Really glad I already form 1-ed my main 2 for this exact reason
Update on pistol brace?
95,537 Views |
797 Replies |
Last: 5 mo ago by tandy miller
No worries, they'll move seven of the eight people doing Form 4s over to the Form 1 side. The wait shouldn't be more than two decades for a Form 1 and about six years for a Form 4. Seems like they could borrow a few folks from the 87K new IRS agents, but we all know that won't happen. They won't lift a finger to improve efficiency. E-Forms have taught us that if nothing else.javajaws said:
Good luck waiting for X number of years for that approval to replace the brace with a stock. Meanwhile non-brace SBR filers will also have to wait to put a stock on since the wait time will be forever with all the backlog.
It's like a win-win for the ATF and a royal screwing for anyone who wants an SBR in the next 10 years.
Longer wait times is seen as a feature, not a bug
I'm incredibly cynical but atf at shot show said they are quadrupling the size of their team for processing submissions.
in response to a ruling that has 40,000,000 potential braces to process on top of regular submissions. Our government is a complete and utter joke.FTAG 2000 said:
I'm incredibly cynical but atf at shot show said they are quadrupling the size of their team for processing submissions.
What are they going to do with all those agents when the courts overrule this regulation by citing the Cargill decision of 2023?
Oh...
Oh...
Guitarsoup said:
What are they going to do with all those agents when the courts overrule this regulation by citing the Cargill decision of 2023?
Oh...
Tyrants always reward compliance with more tyranny. Do not comply with tyrants.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) December 2, 2021
Tyrants reward compliance with more tyranny.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) December 11, 2022
Shouldn't you be licking the ATF's boots right now? Nothing flew over my head, meanwhile you are rushing to register before the rule is even published.mhnatt said:Guitarsoup said:
What are they going to do with all those agents when the courts overrule this regulation by citing the Cargill decision of 2023?
Oh...
I'd rather pay to SBR a couple lowers to my trust than send in an amnesty SBR for a pistol mod.
Then they technically can't say I am breaking the law currently if I have an illegal pistol. It's just an unattached lower.
I don't trust these ****s at all.
Then they technically can't say I am breaking the law currently if I have an illegal pistol. It's just an unattached lower.
I don't trust these ****s at all.
We have decided to wait it out for a while. If it gets overturned, or an injunction delays in the mean time, we have done nothing and lost nothing.JeremiahJohnson said:
I'd rather pay to SBR a couple lowers to my trust than send in an amnesty SBR for a pistol mod.
Then they technically can't say I am breaking the law currently if I have an illegal pistol. It's just an unattached lower.
I don't trust these ****s at all.
New thing found in the paperwork is hitting the YT and Reddit spheres. According to what I believe is common interpretation of a clause, imported firearms that had braces installed on them from the beginning will not be shielded from whatever "grandfather" clause the ATF is saying they will allow and the ONLY option I have found so far is to surrender or destroy.
A huge chunk of firearms fall into this category. Looked into it myself and this is the exact wording below.
Pretty big last minute find IMO and another loophole that is going to screw a LOT of people. How many of yall have a Draco or SP5 or EVO? Looks like those are going to be hot goods in the future with zero way to keep them legally. Period
Thoughts? I am not a lawyer but this is how I am interpreting the wording as well. As this scenario is explicitly outlined in the ruling, I can't see any real mistake of what they are attempting to do here. Which is wipe out another swath of firearms in American hands.
A huge chunk of firearms fall into this category. Looked into it myself and this is the exact wording below.
From what I read, the crime was already done at assembly and the only "solution" I can find so far, is to turn in or destroy.Quote:
The criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 922(r) is for the "assembl[y]" of the semi-automatic rifle; therefore, modification of this kind of firearm through the removal of the relevant parts would not cure the 922(r) violation because the "assembl[y]" has already occurred. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the costs outlined in the standalone RIA, ATF assumes this group may use another scenario, such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy.
Pretty big last minute find IMO and another loophole that is going to screw a LOT of people. How many of yall have a Draco or SP5 or EVO? Looks like those are going to be hot goods in the future with zero way to keep them legally. Period
Thoughts? I am not a lawyer but this is how I am interpreting the wording as well. As this scenario is explicitly outlined in the ruling, I can't see any real mistake of what they are attempting to do here. Which is wipe out another swath of firearms in American hands.
I would be curious if that is a moot point since they cite the bump stock ban there as a precedent and that has now been struck down.
Eliminatus said:
How many of yall have a Draco or SP5 or EVO?
Ha good try!
I found the fed guys!
That's likely a 922r issue due to import restrictions. Imported rifles come in to the country in really weird configurations to meet 922r. Most of them are modified once they arrive. Things like changing stocks, magazines and threading the barrel happen here. This rule has changed their status from a pistol to a rifle which changes which importation requirements they should have met and means those shipped with a brace attached were actually imported with a stock (ATF'S opinion, not mine) that violates 922r regs. It's complete horse****, but I bet that's their thought process.
I know AP5s came with a brace unattached in the box which was added by Century USA after import, so in that scenario you should be good on 922r because it was imported in pistol format and converted to a rifle by installation of the brace after import. Again, I don't agree with this, it's just likely the ATF's interpretation.
I may be wrong, but I doubt many came in with a brace already attached.
I know AP5s came with a brace unattached in the box which was added by Century USA after import, so in that scenario you should be good on 922r because it was imported in pistol format and converted to a rifle by installation of the brace after import. Again, I don't agree with this, it's just likely the ATF's interpretation.
I may be wrong, but I doubt many came in with a brace already attached.
Glad I don't have to deal with this right now, as I don't have anything that has a brace. That's not to say I don't care about this issue. Just not sure what I'd do. I'm generally a rule follower, but I'd have a hard time with this one.
How is this not just backdoor attempt at a registry?
Also, explain to me where a government agency has the authority to pass legislation?
If this stands up in court, then we truly have no freedoms left. They would exist only on a whim of unelected officials.
Also, explain to me where a government agency has the authority to pass legislation?
If this stands up in court, then we truly have no freedoms left. They would exist only on a whim of unelected officials.
More on possible ATF traps
I'm with this guy. I don't think that 88-day trap is real, for a number of reasons he explained. I think that GOA guy was either being disingenuous or just outright fear mongering. Either way, not a good look for GOA.Guitarsoup said:
More on possible ATF traps
I think it's flat out fear mongering.
I mean surely he realizes that there are people at 200+ days on form 4's whose background check hasn't been denied, and that form 1's don't take 9 months
I mean surely he realizes that there are people at 200+ days on form 4's whose background check hasn't been denied, and that form 1's don't take 9 months
What he is failing to state in the Washington Gun Rights video is that the time frame for a Form 1 or Form 4 BCG doesnt' start at the date of submission - it starts whenever the ATF agent gets around to actually doing the BGC.tandy miller said:
I think it's flat out fear mongering.
I mean surely he realizes that there are people at 200+ days on form 4's whose background check hasn't been denied, and that form 1's don't take 9 months
Your application could sit on a desk for 6 months before they run your name through the same BGC that you go through on a 4473, so I'm not agreeing that the GOA view of it is necessarily incorrect and his view that if the 88 days was applicable, all Form 1's and Form 4's would come back denied automatically is not genuine either.
Personally, I think the ATF is nefarious AF and will find loopholes to ensure that as many people become felons as possible because felons can't own or possess firearms, and that is the end goal. Call me a tin-foil hatter or whatever, dont' care - I have less than zero trust or faith in the feds, much less an alphabet agency, to believe that they are on the up and up with anything. And even less faith when it comes to the ATF because I truly believe that the federal government wants an unarmed populace.
Exactly what stops the ATF from starting the clock on your 88 days and not getting around to actually completing the background check?
I'm asking seriously, because I don't know. I don't have any stamps.
I'm asking seriously, because I don't know. I don't have any stamps.
Nothing, though I believe legally the clock doesn't start until the BGC is actually initiated.Guitarsoup said:
Exactly what stops the ATF from starting the clock on your 88 days and not getting around to actually completing the background check?
I'm asking seriously, because I don't know. I don't have any stamps.
Hell, there was an ATF agent that was famous for getting tired of the applications on his desk and he'd periodically throw them in the trash.
The entire procedure is just cumbersome and stupid and the rulings are written in such a manner that, like this one, nobody actually knows what it says....which is by design so it can be interpreted in any way it needs to be interpreted to get the result they are looking for.
95% of the background is simply a NICS check which we know doesn't take 88 days. The rest is FBI reading prints (used to take 2-3 weeks once sent out), checking local laws to ensure the applicant is legally able to have the NFA item, and having a legal examiner review trusts/corps if submitted that way. The NICS check typically isn't the delay. The delay is the time is takes to get the paperwork to the top of the examiner's pile.Guitarsoup said:
Exactly what stops the ATF from starting the clock on your 88 days and not getting around to actually completing the background check?
I'm asking seriously, because I don't know. I don't have any stamps.
I agree with schmellba that this is fear mongering from GOA.
What if the ATF director or AG decides as part of a background check for a NFA item, the person's social media needs to be investigated and documented?txyaloo said:95% of the background is simply a NICS check which we know doesn't take 88 days. The rest is FBI reading prints (used to take 2-3 weeks once sent out), checking local laws to ensure the applicant is legally able to have the NFA item, and having a legal examiner review trusts/corps if submitted that way. The NICS check typically isn't the delay. The delay is the time is takes to get the paperwork to the top of the examiner's pile.Guitarsoup said:
Exactly what stops the ATF from starting the clock on your 88 days and not getting around to actually completing the background check?
I'm asking seriously, because I don't know. I don't have any stamps.
I agree with schmellba that this is fear mongering from GOA.
While executive branch agencies can unilaterally create admin law, they still have to follow the comment/publication process before implementation. So would have to draft that rule, allow a comment period, the put the proposed rule change in the federal register before it could "go live".Guitarsoup said:What if the ATF director or AG decides as part of a background check for a NFA item, the person's social media needs to be investigated and documented?txyaloo said:95% of the background is simply a NICS check which we know doesn't take 88 days. The rest is FBI reading prints (used to take 2-3 weeks once sent out), checking local laws to ensure the applicant is legally able to have the NFA item, and having a legal examiner review trusts/corps if submitted that way. The NICS check typically isn't the delay. The delay is the time is takes to get the paperwork to the top of the examiner's pile.Guitarsoup said:
Exactly what stops the ATF from starting the clock on your 88 days and not getting around to actually completing the background check?
I'm asking seriously, because I don't know. I don't have any stamps.
I agree with schmellba that this is fear mongering from GOA.
I don't think it's fear mongering on the GOA. I"m sure that there is some there, all of those orgs have to have it for survival, obviously, but I don't think this issue is that.
I legitimately think that the rule is written so poorly and can be interpreted in so many different ways that it is likely a trap by the ATF in some form or fashion. The video posted by the Washington gun rights dude didn't get the 88 day scenario correct in the way he explained it IMO.
I legitimately think that the rule is written so poorly and can be interpreted in so many different ways that it is likely a trap by the ATF in some form or fashion. The video posted by the Washington gun rights dude didn't get the 88 day scenario correct in the way he explained it IMO.
Bold of you to assume they are so pure and honest and wholesome that they actually follow the law. It's not like we don't have plenty of very recent examples of the government failing to follow their own procedures or regulations.txyaloo said:While executive branch agencies can unilaterally create admin law, they still have to follow the comment/publication process before implementation. So would have to draft that rule, allow a comment period, the put the proposed rule change in the federal register before it could "go live".Guitarsoup said:What if the ATF director or AG decides as part of a background check for a NFA item, the person's social media needs to be investigated and documented?txyaloo said:95% of the background is simply a NICS check which we know doesn't take 88 days. The rest is FBI reading prints (used to take 2-3 weeks once sent out), checking local laws to ensure the applicant is legally able to have the NFA item, and having a legal examiner review trusts/corps if submitted that way. The NICS check typically isn't the delay. The delay is the time is takes to get the paperwork to the top of the examiner's pile.Guitarsoup said:
Exactly what stops the ATF from starting the clock on your 88 days and not getting around to actually completing the background check?
I'm asking seriously, because I don't know. I don't have any stamps.
I agree with schmellba that this is fear mongering from GOA.
Which is absolute garbage in of itself, but that's another discussion where we can rage against the slow as molasses in January movement of any .gov agency.txyaloo said:95% of the background is simply a NICS check which we know doesn't take 88 days. The rest is FBI reading prints (used to take 2-3 weeks once sent out), checking local laws to ensure the applicant is legally able to have the NFA item, and having a legal examiner review trusts/corps if submitted that way. The NICS check typically isn't the delay. The delay is the time is takes to get the paperwork to the top of the examiner's pile.Guitarsoup said:
Exactly what stops the ATF from starting the clock on your 88 days and not getting around to actually completing the background check?
I'm asking seriously, because I don't know. I don't have any stamps.
I agree with schmellba that this is fear mongering from GOA.
With this administration, I don't assume that at all. But, a social media background check would be a drastic change in the way NFA has been processed for decades. That's not something that ATF could just fly under the radar for long. Look at all of other drastic NFA changes we've seen in the last decade and all the hoops/delays ATF had.schmellba99 said:Bold of you to assume they are so pure and honest and wholesome that they actually follow the law. It's not like we don't have plenty of very recent examples of the government failing to follow their own procedures or regulations.txyaloo said:While executive branch agencies can unilaterally create admin law, they still have to follow the comment/publication process before implementation. So would have to draft that rule, allow a comment period, the put the proposed rule change in the federal register before it could "go live".Guitarsoup said:What if the ATF director or AG decides as part of a background check for a NFA item, the person's social media needs to be investigated and documented?txyaloo said:95% of the background is simply a NICS check which we know doesn't take 88 days. The rest is FBI reading prints (used to take 2-3 weeks once sent out), checking local laws to ensure the applicant is legally able to have the NFA item, and having a legal examiner review trusts/corps if submitted that way. The NICS check typically isn't the delay. The delay is the time is takes to get the paperwork to the top of the examiner's pile.Guitarsoup said:
Exactly what stops the ATF from starting the clock on your 88 days and not getting around to actually completing the background check?
I'm asking seriously, because I don't know. I don't have any stamps.
I agree with schmellba that this is fear mongering from GOA.
They'd have to update all of the paper NFA forms and eForms to add blanks for social media accounts, or they could possibly get this through other govt databases, but that is very unlikely IME. (I'm DOJ's program manager handling data center deployments at a Fortune 35).
Do you really think they would change their forms? Because I dont.
Guarantee you that it would be 100% under the radar wink-wink understood policy, not official.
Guarantee you that it would be 100% under the radar wink-wink understood policy, not official.
If we're spit balling here...schmellba99 said:
Do you really think they would change their forms? Because I dont.
Guarantee you that it would be 100% under the radar wink-wink understood policy, not official.
I don't think the infrastructure is there in the NFA branch or NICS section to do social media background checks, and implementing a program like that under the radar would significantly slow down the processing times of NFA forms (not all examiners could be in the program) and potentially draw Congressional attention to the NFA branch. There's at least a few Rs who would cause some noise.
Would how they investigate people with publicly found information even need to be published? I seriously doubt the ways the NSA, CIA, and FBI gather intelligence is posted in the Federal Register.txyaloo said:While executive branch agencies can unilaterally create admin law, they still have to follow the comment/publication process before implementation. So would have to draft that rule, allow a comment period, the put the proposed rule change in the federal register before it could "go live".Guitarsoup said:What if the ATF director or AG decides as part of a background check for a NFA item, the person's social media needs to be investigated and documented?txyaloo said:95% of the background is simply a NICS check which we know doesn't take 88 days. The rest is FBI reading prints (used to take 2-3 weeks once sent out), checking local laws to ensure the applicant is legally able to have the NFA item, and having a legal examiner review trusts/corps if submitted that way. The NICS check typically isn't the delay. The delay is the time is takes to get the paperwork to the top of the examiner's pile.Guitarsoup said:
Exactly what stops the ATF from starting the clock on your 88 days and not getting around to actually completing the background check?
I'm asking seriously, because I don't know. I don't have any stamps.
I agree with schmellba that this is fear mongering from GOA.
And it looks like the ATF still hasn't published the pistol brace bs in the federal register:
https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-bureau
That's exactly the point. Oh, well, it took longer than 88 days, you are automatically denied. BTW, you also sent us a picture and serial number of a prohibited weapon that you have in your possession. 10 years in jail, homey.txyaloo said:If we're spit balling here...schmellba99 said:
Do you really think they would change their forms? Because I dont.
Guarantee you that it would be 100% under the radar wink-wink understood policy, not official.
I don't think the infrastructure is there in the NFA branch or NICS section to do social media background checks, and implementing a program like that under the radar would significantly slow down the processing times of NFA forms (not all examiners could be in the program) and potentially draw Congressional attention to the NFA branch. There's at least a few Rs who would cause some noise.
Featured Stories
See All
10:53
9m ago
115
5 Thoughts: No. 23 Texas A&M 97, Lamar 71
by Luke Evangelist
Brauny's Best: Highlighting top high school performances from Week 11
by Ryan Brauninger
riverrataggie
Quinn Ewers begs girl for nude photos in wild leaked messages
in Texas A&M Football
105