New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • tcecil88

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 18, 2013
    1,902
    113
    @ the corner of IN, KY & OH.
    You have the option to follow this thread. To much clutter all dealing with what's legal and what's not referring to ATFs proposed ruling, that is what brought these questions about. 1 thread is sufficient for now

    And for good measure if you want to start a new thread on something similar being discussed, don't be lazy and refer to postings In another thread. Put the links in the thread and don't say see/read post 538 in another thread
    My fault, but it wasn't laziness on my part. I will have to figure out how to make links. I was trying to help and answer questions the best I could, not being lazy.
    As MikeDVB said, the two threads were different enough that I though it deserved its own thread, which is why I started it.
     

    defaultdotxbe

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 21, 2020
    259
    43
    Griffith
    Ah... but there is the catch! The way I understand the language, if a person proceeds to file an eForm 1, and take door number 2 for the exemption and tax exempt stamp - they are stating that they currently possess a SBR as defined by the NFA.

    Not a pistol with a brace. Not a weapon that you innocently believe is a non-NFA item. They are specifically stating that they knowingly are in possession of a regulated firearm that is not registered. Here's the language again:

    "... 1) equipped with a stabilizing brace; 2) meet the definition of "rifle" under federal law; and 3) have a barrel or barrels less than sixteen (16) inches in length. By proceeding with this application, you are certifying that you and the firearm you intend to register meet the tax-exempt parameters set forth in ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F." ATF's eForms website (my bold emphasis)

    I believe that "certifying" is a legal term that is, in effect, the same as an affidavit. They are officially stating that they believe they possess a rifle with a barrel less than 16" - not a pistol with a brace. This clarifies that it is intended to be fired from the shoulder.

    If we presume bad intent by the ATF: This is a perfect set-up to avoid any defense related to STAPLES v. UNITED STATES. In that case, the defendant believed the weapon was a normal rifle (common definition), not the NFA machinegun the ATF determined it to be. He believed that possessing it was innocent. SCOTUS agreed.

    Here however, a person must certify that they understand the item to be a SBR by definition. I haven't gone trough all of them, but I don't think any of the ATF's prior letters, opinions, or statements, lets a person off the hook if they believe the weapon is a rifle (intended to fire from the shoulder) with a short barrel. If I'm wrong, I really, really, really would like to know.

    Again, this only really matters if you presume that this is the 'trap' that many are screaming it is. Maybe the ATF just wants to do the right thing. If so, they could ease a lot of concerns by simply changing the language to efile to something like "1.) possess a pistol with a brace attached; 2.) which may be classified as a SBR by this rule; and 3.) you wish to avoid any innocent violation in the future" then you get to proceed with the exempt Form 1. The fact that they agonized over this for a long time, and the language is what it is, does not put me at ease.

    It's a big gamble. I'm just trying to understand it before I throw the dice or walk away.
    Well then we are back to the rule being published and thus the exemption granted in the rule applies, which give you 120 days to apply for a stamp or render your SBR not an SBR.

    If you are concerned just remove the brace (rendering it a pistol) until you have your stamp in hand, then attach the brace making it an SBR.

    Also its worth noting they aren't explicitly declaring all braced pistols to be SBRs, nor requiring they be considered an SBR for registration (although I suppose they may deny the stamp if they determine your pistol is not an SBR) I posited in another thread that their goal in this may simply be to get more firearms registered and "on paper," perhaps preferring people had registered SBRs than unregistered pistols.
     

    DoggyDaddy

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    73   0   1
    Aug 18, 2011
    102,081
    77
    Southside Indy
    My fault, but it wasn't laziness on my part. I will have to figure out how to make links. I was trying to help and answer questions the best I could, not being lazy.
    As MikeDVB said, the two threads were different enough that I though it deserved its own thread, which is why I started it.
    Here's how to share a link to a post. Hover over the little sideways "Y" looking thing at the top right.

    1674776265966.png

    That will bring up a drop-down menu. At the bottom will be the URL for the post (I can't do a screen shot with my clipping tool). Click on that and it will highlight the URL. Then you just copy/paste it where you want it.

     

    MikeDVB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Mar 9, 2012
    8,688
    63
    Morgan County
    You have the option to follow this thread. To much clutter all dealing with what's legal and what's not referring to ATFs proposed ruling, that is what brought these questions about. 1 thread is sufficient for now

    And for good measure if you want to start a new thread on something similar being discussed, don't be lazy and refer to postings In another thread. Put the links in the thread and don't say see/read post 538 in another thread
    To be clear I am not arguing with you - just expressing my opinion to which you can agree or disagree [that is your right].

    While another user in the other thread may have been referring to things in this thread, I was not. I would not make a whole separate new thread on the ATF FAQ oopsie just because another member in the pre-existing thread was making references to another thread. That's just clutter for the sake of clutter.

    I would suggest that you also not accuse members of being lazy for not having the same level of skill with the forum software as you. Particularly as you are a moderator and by definition should be familiar with it.

    Keep in mind that I'm sharing my opinion and that you're obviously welcome to disagree with it. If you disagree - that's fine - no issues here.
     

    tackdriver

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 20, 2010
    481
    93
    ... If they plan to... that will ruin many people's lives. ...
    It seems that that is exactly the intended outcome.

    If you take a wide view of what's been going on in the country, it's hard to come to any other conclusion. In every area, it's all moving in the same direction - the one that's bad for We the People.

    BTW... they don't need to ruin many people's lives - just a few and make it dramatic. If too many people feel real pain, then they might take action. These days, people don't take action when something horrible happens to somebody else, somewhere else, and they're worried about something bad happening to themselves. They get upset, they talk, maybe even scream...but not take action.

    Just look at this thread: language like "... shall not be infringed." is pretty strong, and pretty clear language. It doesn't say anything about the length of a barrel, if it has a stock, how fast it shoots, or how scarry it looks. Yet hear we are, fretting about the definition of a brace vs. a stock, and if our own government is actively setting a trap for those trying to follow the law and still keep arms.

    When is it too much?

    When is it too late?
     

    MikeDVB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Mar 9, 2012
    8,688
    63
    Morgan County
    As MikeDVB said, the two threads were different enough that I though it deserved its own thread, which is why I started it.
    I agree - and since a separate thread on the specific issue I wanted to post about already existed - I replied there instead of making yet another new thread.
     

    tackdriver

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 20, 2010
    481
    93
    Well then we are back to the rule being published and thus the exemption granted in the rule applies, which give you 120 days to apply for a stamp or render your SBR not an SBR.
    Agreed. I think that was my original point - that it has to get published before there is any protection/amnesty/exemption, and that they might be delaying the publishment on purpose. File early or late = not 'covered'. Jump the gun at ones own peril.

    If you are concerned just remove the brace (rendering it a pistol) until you have your stamp in hand, then attach the brace making it an SBR.
    This is exactly what I was thinking everyone should do. Then I actually checked out the process. At the very start of the 'free' eForm 1 process, you are certifying that you possess the item with the brace attached. I didn't see an option for "I have a pistol, and I have a brace, and I want to put them together." Only the choice to admit that you already possess an unregistered SBR, or exit. I will be very happy if I learn everyone can get a free stamp (durring the period of course) for the pistol and the brace they never attached.


    Also its worth noting they aren't explicitly declaring all braced pistols to be SBRs, nor requiring they be considered an SBR for registration (although I suppose they may deny the stamp if they determine your pistol is not an SBR) I posited in another thread that their goal in this may simply be to get more firearms registered and "on paper," perhaps preferring people had registered SBRs than unregistered pistols.
    I don't disagree. They may be playing games to get around the established fact that they are not allowed to create a national firearms registry for normal guns. It's still wrong, in my opinion, but maybe ??? less wrong. Also, they could just find a reason to deny that you are a legal possessor. Then you're really screwed.
     
    Last edited:

    tcecil88

    Master
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 18, 2013
    1,902
    113
    @ the corner of IN, KY & OH.
    Here's how to share a link to a post. Hover over the little sideways "Y" looking thing at the top right.

    View attachment 250827

    That will bring up a drop-down menu. At the bottom will be the URL for the post (I can't do a screen shot with my clipping tool). Click on that and it will highlight the URL. Then you just copy/paste it where you want it.

    Thank you very much. That is a big help.
     

    nucular

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 17, 2012
    1,159
    113
    Brownsburg
    I'm really to the point that I don't give a **** what the AFT says anymore. I am a law abiding citizen but the **** they have been pulling lately are not laws. Nothing submitted. Nobody voted. **** them.
     

    MikeDVB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Mar 9, 2012
    8,688
    63
    Morgan County
    JFC people stop whining about what thread should be where. My god are we ****ing 12?
    I don’t see any whining before your post whining about a discussion. This is a discussion forum after all.

    But it’s ok - no worries - you’re welcome to discuss as well just as I’m welcome to respond to your post. That is the nature of a discussion forum.

    I’m turning 37 soon although I am not sure how old the others I was discussing with are. I would assume at least 18+ and probably 21+.

    :-)
     
    Top Bottom