resulting firearm does not meet the federal definition of a pistol then the resulting item may be an NFA item depending on its configuration.

 

[CapnMac]

most will end up without a brace, not registered as an SBR.

Still some boggling numbers. 25% of 10 million is still 2.5 million; 12.5% (an eighth) of 40 million is 5 million.

At 4 manhours per Form, that's 10 million to 20 million manhours. There's (optimally) 2000 manhours per employee per work year. If there are 40 Examiners, they have a yearly work output of 80,000 manhours . . .

 

[CapnMac]

that the whole SBR slot limit on the size of firearms gets thrown out as unconstitutional

The overturning of the bumpstock ban, may call into question ATFE's ability, under APA, to create these specific, arbitrary, distinctions.
Sadly, NFA 34 with all its warts & flaws has been in place for just shy of a century. This creates a status quo that courts are often loath to disturb.
Which is where Thomas' use of contemporary history may be the key wedge to "break" the inertia of the status quo. No such limits were extant in 1865 with the enactment of the 14 Amendment.

 

[CapnMac]

something that is designed to function as a shoulder stock

Please also note that ATFE is using "indirect advertising" as a test. Which appears to include some nobbo making a video on YT or TikTok or the like shouldering the weapon with the specific appliance mounted.

They have made an exception for "rear projections" that are "necessary for weapon operation" (so we many want to put buffers in 22lr AR pistols).

The Appendices certainly suggest that ATFE does not consider any brace to be legal at this time.

 

[HankB]

Given that we are talking about 10 to 40 million braced pistols, APA may require ATFE to collect the US$20 to US$80 billion in taxes--that's not chcken feed . . .

Not to nitpick, but check your math - the total dollars are high by a factor of 10.

 

[CapnMac]

but check your math - the total dollars are high by a factor of 10.

Oops. Miscounted zeros (40 x 200 = 8000 plus six zeros using "million" as the unit base) hurrr-durr.

US$ 4 billion is not chicken feed, though

 

[JohnKSa]

Please also note that ATFE is using "indirect advertising" as a test. Which appears to include some nobbo making a video on YT or TikTok or the like shouldering the weapon with the specific appliance mounted.

You know, we were happy when the phrase "in common use" was used in a positive manner in the SCOTUS Heller ruling. If it was valid then, it is hard to argue that it's not valid for this situation.

Given that we are talking about 10 to 40 million braced pistols, APA may require ATFE to collect the US$20 to US$80 billion in taxes--that's not chcken feed.

As pointed out, the numbers are off, but the bigger issue is that the tax is waived for people who register within 120 days. This won't bring in any money, in fact it will make a ton of extra work for the BATF and therefore cost the government a lot of money.

 

[Elkins45]

So here's a question I don't think I've seen a definitive answer to:

If one goes through the proper steps to register their braced pistol (which is now being called an SBR by ATF) then after the registration is approved is it a "true" SBR now? Can I take off the brace and put on a true shoulder stock while retaining the <16" barrel, or is "braced pistol that we think is really an SBR" a special category of gun that has to retain the brace in order to stay legal?

 

[armoredman]

The overturning of the bumpstock ban, may call into question ATFE's ability, under APA, to create these specific, arbitrary, distinctions.
Sadly, NFA 34 with all its warts & flaws has been in place for just shy of a century. This creates a status quo that courts are often loath to disturb.
Which is where Thomas' use of contemporary history may be the key wedge to "break" the inertia of the status quo. No such limits were extant in 1865 with the enactment of the 14 Amendment.

Close your eyes and imagine this - SCOTUS grants emergency review to GOA/SAF/JPFO/NRA, and Alito and Thomas use this opportunity to strike down portions of NFA '34, using the blunt object that is Bruen. There COULD be a solid sterling silver lining to this cloud the size of Texas, IF the stars align...

 

[JohnKSa]

If one goes through the proper steps to register their braced pistol (which is now being called an SBR by ATF) then after the registration is approved is it a "true" SBR now?

SBR is SBR.

The overturning of the bumpstock ban, may call into question ATFE's ability, under APA, to create these specific, arbitrary, distinctions.

That was enacted, contrary to the BATF's position on bump stocks, by pressure from the president. It doesn't reflect badly on BATF, their position on bump stocks was the same as SCOTUS.

 

[bearcreek]

So here's a question I don't think I've seen a definitive answer to:

If one goes through the proper steps to register their braced pistol (which is now being called an SBR by ATF) then after the registration is approved is it a "true" SBR now? Can I take off the brace and put on a true shoulder stock while retaining the <16" barrel, or is "braced pistol that we think is really an SBR" a special category of gun that has to retain the brace in order to stay legal?

They're now SBR's. Essentially, the "brace" category no longer exists. A brace is now a stock. You can legally swap stocks on an SBR. This is addressed specifically in the ATF FAQ's on the ruling.

 

[JohnKSa]

A brace is now a stock.

Most braces are now stocks (one could argue this was always true), but even after the rule, there are certainly braces out there that still qualify as "stabilizing braces" and are therefore legal to install on a pistol without having to deal with NFA issues. The rule addresses this in detail.

 

[nugi]

That’s not really a problem. It’s only a NFA item when in NFA configuration. Stick a stock and 16” barrel on it and it’s a rifle.

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?

 

[bearcreek]

Most braces are now stocks (one could argue this was always true), but even after the rule, there are certainly braces out there that still qualify as "stabilizing braces" and are therefore legal to install on a pistol without having to deal with NFA issues. The rule addresses this in detail.

Oh? Didn't see that part. Which braces would still be legal?

 

[12Bravo20]

So here's a question I don't think I've seen a definitive answer to:

If one goes through the proper steps to register their braced pistol (which is now being called an SBR by ATF) then after the registration is approved is it a "true" SBR now? Can I take off the brace and put on a true shoulder stock while retaining the <16" barrel, or is "braced pistol that we think is really an SBR" a special category of gun that has to retain the brace in order to stay legal?

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

10. ONCE THE FIREARM IS REGISTERED AS A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR) CAN I REMOVE/CHANGE THE “STABILIZING BRACE” OR ATTACH AN ITEM MARKETED AS A STOCK? IF SO, AM I REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ATF IN ADVANCE?

• Yes, the firearm is registered as an SBR, and you can change out the “brace” device or stock for a different brace or stock. You do not need to contact ATF/NFA because changing the brace/stock

 

[Balrog]

Most braces are now stocks (one could argue this was always true)

Well, no legally you really could not argue that braces were stocks, because the ATF had said they were not stocks. Prior to this rule, if you had argued that your pistol brace was a stock, you would be arguing that you had created an illegal short barrel rifle.

The problem with the rule is that the government had previously said braces were legal. Now they are saying they are not legal, without passing a law in Congress. That's a big slippery slope.

 

[Navy_Guns]

I've spent quite a while now reading over the 293 page document. The one course of action, to remove the stabilizing brace and the adjustable buffer tube and replace with a smooth pistol buffer tube, appears to satisfy the rule (assuming no forward grips or grip stops, scope restrictions, or other aggravating conditions). However, one part of the rule that goes with this course of action is not so clear...

"Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached, thereby removing the weapon from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA."

Saying that if you do not dispose of the brace, that you must alter it [permanently] such that it cannot be reattached seems to directly violate another statement from the ruling:

"Again, this rule does not regulate or prevent the use of “stabilizing brace” devices themselves but outlines factors that ATF will consider when determining if a firearm equipped with a“stabilizing brace” is a rifle or short-barreled rifle regulated by the NFA and GCA."

If the ATF says on one hand that you must remove and permanently alter the brace such that it cannot be reattached, but says it does not regulate the braces themselves, that seems a hopeless contradiction. If a person puts a smooth pistol buffer tube on their AR pistol with an 8" barrel and puts the brace and its buffer tube in a drawer without destroying the brace, it sounds like they're still potentially breaking the law. What the ATF???

 

[12Bravo20]

I've spent quite a while now reading over the 293 page document. The one course of action, to remove the stabilizing brace and the adjustable buffer tube and replace with a smooth pistol buffer tube, appears to satisfy the rule (assuming no forward grips or grip stops, scope restrictions, or other aggravating conditions). However, one part of the rule that goes with this course of action is not so clear...

"Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached, thereby removing the weapon from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA."

Saying that if you do not dispose of the brace, that you must alter it [permanently] such that it cannot be reattached seems to directly violate another statement from the ruling:

"Again, this rule does not regulate or prevent the use of “stabilizing brace” devices themselves but outlines factors that ATF will consider when determining if a firearm equipped with a“stabilizing brace” is a rifle or short-barreled rifle regulated by the NFA and GCA."

If the ATF says on one hand that you must remove and permanently alter the brace such that it cannot be reattached, but says it does not regulate the braces themselves, that seems a hopeless contradiction. If a person puts a smooth pistol buffer tube on their AR pistol with an 8" barrel and puts the brace and its buffer tube in a drawer without destroying the brace, it sounds like they're still potentially breaking the law. What the ATF???

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.

 

[JohnKSa]

The problem with the rule is that the government had previously said braces were legal. Now they are saying they are not legal, without passing a law in Congress.

True braces are still legal. Things called braces that have features that are common to stocks but serve no purpose for braces have pretty much always been stocks (which is why people who never intended to use them as braces bought them and put them on their firearms), but there's been some confusion about their legality. Now we know.

Which braces would still be legal?

Braces that don't have features common to stocks that serve no purpose to a brace and that are assembled onto a firearm that qualifies as a pistol and not some other kind of firearm. Read the rule. There is a LOT of information and a lot of examples provided.