ATF Rule on Braces Published Jan 31, 2023

[dogtown tom]

Ok but who wins when the convictions are overturned because of 14th amendment law suits?

Wow.

I don't see where they got it wrong. I maybe the only one on here that agrees with the final decision. The braces became a work around (all though not initially intended) to be able to have a "cool guy gun". It didn't help when guys are flaunting them in the faces of law enforcement as 2a checks. I don't know think they're going to penalize the people that actually go through the process to make ensure that they are remaining lawful citizens. I don't agree with a lot of so called gun control measures and the fact that there's a regulation that requires registration of any firearm is bull excrement, however this ruling is imo solid.

I certainly don't agree with this ATF rule. While I've always thought their determination letter from a decade ago was faulty, they should have corrected their error then and not waited until 2023. A two page determination letter for the Sig arm brace became a ten year headache that ATF is trying to fix with this nearly 300 page rule. They are trying to stuff the kittens back in the bag after ten years and there are tens of thousands of more kittens to wrangle.

The same authority ATF had when it issued that first determination letter is the same authority they have in issuing this rule. If ATF had determined the attachment of the Sig arm brace to a pistol DID result in the making of an NFA firearm back in 2012......it would have been consistent with their rulings since 1934.

I'm not a lawyer, but ATF dug this hole in 2012. It seems a bit late to for ATF to complain about the shovel they provided and used.

 

[tarosean]

Wow.

Meanwhile I am still scratching my head....
Obviously one of the greatest movie quotes comes to mind. "I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"

 

[12Bravo20]

And we all know how it is to try and herd cats.

Yes the ATF made this mess themselves back in 2012 with their original determination letter. But the manufacturers and gun owners also shot themselves in the foot with all of the videos showing people shouldering braces along with advertising braces as a work around to the NFA. So yes both sides are to blame here.

I will say that the final rule as posted on the 31st is a little more clear when you get to section V. Final Rule https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...rearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces#h-183. And yes there is still quite a bit that is unclear and ambiguous too.

I didn't agree with the bump stock rule nor do I agree with the brace rule.

 

[Elkins45]

Huh?
I visit a number of gun forums and have yet to read of anyone who supported Trumps bumpstock ban.

An alarming number of the Cast Boolits membership defended it. Some were MAGA/Trump cultists and the rest are “only blue steel and wood are good” Fudds.

 

[dogtown tom]

An alarming number of the Cast Boolits membership defended it. Some were MAGA/Trump cultists and the rest are “only blue steel and wood are good” Fudds.

Shameful.

 

[WiTom]

Where in the world did you get the govt. can't buy back what they do not own? Pure nonsense. I suppose they owned the guns they "bought" back. How about the land they take over, whenever they want it, and "buy" it from the owner, with no choice but to take their "offer". They "own" what they want, through the ATF, DNR, EO's, etc. and thanks for the spell check, I will let auto-spell check know.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

Hello fellow forum members and federal A.I. internet search bots,

I would like to state for the record that I will comply with all unnecessary and illegal restrictions, rules, opinions of our government overlords no matter how they overstep.

All hail the Feds! Huzzah!

V/R,
Jeep

 

[rust collector]

Where in the world did you get the govt. can't buy back what they do not own? Pure nonsense. I suppose they owned the guns they "bought" back. How about the land they take over, whenever they want it, and "buy" it from the owner, with no choice but to take their "offer". They "own" what they want, through the ATF, DNR, EO's, etc. and thanks for the spell check, I will let auto-spell check know.

Aside from being ineffective, gun buy-backs are misleading because the buyer never owned the gun in the first place. You can buy a gun, but you cannot buy back a gun that you never owned. Another ridiculous term invented because someone liked the sound.
In a similar vein, your friendly government once owned every hectare of this lovely nation. It obtained it from prior owners and can regain possession from current owners through consensual purchase or condemnation. In the latter event your tax dollars are used to pay fair market value.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Aside from being ineffective, gun buy-backs are misleading because the buyer never owned the gun in the first place. You can buy a gun, but you cannot buy back a gun that you never owned. Another ridiculous term invented because someone liked the sound.
In a similar vein, your friendly government once owned every hectare of this lovely nation. It obtained it from prior owners and can regain possession from current owners through consensual purchase or condemnation. In the latter event your tax dollars are used to pay fair market value.

Not "fair market value":
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p561, emphasis added:

Fair market value (FMV) is the price that property would sell for on the open market. It is the price that would be agreed on between a willing buyer and a willing seller, with neither being required to act, and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts.
​

 

[dogtown tom]

Where in the world did you get the govt. can't buy back what they do not own?

Common sense and an average command of the English language.
Buy back https://www.dictionary.com/browse/buy-back
noun
-the buying of something that one previously sold.
-any arrangement to take back something as a condition of a sale, as by a supplier who agrees to purchase its customer's goods.
-Also called stock buyback. a repurchase by a company of its own stock in the open market, as for investment purposes or for use in future corporate acquisitions.

Pure nonsense.

Sure.

I suppose they owned the guns they "bought" back.

Well, thas the point. The government didn't own the guns at any point, so they can't buy them back now can they?
They might reimburse owners, offer a bounty or an outright offer to buy......but even if they call it a "buy back" it isn't because they never owned the gun in the first place.

How about the land they take over, whenever they want it, and "buy" it from the owner, with no choice but to take their "offer". They "own" what they want, through the ATF, DNR, EO's, etc.

"Whenever they want it"? Nope.
In the US, when a government desires property owned by another, they can use governments eminent domain power.
-The property acquired must be taken for a “public use;”
-The state must pay “just compensation” in exchange for the property;
-No person must be deprived of his/her property without due process of law.

and thanks for the spell check, I will let auto-spell check know.

It's the least of your problems.

 

[WiTom]

You spelled thas wrong. I'm out.

 

[rust collector]

Not "fair market value":
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p561, emphasis added:

Fair market value (FMV) is the price that property would sell for on the open market. It is the price that would be agreed on between a willing buyer and a willing seller, with neither being required to act, and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts.
​

Third paragraph in this definition. https://www.britannica.com/topic/eminent-domain

 

[old lady new shooter]

Third paragraph in this definition. https://www.britannica.com/topic/eminent-domain

Doesn't have a definition of "fair market value". Which could conceivably differ from "highest and best use" usuallly touted by government when taking people's land...

 

[rust collector]

Doesn't have a definition of "fair market value". Which could conceivably differ from "highest and best use" usuallly touted by government when taking people's land...

From the quoted source: "In general, the judicial definition is that just compensation is the fair market value at the time of the taking, the market value including not only the existing use value but also the best use to which the property may be put." This is what appraisers develop by different approaches and what the courts rule on.

 

[old lady new shooter]

From the quoted source: "In general, the judicial definition is that just compensation is the fair market value at the time of the taking, the market value including not only the existing use value but also the best use to which the property may be put." This is what appraisers develop by different approaches and what the courts rule on.

And which IAC totally doesn't apply to what we are talking about here, gun "buybacks".

 

[Jeff H]

I’ll make my decision in 119 days….

Down to 116 now but this is my stance on it as well. Give the legal system a few months to challenge this before you do anything with it. I was at the LGS in the last few days of Jan and there were two people there filling out form1s on their braced pistols. This was 2-3 days before the rule went into effect. ***?

 

[Tinker-S]

So, this only applies to pistols with braces?
My slingshot came with just the handle/grip.

 

[BreechFace]

So, this only applies to pistols with braces?
My slingshot came with just the handle/grip.

Can the forearm leverage support be shouldered?

 

[Tinker-S]

Can the forearm leverage support be shouldered?

No, unless I want to do a trick shot like Annie Oakley.

 

[SharpDog]

I eagerly await seeing satellite photos of the gigantic new federal detention camps that are being built to house the millions of new felons caught in this trap.

I keep trying to find someone who will make a cash bet with me that 100,000 or more Americans (out of potentially millions) will be convicted of a felony for their Form 1 pistol brace applications. So far I’ve gotten no takers.

I'll take that bet.

$100 says you're wrong.

What do you guys think will happen when:

1. The ATF has your paperwork for applying for a brace including photos and
2. The 88-day waiting period for the ATF-NICs expires before your approval.

?

Gun Owners of America combed through the fine print to see that this bill includes AT LEAST a dozen horrible gun controls. This infringement even gives the ATF a massive budget hike to enforce Biden’s pistol ban and provides funding for gun registration and gun confiscation.

https://www.gunowners.org/12212022/

Asking for a friend ...

 

[P Flados]

What do you guys think will happen when:

1. The ATF has your paperwork for applying for a brace including photos and
2. The 88-day waiting period for the ATF-NICs expires before your approval.

Asking for a friend ...

First, the 88 days is from the beginning of when they start the "background check", not from Form submission. I have heard that if the 88 day period expires there is generally a problem that needs to be fixed. This source indicated that the 88 day expiration problem is also a pretty low percentage.

If you can fix the problem and re-submit within the 120 days, getting the "free stamp" is still likely. Your second submission becomes your documentation that continued possession is OK.

If the 88 day expiration happens and the 120 day grace period is running out (or ran out), you will no longer have a pending Form 1 that makes possession OK. I would pull the brace and give it to a friend (or something similar). You need to avoid "constructive possession" from this point on. You can probably still push to get your "free stamp", but I have not seen anything from the ATF addressing this one way or the other.

 

[SharpDog]

First, the 88 days is from the beginning of when they start the "background check", not from Form submission. I have heard that if the 88 day period expires there is generally a problem that needs to be fixed. This source indicated that the 88 day expiration problem is also a pretty low percentage.

If you can fix the problem and re-submit within the 120 days, getting the "free stamp" is still likely. Your second submission becomes your documentation that continued possession is OK.

If the 88 day expiration happens and the 120 day grace period is running out (or ran out), you will no longer have a pending Form 1 that makes possession OK. I would pull the brace and give it to a friend (or something similar). You need to avoid "constructive possession" from this point on. You can probably still push to get your "free stamp", but I have not seen anything from the ATF addressing this one way or the other.

So the "problem that needs to be fixed" would not be tens of thousands of applicants flooding the system then ?

Anyways, I'm not asking what I'm gonna do, I'm asking what the ATF is gonna do in reference to the posts I quoted. At this point they have evidence that a person is in possession of an NFA item without a tax stamp.

Why do we thing ATF's budget for gun confiscation, provision for the untimely death of officers, etc, was increased ? Inflation ?

 

[SharpDog]

Mock v. Garland:

 

[JERRY]

The ATF doesn't have to confiscate anything. They'll just wait for you to use it and then punish you.

 

[Elkins45]

What do you guys think will happen when:

1. The ATF has your paperwork for applying for a brace including photos and
2. The 88-day waiting period for the ATF-NICs expires before your approval.

?



https://www.gunowners.org/12212022/

Asking for a friend ...

I predict nothing will happen. Or they will resubmit the request and start the clock again. Or they will just do away with this 88 day waiting period I'd never heard of before the brace ruling.

Why, what do you think will happen?