Pistol Brace Info

[sloppyjoe]

Has the ATF clarified engraving requirements or the ability to file under a trust?

The initial filing indicated no engraving requirements, but you had to file as an individual if the firearm wasnt already on your gun trust. I only put NFA items on my trust, so as I understood their original requirements, I would only be tax exempt if I filed the pistol brace eForm1s as an individual.

 

[Aszerigan]

Not trying to stir up the pot even more. But was any mention being made of the ‘brace mount’ for lack of better term being ‘necessary for operation of the firearm’? IE, you have to have a buffer tube/receiver extension for a standard AR style to work. It’s not needed on say an AK style. Would it still be legal to put a buffer tube on an AK pistol? It doesn’t really affect my current situation just curious.

A brace on an AK style - despite not needing an buffer tube - would still be considered an SBR under the new regulations. True that an AK doesn't need a tube to fire, but it's about the shoulder firing ability, not the functionality of the firearm.

Any firearm under a 16" barrel that has a device that can be fired from a shouldered position is the focus of these new conditions. A CZ Scorpion doesn't have a buffer tube either, neither does a Stribog. But both fall under the stipulations of the new brace law, as does an AK pistol.

 

[Aszerigan]

Has the ATF clarified engraving requirements or the ability to file under a trust?

The initial filing indicated no engraving requirements, but you had to file as an individual if the firearm wasnt already on your gun trust. I only put NFA items on my trust, so as I understood their original requirements, I would only be tax exempt if I filed the pistol brace eForm1s as an individual.

If you're filing under the stipulations of the new 'non-stamped' allowance for braced pistols, and if you're filing as a trust, the fingerprint requirements would be the same as a standard form one. As best as I know, everyone on the trust would need to be fingerprinted, same as if you filed any form under the trust.

If you filed as an individual, you would be exempt from the standard trust requirements.

 

[Aszerigan]

Ok but where in the ATF's new rule or FAQ does it say "you have to install one of the foam covered tubes to bring it up to compliance."?

No where. It doesn't say you need the foam-covered brace anywhere in the new law. That's why they're saying a standard buffer tube with the brace removed makes the firearm in compliance. Until I hear differently, I'm going to go with their explanation.

Again, if anyone has knowledge I don't, please post here. During the training, they said removing the brace was enough. They didn't say anything about removing the buffer tube.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

No where. It doesn't say you need the foam-covered brace anywhere in the new law. That's why they're saying a standard buffer tube with the brace removed makes the firearm in compliance. Until I hear differently, I'm going to go with their explanation.

Again, if anyone has knowledge I don't, please post here. During the training, they said removing the brace was enough. They didn't say anything about removing the buffer tube.

Thank you, I prefer actual facts as opposed to people spouting random and outlandish misinformation.

 

[Aszerigan]

"Pursuant to [Final Rule], the Attorney General has authorized certain persons tax-exempt registration of firearms they own or possess at the publication of the rule that are: 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.

Yes, you need to own a pistol braced firearm at the time of the law enaction - Jan 31, 2023, to qualify for a non-taxed registration of that firearm.

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."

I think "certifying" is a legal term that has the effect of swearing under oath, like in an affidavit. You must swear you already possess an unregistered SBR. Not pistol and a brace - an SBR.

No. Certifying under law that you have a pistol braced firearm to get the non-taxed NFA registration is required. At the time of filing - between Jan 31, 2023 and May 31, 2023, there is no such thing as an "unregistered pistol SBR" in terms of your argument. Either you have a pistol length firearm with a brace, or you don't. There is no "unregistered" during the tax forbearance period.

In the rule itself, there's the language: "Individuals, ... will not be subject to the $200 making tax
for SBR’s in their possession as of January 31, 2023, so long as they timely submit an E-Form 1 by May 31, 2023"

So...either you swear you're committing a felony; or, you claim you never really had a brace, and committed pergury.

First off, it's Perjury, not pergury. And no, if you look at the correct filing of a form one for the firearm, there is ** AT NO POINT ** anyone swearing that they've committed a felony, intend to commit a felony, nor have ever been in possession of an unregistered SBR what-so-ever. If that were the case, the entire filing system would be a contradiction of itself.

I don't think they can know whether or not you "got a brace from your neighbor" before the rule or not (assuming you don't purchase online or with a CC). One could probably easily slip it through. Just be aware of the language, and that - if you somehow wound up in the crosshairs - proceeding as you suggest doesn't fall in-bounds.

As mentioned before on this thread, I don't agree with the need to file, I think it's an over reach and an unnecessary collection of gross paperwork that doesn't need to exist.

In Tackdriver's defense, he/she is making a valid point. Their argument against the situation is correct, albeit legally overstretched. I understand where they're coming from, but they're not fundamentally nor legally correct in the argument. The facts aren't in their favor, and they're downright wrong about their interpretation of the law.

But knowing how the paperwork filing system works and how the law is being laid out, it might be time to put the tin foil hat away and focus on the actual legal opportunities laid out by the ATF. I've paid for countless stamps in my life, but a free stamp is a free stamp.

 

[Mgderf]

Thank you, I prefer actual facts as opposed to people spouting random and outlandish misinformation.

What is Ingo coming to...?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Ok but where in the ATF's new rule or FAQ does it say "you have to install one of the foam covered tubes to bring it up to compliance."?

It doesnt. I was pointing out a grey area and how they describe the ability to reattach a brace. And you cant reattach it if the tube is bigger, but you can if its not. Hence the padded (larger) tube as a workaround because a brace wont fit on the padded tube.

Yeah, they may mean the brace and the brace only. That is today. They also have changed their minds what? 3x? 5x? in the last 10 years on this topic, ending up where we are today? Its just not outside the realm of possibilities.

Read the rules how you interpret them. I was just throwing that possibility out there.

 

[Slow Hand]

A brace on an AK style - despite not needing an buffer tube - would still be considered an SBR under the new regulations. True that an AK doesn't need a tube to fire, but it's about the shoulder firing ability, not the functionality of the firearm.

Any firearm under a 16" barrel that has a device that can be fired from a shouldered position is the focus of these new conditions. A CZ Scorpion doesn't have a buffer tube either, neither does a Stribog. But both fall under the stipulations of the new brace law, as does an AK pistol.

Sorry, I guess I didnt word that right...

If you have a firearm that doesn’t need a buffer tube, but has one with out a brace, would that still raise the ire of the AFT? Like as in you could still ‘cheek’ it or poke the tube into your shoulder…

 

[Aszerigan]

Sorry, I guess I didnt word that right...

If you have a firearm that doesn’t need a buffer tube, but has one with out a brace, would that still raise the ire of the AFT? Like as in you could still ‘cheek’ it or poke the tube into your shoulder…

Nope, no brace = good to go. The new law only pertains to firearms with braces. If it was anything other an a buffer tube, like if there was material on the back of the tube to allow for easier shouldering, then there may be an issue. But if it's just a tube without a stock, brace or other accessory that make shouldering easier, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[tackdriver]

I sincerely respect and appreciate you for everything you're contributing. I've gotten a better understanding, and agree with you in everything - except one small but significant point.

Yes, you need to own a pistol braced firearm at the time of the law enaction - Jan 31, 2023, to qualify for a non-taxed registration of that firearm.

No. Certifying under law that you have a pistol braced firearm to get the non-taxed NFA registration is required. At the time of filing - between Jan 31, 2023 and May 31, 2023, there is no such thing as an "unregistered pistol SBR" in terms of your argument. Either you have a pistol length firearm with a brace, or you don't. There is no "unregistered" during the tax forbearance period.

"...firearms they own or possess at the publication of the rule that are: 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. "

The language speaks for itself. The applicant is stating the item is a "rifle', and has a barrel less than 16". If that isn't a SBR, I'm really confused and apologize for my ignorance (and for bringing this up at all). The applicant is stating that they possess said item. The presumption is that it is not registered. Add it together, and you have possession of unregistered SBR. (btw - I never said 'unregistered pistol SBR', and agree that there is no such thing.)

I would love to have a different way to interpret this language. It's the only thing giving me real concern. I started this process thinking I would "just do it" if I had such an item. Unfortunately, I've dealt with enough aggressive lawyers to believe this is exactly how they will construct things when it serves their purpose.

Like a beaten dog, I find it difficult to trust in their good faith and fair play. That's my personal problem.

First off, it's Perjury, not pergury. And no, if you look at the correct filing of a form one for the firearm, there is ** AT NO POINT ** anyone swearing that they've committed a felony, intend to commit a felony, nor have ever been in possession of an unregistered SBR what-so-ever.

Typo aside - I agree that you are not swearing "I committed a felony". You are, however, certifying that you knowingly own or possess the item, it's a firearm, it is already constructed, it is a "rifle", and it has a barrel less than 16". In my understanding, that may likely qualifies as a felony, if you knew it.

If that were the case, the entire filing system would be a contradiction of itself.

Again, I 100% AGREE. I believe it is a contradiction of itself. The ATF is infamous for contradicting itself, and this is no exception.

They could have avoided this whole mess, and stuck to their stated goal, by simply using different language like "...1) originally a pistol, 2) equipped with a stabilizing brace, and 3) may become a "rifle" under this rule." (or something to this effect).

If they did, a person could say "I haven't done anything wrong to this point, and I want to stay on the right side of the line (and save $200), so I'll fill out the eForm and move on." - but they didn't. Given the time they spent working on this, so its reasonable to think that the language is purposeful.

I can't say what their purpose was/is. It seems reasonable however, that the phrase is constructed to preclude a defense that relies on Staples v United States 1994. Simply put, a conviction with serious punishment requires that defendant knew what they were doing, and that it was wrong. The case was decided against the ATF, and I doubt that they've forgotten it.

it might be time to put the tin foil hat away and focus on the actual legal opportunities laid out by the ATF. I've paid for countless stamps in my life, but a free stamp is a free stamp.

Again, I completely agree with you. I don't see a reason to be concerned about the application, the information they want, or being in some database. Either one wants to legaly own the item or not. If you do, saving $200 takes the sting out of the ATF's position change. A few simple tweaks, and it would be significantly easier to take advantage of the opportunity.

For the record: I don't think this is some sinister plan to lock us all up. I am concerned that this could be used against specific individuals, with serious consequences. I hope people understand the game before they play, then weigh the risk/reward for themselves.

Please, don't think that I'm trying to have some keyboard spat over this. I mean it when I say a appreciate everything I've learned from you and others here. I'm not trying to turn this thread into the other. This is a legit question/concern over the technical/legal detail of how this is being implemented. I'm hoping to be wrong. I would much rather understand how the applicant is 'protected' (not from some FAQ or soundbite), and not admitting guilt and exposing themselves, when they've done nothing wrong.

 

[tackdriver]

... And no, if you look at the correct filing of a form one for the firearm, there is ** AT NO POINT ** anyone swearing that they've committed a felony, intend to commit a felony, nor have ever been in possession of an unregistered SBR what-so-ever.

As I re-read this, I think understood you better. It seems you are talking about the form itself. I was talking about the 'I Agree' part you must go past to even get to the form. Before you can proceed, you have to agree with the statement that I have a problem with. I didn't see any issue with the form, but I only looked at the 'paper' pdf file. I couldn't get to the eFile form because of the above.


If I can get to the eForm 1 without the "By proceeding with this application, you are certifying that..." page, I'm happy. If anyone has the solution, please pass it along!

 

[Creedmoor]

Andy, Your missing another business opportunity here.
Have you thought of putting in a 3.99 a minute 1-900 NFA answer line?

And the perk is after hours it could be used for
÷*,;\,!$@ well, you know, Call a Dundaulk girl.

 

[GSPBirdDog]

Learned a new math equation.
Aszerigan + Free Class 3 help= People trying to discredit his knowledge
So sad for someone who tries to help others and spends his time defending his generosity.

However, I appreciate you Andy!!!

 

[Aszerigan]

Andy, Your missing another business opportunity here.
Have you thought of putting in a 3.99 a minute 1-900 NFA answer line?

And the perk is after hours it could be used for
÷*,;\,!$@ well, you know, Call a Dundaulk girl.

Haha, indeed.

 

[stoyan79]

Now I only need to figure out how to get the digital fingerprint file ...

 

[nonobaddog]

Now I only need to figure out how to get the digital fingerprint file ...

One way is to use a Silencer Shop Kiosk in a gun shop near you.
https://www.silencershop.com/storelocator/

 

[stoyan79]

One way is to use a Silencer Shop Kiosk in a gun shop near you.
https://www.silencershop.com/storelocator/

Without buying anything?

 

[nonobaddog]

Without buying anything?

I think each shop might be different but the one I was at it was free to use the kiosk when you were buying a silencer (and probably any NFA item) but it cost $5 if you weren't buying anything.

This was much cheaper than any other place I could find to get fingerprints and a picture.

 

[turnerdye1]

One way is to use a Silencer Shop Kiosk in a gun shop near you.
https://www.silencershop.com/storelocator/

How do we go about getting the actual files? I guess I didn’t realize that was an option.

I bought a can at Bobcat a year or two ago and did the kiosk so they should have my prints still I would assume?

I just sent off two free Form 1’s but did the old school ink fingerprint cards. Just mailed them out today.