Outdoors
Sponsored by

Update on pistol brace?

94,067 Views | 797 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by tandy miller
AggieT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Mr. Dubi said:

aggieforester05 said:

Mr. Dubi said:

El Chupacabra said:

What is this date exactly: "the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register"

So if we can get a trust amendment notarized tomorrow (Federal Holiday!) adding our hypothetical pistols, then it would be possible to get them a free stamp on the trust? If that's the way any of us decide to go further into the grace period. Decide not to, then you could just trash the amendment.


Does anyone know of this would need to be an amendment or just add them to the inventory list?

Would it need to be notarized?

I've had to notarize amendments in the past, but an amendment has never been required to add an item to the inventory list which has also never needed to be notarized.


In short, yes. They say in the questionnaire (#27) itemized, notarized inventory dated prior to publication in Federal Register. They appear to be making the rules (laws) up as they go along, so I would not be surprised if they found a way to weasel out of all approvals, making an ipso facto ban.
Can you provide a link for the questionnaire? I'm not seeing what you are referring to.

TIA
Mr. Dubi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AggieT said:

Mr. Dubi said:

aggieforester05 said:

Mr. Dubi said:

El Chupacabra said:

What is this date exactly: "the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register"

So if we can get a trust amendment notarized tomorrow (Federal Holiday!) adding our hypothetical pistols, then it would be possible to get them a free stamp on the trust? If that's the way any of us decide to go further into the grace period. Decide not to, then you could just trash the amendment.


Does anyone know of this would need to be an amendment or just add them to the inventory list?

Would it need to be notarized?

I've had to notarize amendments in the past, but an amendment has never been required to add an item to the inventory list which has also never needed to be notarized.


In short, yes. They say in the questionnaire (#27) itemized, notarized inventory dated prior to publication in Federal Register. They appear to be making the rules (laws) up as they go along, so I would not be surprised if they found a way to weasel out of all approvals, making an ipso facto ban.
Can you provide a link for the questionnaire? I'm not seeing what you are referring to.

TIA


https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/eformone-externalguidancewithqapdf/download

Page 16, question 27. Scroll all the way to the end, then it is second from the bottom of the document
Irish 2.0
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guitarsoup said:

BenderRodriguez said:

Theres some interesting things in motion.

Write your congress critters reminding them that the ATF is way overstepping their limits here, especially in light of the Bruin decision.

They wont fight for us, but maybe atf taking power from them will actually get them motivated.

If the best possible response I'm hearing about actually gets organized I'll post about it. Non violent civil disobedience is by far our best recourse here.

The ****bag tweets this, but then is also completely fine with red flag laws.

**** him. His district could do better and unfortunately I live just five blocks outside of his district
Yesterday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Where does it say the Brace has to be destroyed? I haven't read that, just that the pistol, with a brace, and not removed can be destroyed. (why anyone would do that i have no idea.)
nealan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"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"
Yesterday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nealan said:

"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"


Thank you, what page is that on? I'd like to read it and reference it.
nealan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's late in the document. Don't remember the exact page, but probably within the last 20 or so
Bpriefert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mannerheim77 said:

Tom_Fox said:

schmellba99 said:

I dont think so. Because you "could" put it in a verboten configuration, in the eyes of the benevolent overlords at the ATF.

I mean, these are the same people that defined a shoestring as a machine gun and who refularly crawfish on previous determinations. We should totally trust them.


You could also take a stock off the buffer tube of a 16" rifle and slap it on the ar pistol. By that rationale you couldn't a have a single buttstock in your house including on you non NFA ars.


Very good point. Before this ruling, if I had a braced AR and a Colt 16 inch AR, would I have been a felon then? Because I could easily take that stock off my colt and put it on my pistol AR. Constructive intent right?


So I must destroy a loose brace in my safe but not a loose buttstock?
Yesterday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bpriefert said:

mannerheim77 said:

Tom_Fox said:

schmellba99 said:

I dont think so. Because you "could" put it in a verboten configuration, in the eyes of the benevolent overlords at the ATF.

I mean, these are the same people that defined a shoestring as a machine gun and who refularly crawfish on previous determinations. We should totally trust them.


You could also take a stock off the buffer tube of a 16" rifle and slap it on the ar pistol. By that rationale you couldn't a have a single buttstock in your house including on you non NFA ars.


Very good point. Before this ruling, if I had a braced AR and a Colt 16 inch AR, would I have been a felon then? Because I could easily take that stock off my colt and put it on my pistol AR. Constructive intent right?


So I must destroy a loose brace in my safe but not a loose buttstock?
I don't understand this at all. The brace isn't illegal itself. What does "permanently remove" and dispose of?
nealan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This was my point…. Makes no sense whatsoever
lexofer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Before pistol braces were a thing the AR pistol buffer tubes were smooth and couldn't accept an AR buttstock. I would guess that may be a requirement for those intending to keep their AR's as pistols.
JB!98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
lexofer said:

Before pistol braces were a thing the AR pistol buffer tubes were smooth and couldn't accept an AR buttstock. I would guess that may be a requirement for those intending to keep their AR's as pistols.

This goes back to my question. My buffer tube is smooth, if I have to register it through their process, can I then replace the buffer tube and put a normal stock on it or does it remain a "registered pistol"? That is confusing to me.
AgResearch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JB!98 said:

lexofer said:

Before pistol braces were a thing the AR pistol buffer tubes were smooth and couldn't accept an AR buttstock. I would guess that may be a requirement for those intending to keep their AR's as pistols.

This goes back to my question. My buffer tube is smooth, if I have to register it through their process, can I then replace the buffer tube and put a normal stock on it or does it remain a "registered pistol"? That is confusing to me.
Why would you tax stamp something that doesn't have a brace?
Tom_Fox
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JB!98 said:

lexofer said:

Before pistol braces were a thing the AR pistol buffer tubes were smooth and couldn't accept an AR buttstock. I would guess that may be a requirement for those intending to keep their AR's as pistols.

This goes back to my question. My buffer tube is smooth, if I have to register it through their process, can I then replace the buffer tube and put a normal stock on it or does it remain a "registered pistol"? That is confusing to me.


If you register it, it's a SBR and you can put a stock on it.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nealan said:

This was my point…. Makes no sense whatsoever
Welcome to our firearm laws and the existence of the ATF in general
SMM48
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ahhh thank you for that.

JB!98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgResearch said:

JB!98 said:

lexofer said:

Before pistol braces were a thing the AR pistol buffer tubes were smooth and couldn't accept an AR buttstock. I would guess that may be a requirement for those intending to keep their AR's as pistols.

This goes back to my question. My buffer tube is smooth, if I have to register it through their process, can I then replace the buffer tube and put a normal stock on it or does it remain a "registered pistol"? That is confusing to me.
Why would you tax stamp something that doesn't have a brace?
Its got the old school sig brace on it. It is not adjustable.
JB!98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JB!98 said:

AgResearch said:

JB!98 said:

lexofer said:

Before pistol braces were a thing the AR pistol buffer tubes were smooth and couldn't accept an AR buttstock. I would guess that may be a requirement for those intending to keep their AR's as pistols.

This goes back to my question. My buffer tube is smooth, if I have to register it through their process, can I then replace the buffer tube and put a normal stock on it or does it remain a "registered pistol"? That is confusing to me.
Why would you tax stamp something that doesn't have a brace?
Its got the old school sig brace on it. It is not adjustable.


This is it.


TheVarian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JB!98 said:

JB!98 said:

AgResearch said:

JB!98 said:

lexofer said:

Before pistol braces were a thing the AR pistol buffer tubes were smooth and couldn't accept an AR buttstock. I would guess that may be a requirement for those intending to keep their AR's as pistols.

This goes back to my question. My buffer tube is smooth, if I have to register it through their process, can I then replace the buffer tube and put a normal stock on it or does it remain a "registered pistol"? That is confusing to me.
Why would you tax stamp something that doesn't have a brace?
Its got the old school sig brace on it. It is not adjustable.


This is it.





AgEng06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TheVarian said:

JB!98 said:

JB!98 said:

AgResearch said:

JB!98 said:

lexofer said:

Before pistol braces were a thing the AR pistol buffer tubes were smooth and couldn't accept an AR buttstock. I would guess that may be a requirement for those intending to keep their AR's as pistols.

This goes back to my question. My buffer tube is smooth, if I have to register it through their process, can I then replace the buffer tube and put a normal stock on it or does it remain a "registered pistol"? That is confusing to me.
Why would you tax stamp something that doesn't have a brace?
Its got the old school sig brace on it. It is not adjustable.


This is it.





92Ag95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well....I've been going back and forth now on which brace to buy but now it seems a moot point. Should I just buy a stock now and file a Form 1? I mean....why would anyone use a brace now for an SBR if you intend to register it?
Yesterday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
92Ag95 said:

Well....I've been going back and forth now on which brace to buy but now it seems a moot point. Should I just buy a stock now and file a Form 1? I mean....why would anyone use a brace now for an SBR if you intend to register it?


No point in a brace if you register it. Hoping we get a stay on this rule soon and a ***** slap by the 5th circuit. We will see.
AggieT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Question for those of you with trusts and assignment forms (like Willi's).

Using the assignment form, if there is a braced pistol that I assembled:

1. Do I list my name as the manufacturer, or the manufacturer of the lower receiver?

2. What would be the model number? Ex: AR-15 5.56?

3. The serial number is just what is stamped on the lower receiver, correct?
Daddy-O5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yesterday said:

92Ag95 said:

Well....I've been going back and forth now on which brace to buy but now it seems a moot point. Should I just buy a stock now and file a Form 1? I mean....why would anyone use a brace now for an SBR if you intend to register it?


No point in a brace if you register it. Hoping we get a stay on this rule soon and a ***** slap by the 5th circuit. We will see.


I honestly don't know why anyone is in a rush to comply with this "rule". Now is a good time to donate to FPC or GOA and let them do their thing. No way this rule holds up in court, as is at least. The recent bump stock ruling should serve as a good indicator of the current courts opinion on the ATF rewriting "law" on their own.

All that said can you imagine if the millions of AR pistol owners just gave the ATF a middle finger and refused to comply? No uptick in form 1's? Not one new SBR as a result? What would they do without mass, blind compliance?

I know. I dream.
AggieT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not in a rush to comply, and would like to see it play out for a bit. However, it makes sense to me to assign braced pistols to the trust ASAP before the rule is posted to the federal register so that the trust can get the free tax stamp.
BenderRodriguez
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Daddy-O5 said:


All that said can you imagine if the millions of AR pistol owners just gave the ATF a middle finger and refused to comply? No uptick in form 1's? Not one new SBR as a result? What would they do without mass, blind compliance?

I know. I dream.


Massive non compliance and civil disobedience is our only path forward that doesnt end poorly for everyone.

I'm with you. Not registering a damn thing would send a very powerful message. Every single time we give in to another power grab from the feds we make our childrens lives worse.
4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BenderRodriguez said:

Daddy-O5 said:


All that said can you imagine if the millions of AR pistol owners just gave the ATF a middle finger and refused to comply? No uptick in form 1's? Not one new SBR as a result? What would they do without mass, blind compliance?

I know. I dream.


Massive non compliance and civil disobedience is our only path forward that doesnt end poorly for everyone.

I'm with you. Not registering a damn thing would send a very powerful message. Every single time we give in to another power grab from the feds we make our childrens lives worse.

Preach
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Daddy-O5 said:

Yesterday said:

92Ag95 said:

Well....I've been going back and forth now on which brace to buy but now it seems a moot point. Should I just buy a stock now and file a Form 1? I mean....why would anyone use a brace now for an SBR if you intend to register it?


No point in a brace if you register it. Hoping we get a stay on this rule soon and a ***** slap by the 5th circuit. We will see.


I honestly don't know why anyone is in a rush to comply with this "rule". Now is a good time to donate to FPC or GOA and let them do their thing. No way this rule holds up in court, as is at least. The recent bump stock ruling should serve as a good indicator of the current courts opinion on the ATF rewriting "law" on their own.

All that said can you imagine if the millions of AR pistol owners just gave the ATF a middle finger and refused to comply? No uptick in form 1's? Not one new SBR as a result? What would they do without mass, blind compliance?

I know. I dream.
I hope you're right, but the legal eagles on ar15.com of all places are saying this is a bigger uphill battle than bumpstocks. Basically, they had to redefine the NFA definition of machine gun to outlaw bump stocks. With pistol braces they're just reinterpreting the definition of a short barrel rifle as described in the NFA. It's going to take a different legal approach and the best bet is the ATF flip flopping on this after a decade is arbitrary.

People are jumping on "complying" because it might save them $200 per gun in the future if these cases don't go their way or they were planning to F1 that particular weapon anyway.
aggiegolf86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can you just put a 16 inch barrel on your ar pistol? Then it would just be a legal rifle?
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiegolf86 said:

Can you just put a 16 inch barrel on your ar pistol? Then it would just be a legal rifle?
Then it would be unnecessarily long. Also, not as easy to change barrels on say an MP5, AK, or CZ.
Daddy-O5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Then the $200 carrot will work as intended. We'll comply (you can remove the quotation marks) as long as we get some freebies. They'll get to expand their de facto registry in perpetuity, and make you pay for the privilege after the grace period, as long as we get a discount now.

I'd have an easier time understanding someone who agrees with the rule, or possibly just doesn't understand it, than someone who says "yea I disagree with it, but I get more tyranny for free for 120 days!"
LoudestWHOOP!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I read through the thread, but not the document.
So this pad is considered a "brace"?

This fin is a brace?

Only smooth tube is allowed?
AggieT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I strongly disagree with the rule, but don't want 10 years in prison to be even a remote possibility. Might as well take the free stamp if you can. I'd certainly wait as long as possible to see if the whole thing gets tied up in court.

This whole thing sucks.
SMM48
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes. Or pin and welded with muzzle device that is 16 inches.

But that's not the point.
Daddy-O5
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggieT said:

I strongly disagree with the rule, but don't want 10 years in prison to be even a remote possibility. Might as well take the free stamp if you can. I'd certainly wait as long as possible to see if the whole thing gets tied up in court.

This whole thing sucks.


I hear ya. Meantime do us all a favor and take that 200 bucks you're going to save and donate it to a reputable 2a organization who might be able to help stop it.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.