IMO the inventory date of an item is the acquisition date that for which you have the receipt.AgLA06 said:
Cool. I missed that one point in pages after pages of posts. Now I'm hosed.
We as citizens shouldn't have to check the ATF daily to see what new FAQ will screw us.
Update on pistol brace?
93,529 Views |
797 Replies |
Last: 3 mo ago by tandy miller
Can you login in to the ATF website? I think you can see all your stamps.Quote:
Oh well. I need to find all my trust papers anyways. And I am pretty sure my physical registration papers for my suppressors are lost forever in a move. Need to find out how to replace those.
so if someone were not particularly interested in the SBR route, could you simply change out your upper for one with a 16" barrel while you wait to see how this all shakes out?
or is there a constructive possession concern as long as you also own the upper with the under 16" barrel?
or is there a constructive possession concern as long as you also own the upper with the under 16" barrel?
Or just take the brace off and own a pure AR pistol.
perfect, thanks for the quick response!Yesterday said:
Or just take the brace off and own a pure AR pistol.
Yesterday said:
Or just take the brace off and own a pure AR pistol.
I think this is likely the best option for many....
Do you have to send in evidence of destruction of it or can someone say "i threw it away"
I think his question still stands though around constructive possession. Is there anything he should do with that brace if he were actually concerned?jackie childs said:perfect, thanks for the quick response!Yesterday said:
Or just take the brace off and own a pure AR pistol.
Not legal advice
The brace is not in and of itself illegal. I understand the ATF said to destroy it, but that is BS as the recent 5th circuit stated with the bump stock.
I would for sure hold onto it for the 120 days and then do as you wish after if we don't get a stay or overturn by then.
The brace is not in and of itself illegal. I understand the ATF said to destroy it, but that is BS as the recent 5th circuit stated with the bump stock.
I would for sure hold onto it for the 120 days and then do as you wish after if we don't get a stay or overturn by then.
Since we're all spitballing and waiting...
Theoretically, if 2 different households each had a braced pistol...And those pistols were disassembled, and one person kept two braced lowers, and the other kept two pistol uppers, neither has constructive possession of a full braced pistol...Right?
Theoretically, if 2 different households each had a braced pistol...And those pistols were disassembled, and one person kept two braced lowers, and the other kept two pistol uppers, neither has constructive possession of a full braced pistol...Right?
Here are the options if one does not plan to go the SBR route from the ATF's FAQs.
COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
4. WHAT ARE THE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL (NON-LICENSEE) IN POSSESSION OF A
FIREARM EQUIPPED WITH A "STABILIZING BRACE," WHICH IS A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR), AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE?
Submit through the eForms system an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF Form 1 (E-
Form 1) within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
Permanently remove or alter the "stabilizing brace" so that it cannot be reattached and thereby
removing it from regulation as a "firearm" under the NFA.
Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm thus removing
it from the provisions of the NFA.
Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.
Destroy the firearm. For more information go to How to Properly Destroy Firearms | Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov)
The guy from Guns and Gadgets on Youtube was on the call with the ATF yesterday where they attempted to answer questions. He addresses several things like putting a smooth buffer tube on, the Shockwave brace, constructive intent, etc.
COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
4. WHAT ARE THE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL (NON-LICENSEE) IN POSSESSION OF A
FIREARM EQUIPPED WITH A "STABILIZING BRACE," WHICH IS A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR), AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE?
Submit through the eForms system an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF Form 1 (E-
Form 1) within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
Permanently remove or alter the "stabilizing brace" so that it cannot be reattached and thereby
removing it from regulation as a "firearm" under the NFA.
Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm thus removing
it from the provisions of the NFA.
Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.
Destroy the firearm. For more information go to How to Properly Destroy Firearms | Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov)
The guy from Guns and Gadgets on Youtube was on the call with the ATF yesterday where they attempted to answer questions. He addresses several things like putting a smooth buffer tube on, the Shockwave brace, constructive intent, etc.
Multiple lawsuits already filed.
Praying for injuction/stay/relief whatever..
"Destroy the Firearm"????
Destroy a firearm because of a piece of plastic that can easily be removed that you guys arbitrarily decided was against the law after decades of saying it was legal? **** these guys.
Destroy a firearm because of a piece of plastic that can easily be removed that you guys arbitrarily decided was against the law after decades of saying it was legal? **** these guys.
They've stated multiple times that owning the brace is not illegal. It's perfectly fine if you swap the uppers with a 16" barrel. Go ahead and keep the brace. I believe in that video where Guns and Gadgets was on the ATF call yesterday, they state that you could remove the brace, place a smooth buffer tube on, and then reattach the brace so long as it isn't permanently attached and you could demonstrate a verifiable need to use a brace. And apparently a Shockwave brace is ok to keep on in that configuration.
I've read through the 293 pages multiple times, and it's chock full of contradictions. The hope is that it gets stuck down quickly and that several of the previous rulings that were shot down like the Bumpstock Ban and the common use argument help expedite it.
I've read through the 293 pages multiple times, and it's chock full of contradictions. The hope is that it gets stuck down quickly and that several of the previous rulings that were shot down like the Bumpstock Ban and the common use argument help expedite it.
He clarified in his next video he was not talking about the kak shockwave brace, but the mossberg shockwave.
However, the fact that there is so much confusion about the rule, is exactly why I've always thought (and so does Guns and Gadgets) that this rule doesn't really stand a chance, at least not in its current form.
However, the fact that there is so much confusion about the rule, is exactly why I've always thought (and so does Guns and Gadgets) that this rule doesn't really stand a chance, at least not in its current form.
I missed the note in the description on the Shockwave. Thanks for clarifying.
Around the 2:25 mark of the video you posted (very informative, thanks!), he seems to imply that you wouldn't necessarily have to install a smooth buffer tube.
Or maybe I'm reading too much into his wording, but it almost sounds like just removing the brace part would suffice
Or maybe I'm reading too much into his wording, but it almost sounds like just removing the brace part would suffice
**** them, I'm going to shoulder it ever harder.
I appreciate the mature and thoughtful response. I just think it's ridiculous to even include destroying the firearm as an option. It's like listing "burn down your house" as an option when dealing with a insect infestation. Sure it solves the problem and is plausible but it's insane.
It depends on the infestation right? Full of spiders, burn it down!
lp01 said:
It depends on the infestation right? Full of spiders, burn it down!
That's why I said insects specifically and not arachnids
Darren A. Britto v ATF - filed in Amarillo - Northern District of Texas
https://will-law.org/military-veterans-sue-biden-administration-to-protect-second-amendment-rights/
https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ATF-Complaint-Final-PDF.pdf
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/2:2023cv00019/372602
Assigned to Trump Appointee and Abilene Christian/Sip Law gradaute Matthew J. Kacsmaryk. He seems to rule exactly how you would imagine a Trump appointee would, but dont think he's had a gun case yet. Slate has an article hating on him: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/republican-trump-federal-judges-defy-precedent.html He used to be General Counsel for First Liberty Institute, which is a Conservative Christian group. Member of the Federalist Society
Mock v Garland
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mock
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66774568/mock-v-garland/
This has been assigned to Justice Reed OConner. Reed previously ruled that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was unconstitutional (later reversed by appeals). He has also blocked vaccine requirements with injunctions.
Watterson vs Garland:
https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Complaint.pdf
This was assigned to Amos Mazzant, Obama appointee from Baylor Law. Not counting on this one. Hey Leininger, you could have done better with your judge choice.
As I find more, I will post them.
https://will-law.org/military-veterans-sue-biden-administration-to-protect-second-amendment-rights/
https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/ATF-Complaint-Final-PDF.pdf
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txndce/2:2023cv00019/372602
Assigned to Trump Appointee and Abilene Christian/Sip Law gradaute Matthew J. Kacsmaryk. He seems to rule exactly how you would imagine a Trump appointee would, but dont think he's had a gun case yet. Slate has an article hating on him: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/republican-trump-federal-judges-defy-precedent.html He used to be General Counsel for First Liberty Institute, which is a Conservative Christian group. Member of the Federalist Society
Mock v Garland
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mock
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66774568/mock-v-garland/
This has been assigned to Justice Reed OConner. Reed previously ruled that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was unconstitutional (later reversed by appeals). He has also blocked vaccine requirements with injunctions.
Watterson vs Garland:
https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Complaint.pdf
This was assigned to Amos Mazzant, Obama appointee from Baylor Law. Not counting on this one. Hey Leininger, you could have done better with your judge choice.
As I find more, I will post them.
FWIW my money is going to FPC these days. They're not screwing around.
This.
Have supported for a few years now.
Have supported for a few years now.
Same. May throw some cash at FracAction too.
BSD said:
Same. May throw some cash at FracAction too.
Did you watch Q's "Why Comply" video also?
Which video is that?
Who the hell is this yahoo? I'll go ahead and put him in the "concerned gun owner" category which is the same category I put "useful cat turds" in.
BrazosDog02 said:
Who the hell is this yahoo? I'll go ahead and put him in the "concerned gun owner" category which is the same category I put "useful cat turds" in.
To give context: He owns a gun company and is talking about why his company is complying and not selling braced weapons (because they'd be shut down and he has employees to pay). He's not talking as an individual gun owner or telling any individual to comply. He's speaking as a gun manufacturer (Q, known for the Honey Badger).
Edit: But there at many that hate him as a person, too, so he still may be in the cat turd box depending on who you ask. That said, he has spent millions fighting the brace thing before. Love him or hate him, he's on your side.
BSD said:BrazosDog02 said:
Who the hell is this yahoo? I'll go ahead and put him in the "concerned gun owner" category which is the same category I put "useful cat turds" in.
To give context: He owns a gun company and is talking about why his company is complying and not selling braced weapons (because they'd be shut down and he has employees to pay). He's not talking as an individual gun owner or telling any individual to comply. He's speaking as a gun manufacturer (Q, known for the Honey Badger).
Edit: But there at many that the him as a person, too, so he still may be in the cat turd box depending on who you ask. That said, he has spent millions fighting the brace thing before. Love him or hate him, he's on your side.
This. Developer of the 300 and 8.6 BLK. Owner of Q LLC. He was responding to people giving him **** about complying now. Kevin's a cool guy, a hit abrasive but funny as ****. He is 150% on our side.
I simply posted the video as requested since I brought it up. It was the first time I had heard of Fracwhatever last night and then it was mentioned in this thread today.
But keep being an internet badass BrazosDog and alienating your allies. Never change.
lp01 said:
Here are the options if one does not plan to go the SBR route from the ATF's FAQs.
COMPLIANCE OPTIONS
4. WHAT ARE THE COMPLIANCE OPTIONS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL (NON-LICENSEE) IN POSSESSION OF A
FIREARM EQUIPPED WITH A "STABILIZING BRACE," WHICH IS A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR), AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE?
Submit through the eForms system an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF Form 1 (E-
Form 1) within 120-days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
Permanently remove or alter the "stabilizing brace" so that it cannot be reattached and thereby
removing it from regulation as a "firearm" under the NFA.
Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm thus removing
it from the provisions of the NFA.
Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.
Destroy the firearm. For more information go to How to Properly Destroy Firearms | Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov)
"Turn the firearm into your local ATF office."
How, exactly, does one turn an AR Pistol into an ATF office? That seems like a LOT of work...
I guess you could just make the pistol fire duds, then it would be just as effective as an ATF office.
NickNaylor said:
**** them, I'm going to shoulder it ever harder.
Cheek weld and everything!
My apologies.Bregxit said:BSD said:BrazosDog02 said:
Who the hell is this yahoo? I'll go ahead and put him in the "concerned gun owner" category which is the same category I put "useful cat turds" in.
To give context: He owns a gun company and is talking about why his company is complying and not selling braced weapons (because they'd be shut down and he has employees to pay). He's not talking as an individual gun owner or telling any individual to comply. He's speaking as a gun manufacturer (Q, known for the Honey Badger).
Edit: But there at many that the him as a person, too, so he still may be in the cat turd box depending on who you ask. That said, he has spent millions fighting the brace thing before. Love him or hate him, he's on your side.
This. Developer of the 300 and 8.6 BLK. Owner of Q LLC. He was responding to people giving him **** about complying now. Kevin's a cool guy, a hit abrasive but funny as ****. He is 150% on our side.
I simply posted the video as requested since I brought it up. It was the first time I had heard of Fracwhatever last night and then it was mentioned in this thread today.
But keep being an internet badass BrazosDog and alienating your allies. Never change.
You can absolutely get bent over your last comment, though.
You see a comedian doing the lord's work, and perhaps he is. I see one video and my initial reaction is "Who is this ****** bag and why is he hacking out a 10 minute video whining about nasty comments and telling me he is following the law because its the law and he doesn't want to lose money or go to jail." Isn't that what we all want...to not lose our business and not go to prison?
My apologies for not seeing deeper into the video. He has people railing on him not because he is abrasive but because he seems disingenuous.
I have never heard of him. That doesn't mean anything, but this is the first video I have ever seen of him that was my reaction to him.
Nice of all of you sheep to sheep. The government appreciates it!
Featured Stories
See All
Presenting Texas Aggies United’s Best Seats In The House Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
25:22
48m ago
1.3k
13:16
13h ago
2.8k
Defense in Review feat. Sean Porter: Texas A&M 33, Florida 20
by Billy Liucci
19:50
3h ago
2.4k
The Film Room: Texas A&M 33, Florida 20
by Stephen McGee
11:34
3h ago
1.1k
LB Blitz: Texas A&M 33, Florida 20
by Sean Porter
Muktheduck
O lineman Reed-Adams was ready to bring the pain vs Florida
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
114
AggieBucksJB
O lineman Reed-Adams was ready to bring the pain vs Florida
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
66
96AgGrad
O lineman Reed-Adams was ready to bring the pain vs Florida
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
47
Daddy
O lineman Reed-Adams was ready to bring the pain vs Florida
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
38