Wishy washy ATF "ruling" clarification?

[DustyGmt]

I will provide a couple links when I locate them but I seem to recall an inquiry where the ATF director was grilled about the implications and legal ramifications for anybody who is in possession of a braced firearm and I distinctly recall the director saying that all anybody had to do to be in compliance with the recent rule flip was to remove the brace from the buffer tube/reciever and the director was quoted as saying "all anybody with a braced firearm would have to do to be in compliance would be to remove the brace device from the buffer tube extension". Pretty much verbatim.


Now, it seems that the most recent, as of yesterday I think, there is a new letter that says that the brace must be removed and destroyed, or altered so that it cannot be re-attached.

It's very bad communication and typical of a government agency, but it's also very irresponsible to flip flop back and fourth on an issue time and time again such that anybody who was listening to the directions straight from the director as to how to be in compliance last month, but didn't keep apprised of the issue could potentially face a felony charge, prison and massive fines.

Is anybody holding out for an injunction or yet another rule change or is everybody basically resigned to the grim reality that these government agencies are basically free to impose laws and regulations totally absent of congress.


I will post links shortly, apparently a new letter came out this week that would contradict the directors claims from April. It's frustrating, I know of alot of simple folks who aren't going to comply or even know they are in violation because they just don't keep up and don't have their noses buried in their phones or talk guns or politics, it just isn't reasonable imo.

 

[The Last Outlaw]

Pretty sure it doesn’t matter what he said, only what is published in the “ruling”. Dude just made himself look like a jackass, hard to believe the director of the agency doesn’t know exactly what said agency is putting out there.

 

[Mosin77]

Par for the course and totally expected.

“We aren’t trying to make average people criminals, relax, this is just common sense.”

A little while later “Just kidding, we absolutely want to make average people criminals. We’re the feds and we’re here to find a pretext to lock you up as an example.”

 

[230RN]

I have to laugh when anyone pontificates as to how ignorance of the law is no excuse.

For this ATF debacle and also whenever I see a picture of a lawyer with literally hundreds of identically-bound law books behind him, I laugh again.



Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Terry, 230RN

(Pic credit in properties.)

 

[trackskippy]

Its all deliberate and intentional and all meant to keep you constantly guessing and unsure of where you stand, which leads to hopelessness, which is the goal, so just do what youre told and dont question your betters.

No matter what things in plain and simple English might say, you know, like the Constitution, youre always told you cant possibly understand the complexities of things and misread. Only the lawyers and government can interpret and understand things. And of course, just change things at will as it suits them.

Alan Greenspan, former head of the "Fed" (another BS organization), sums things up perfectly....

"I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”.

 

[Doc Samson]

Its all deliberate and intentional and all meant to keep you constantly guessing and unsure of where you stand, which leads to hopelessness, which is the goal, so just do what youre told and dont question your betters.

No matter what things in plain and simple English might say, you know, like the Constitution, youre always told you cant possibly understand the complexities of things and misread. Only the lawyers and government can interpret and understand things. And of course, just change things at will as it suits them.

Alan Greenspan, former head of the "Fed" (another BS organization), sums things up perfectly....

"I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”.

'Zactly. Zero consequences or accountability, a toothless Congress, and so many "Will not comply" folks running to comply as quickly as possible means the ATF will continue to do whatever they want, when they want, to whoever they want.

Times like this I envy the anti-2A crowd because they would be mass riot... er, "protesting" until they got their way. Frustrating to have to "trust" a system that is overwhelmingly corrupt and politicized...

 

[Destructo6]

Its all deliberate and intentional and all meant to keep you constantly guessing and unsure of where you stand, which leads to hopelessness, which is the goal, so just do what youre told and dont question your betters.

Not deliberate, likely. Never underestimate the incompetence of the government.

 

[doubleh]

^ This. Can anyone name a government agency that has ever been competent and efficient?

 

[wally]

^ This. Can anyone name a government agency that has ever been competent and efficient?

NASA has been competent and effective at doing things that had never been done before, although the efficient part is debatable, since we used to joke we needed a pile of paperwork taller than the vehicle before we could launch it. But Musk and Bezos are showing that the private sector will always be more efficient once things have been proven to be doable. Private money would never be available to go to the moon for the first trip.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Just mate an upper fitted with a 16" barrel to the lower with the pistol brace and you're legal. No need to destroy anything.

Likewise, assemble a lower with just a plain-Jane pistol buffer tube so you're legal to possess the "pistol" upper you have, which I presume is fitted with a barrel length less than 16". This way you're not in "material possession" of an unregistered short barrel rifle by possessing the "pistol" upper but no "pistol" lower.

 

[FL-NC]

Just mate an upper fitted with a 16" barrel to the lower with the pistol brace and you're legal. No need to destroy anything.

Likewise, assemble a lower with just a plain-Jane pistol buffer tube so you're legal to possess the "pistol" upper you have, which I presume is fitted with a barrel length less than 16". This way you're not in "material possession" of an unregistered short barrel rifle by possessing the "pistol" upper but no "pistol" lower.

In order to facilitate these options, the ATF should be more than willing to cover the costs for parts and labor to make this happen. After all, this whole debacle is the result of them not paying attention or changing their mind.

 

[FL-NC]

I was once told that if you don't know what in the "heck" you are doing, don't do it and admit you don't know. Everyone else is going to know after you mess up whatever it is you tried and end up looking like a moron anyway. It appears that this is what is going on repeatedly, and the morons keep doubling down on their own incompetence.

 

[dogtown tom]

I will provide a couple links when I locate them but I seem to recall an inquiry where the ATF director was grilled about the implications and legal ramifications for anybody who is in possession of a braced firearm and I distinctly recall the director saying that all anybody had to do to be in compliance with the recent rule flip was to remove the brace from the buffer tube/reciever and the director was quoted as saying "all anybody with a braced firearm would have to do to be in compliance would be to remove the brace device from the buffer tube extension". Pretty much verbatim.

Thats one option.

Now, it seems that the most recent, as of yesterday I think, there is a new letter that says that the brace must be removed and destroyed, or altered so that it cannot be re-attached.

No, its not new at all. It's been on the ATF.gov website since January: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
As far as options for someone who does not have any rifles and possesses only a pistol with an arm brace?"https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...abilizingbracefinalrule-sec508-v2pdf/download

It's very bad communication and typical of a government agency,

Sorry, thats nonsense. On January 31st when the Rule went into effect ATF published plenty of information regarding compliance under the rule.

but it's also very irresponsible to flip flop back and fourth on an issue time and time again such that anybody who was listening to the directions straight from the director as to how to be in compliance last month, but didn't keep apprised of the issue could potentially face a felony charge, prison and massive fines.

ATF has not flip flopped a single time since the rule was published on January 31st.

I will post links shortly, apparently a new letter came out this week that would contradict the directors claims from April.

I would love to see such letter.

It's frustrating, I know of alot of simple folks who aren't going to comply or even know they are in violation because they just don't keep up and don't have their noses buried in their phones or talk guns or politics, it just isn't reasonable imo.

Happened in 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994......just with gun laws.

Knowing just how serious federal firearms laws are and what can result just from being charged with a violation, someone would have to be really stupid to not take gun ownership seriously. Part of that is being aware that laws change all the time. Just as they changed in 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994. What was perfectly legal the day before changed to being prohibited or regulated the next day.

 

[dogtown tom]

Just mate an upper fitted with a 16" barrel to the lower with the pistol brace and you're legal. No need to destroy anything.

Likewise, assemble a lower with just a plain-Jane pistol buffer tube so you're legal to possess the "pistol" upper you have, which I presume is fitted with a barrel length less than 16". This way you're not in "material possession" of an unregistered short barrel rifle by possessing the "pistol" upper but no "pistol" lower.

None of that is necessary.
If you do not intend to take advantage of the free Form 1 during the forbearance period, and you have AR rifles.......just remove the arm brace from your pistol. It's now just a spare shoulder stock for your other rifles.

 

[wally]

Thats one option.

Knowing just how serious federal firearms laws are and what can result just from being charged with a violation, someone would have to be really stupid to not take gun ownership seriously.

Funny how they never seem to prosecute "Felon in possession of a firearm" violations.

 

[lsudave]

None of that is necessary.
If you do not intend to take advantage of the free Form 1 during the forbearance period, and you have AR rifles.......just remove the arm brace from your pistol. It's now just a spare shoulder stock for your other rifles.

That is a common-sense answer, but common sense doesn't apply to the issue.

The true issue, when it all boils down to essential parts, is the existence of uppers with barrels shorter than 16 inches. You have one, and put it on a lower with a stock, and they call it a SBR and it's a felony.

• but these uppers are completely legal to buy, anyone can go online and get them mailed directly to your house.
• any lower seems to fall into the "lower with a stock" category, as they are now calling braces stocks. And there seems to be a concern that even a plain buffer tube, without anything, in theory could be shouldered. If you do that, it's a felony.
• if they want to be very snotty about things, having a regular AR lower near a short upper in theory could be bad. And they know full well, 95%+ of people who own an AR pistol will also own at least one rifle, with a stock. Swap lowers, you commit a federal crime.

The problem I perceive, is that there's no way around it, to keep things the way they are currently. You can either drop the length requirement on the barrel, or completely ban the sales of shorter barreled uppers. Anything in between creates incredible confusion. And without any personal opinion injected into this from me, I would say banning the short barrels, after allowing them to be sold for a decade, will be impossible. You make several million citizens felons if you do so.

 

[Trey Veston]

I just talked to an ATF agent on Saturday. I jokingly asked him when he was going to start breaking down doors to confiscate pistol braces. He chuckled, then got serious and said that he and every agent in his regional office would refuse to engage such unconstitutional behavior.

He said the agents on the ground in the red states are sick to their stomachs over how political and anti-American the leadership has become.

I hear the same from all the law enforcement officers I interact with (some are family). So, who exactly is going to enforce this ridiculous rule change?

 

[DustyGmt]

None of that is necessary.
If you do not intend to take advantage of the free Form 1 during the forbearance period, and you have AR rifles.......just remove the arm brace from your pistol. It's now just a spare shoulder stock for your other rifles.

Perhaps there haven't been any changes made to the rules outlined on the Jan 13 document, although I thought there was. It was indicated as such by the guy who runs the Mrgunsngear youtube channel I had recently viewed, he usually posts relevant links but links in this video are curiously absent.(33) Breaking: ATF Changes Their Mind On Pistol Braces AGAIN - YouTube


I know getting your information from a YouTube creator is ill advised, but he seems legit, but if the ATF hasnt had a couple revisions on the pistol brace rule since Jan 13, then unfortunately he straight up lies about that and shows us a phony letter. He's an FFL too.

Sorry, that was my understanding of the issue, if there are no revisions at the very least the ATF are jackholes for advising and misleading people on record at SHOT show where agents claimed the same thing their Directror said about being in compliance simply by removing the brace from the pistol.

The Supreme Court said the same thing in United States V. Thompson/Center arms Co.

Under Thompson/Center, possession of a firearm and parts that can only be assembled into an NFA “firearm” constitutes possession of an NFA firearm. But, if the parts can be assembled into multiple lawful configurations, then the parts are not considered an NFA firearm (unless an unlawful configuration is actually assembled).

Sorry, no links. But it's still flip flopping from my point of view, first the proposed point system worksheet, the published rules that came out in January, their agents and director talking out of school and in error in front of congress and everybody else in the country....

Eta: I might have this all screwed up. It's a confusing issue for me. But I guess I don't feel that bad, alot of other people seem to be in the same boat.

 

[Destructo6]

ATF has not flip flopped a single time since the rule was published on January 31st.

On April 26th, the director of ATF, Dettelbach, while testifying in front of Congress, stated that by simply removing the brace would be sufficient to bring a braced pistol out of SBR danger. That's a direct contradiction to what ATF's website said and says. I'd call that a flip/flop.

 

[dogtown tom]

Funny how they never seem to prosecute "Felon in possession of a firearm" violations.

Funny how that statement is false.

 

[dogtown tom]

That is a common-sense answer, but common sense doesn't apply to the issue.

My answer isn't just common sense, it's accurate.

The true issue, when it all boils down to essential parts, is the existence of uppers with barrels shorter than 16 inches. You have one, and put it on a lower with a stock, and they call it a SBR and it's a felony.

Which has been true since 1934.

but these uppers are completely legal to buy, anyone can go online and get them mailed directly to your house.

So what? You could do that twenty years ago before anyone ever heard of an "arm brace".

any lower seems to fall into the "lower with a stock" category,

Wrong. Not all lowers have stocks or arm braces. This rule amends the definition of SBR to include pistols with arm braces......NOT "lowers with a stock" which are not SBR's and never have been.

as they are now calling braces stocks.

Well, yeah. That what happens when you amend a definition.

And there seems to be a concern that even a plain buffer tube, without anything, in theory could be shouldered. If you do that, it's a felony.

Horsehockey.
Seriously, that's not close to accurate and shows a serious ignorance of what this rule is about.

if they want to be very snotty about things, having a regular AR lower near a short upper in theory could be bad.

Dude.....stop.
You are so ill informed it's making my head hurt.
An AR lower is still an AR lower no matter what other parts are "near". It can be made into a rifle, pistol or even a firearm that is neither rifle or pistol. Having it close to a "short upper" does nothing, isn't illegal and isn't at all related to anything regulated under this rule.

And they know full well, 95%+ of people who own an AR pistol will also own at least one rifle, with a stock. Swap lowers, you commit a federal crime.

Again, wrong. Whoever filled your head with this nonsense your posting......stop listening to them. If it's your own cogitation....stop thinking.
If you have an AR pistol, you can reassemble it into a rifle, then later back to a pistol. Perfectly legal according to ATF Ruling 2011-4 https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/r...red-rifles-rifles-configured-pistols/download See that date? 2011? Thats been in effect for over a decade and discussed dozens if not hundreds of times on THR.

The problem I perceive, is that there's no way around it, to keep things the way they are currently. You can either drop the length requirement on the barrel, or completely ban the sales of shorter barreled uppers. Anything in between creates incredible confusion.

Again, nonsense. You assume the only use for a short barreled upper is an SBR or a pistol with an arm brace. Guess what? Plenty of people built AR pistols before 2012.
The only thing creating confusion is people posting about something they really don't understand very well.

And without any personal opinion injected into this from me, I would say banning the short barrels, after allowing them to be sold for a decade, will be impossible. You make several million citizens felons if you do so.

Take a deep breath, then go read up on what is actually being regulated. Hint....it's not "short barrels" and short barrels have been sold for the last half century.

 

[dogtown tom]

I just talked to an ATF agent on Saturday. I jokingly asked him when he was going to start breaking down doors to confiscate pistol braces. He chuckled, then got serious and said that he and every agent in his regional office would refuse to engage such unconstitutional behavior.

He said the agents on the ground in the red states are sick to their stomachs over how political and anti-American the leadership has become.

I hear the same from all the law enforcement officers I interact with (some are family). So, who exactly is going to enforce this ridiculous rule change?

Those that want to keep their job.

 

[dogtown tom]

On April 26th, the director of ATF, Dettelbach, while testifying in front of Congress, stated that by simply removing the brace would be sufficient to bring a braced pistol out of SBR danger. That's a direct contradiction to what ATF's website said and says. I'd call that a flip/flop.

I watched him testify and heard that too. His inept testimony doesn't change what the rule says.

 

[Destructo6]

His inept testimony doesn't change what the rule says.

It does equate to an official flip/flop.

 

[dogtown tom]

It does equate to an official flip/flop.

If every word out of a politician or bureaucrats mouth was "official" we would be in deeper trouble than we already are.