Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

[TheDan]

per the FAQ

The ATF director also said people don't get prosecuted for being unaware of laws.

 

[TheMailMan]

And you trust the ATF FAQ's??

A hell of a lot more than some tinfoil hat wearing neckbeard. The FAQs are derived from the rule as published in the Federal Register.

 

[TheMailMan]

The ATF director also said people don't get prosecuted for being unaware of laws.

Yeah, the career bureaucrat doesn't know what's going on. That's a surprise to you?

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Is that different from the career ATF bureaucrat publishing the FAQs?

 

[Otto_Mation]

Is that different from the career ATF bureaucrat publishing the FAQs?

I would have to say that it is not much different, but you have to start somewhere. All of us that have braced pistols will have to deal with this and make a decision. Either comply or not. If you comply, the 4 or 5 options are in the rule. If you do not, the consequences are in the rule. We all have to weight the risks one way or another. Some have too much to lose by not complying. It is your decision. I do not judge one way or another but if those with to much to risk by non compliance and want to comply, the least we can do is help them navigate that choice.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I like this ATF handout titled Commercially available firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace”
that are short-barreled rifles*

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/bracefinalruleguidance-commerciallypdf/download

ATF made it clear in the NORM final that the brace is an accessory and can’t be regulated, but the firearm can be.

 

[oldag]

A hell of a lot more than some tinfoil hat wearing neckbeard. The FAQs are derived from the rule as published in the Federal Register.

FAQ's are not legally biding.

 

[TheDan]

Yeah, the career bureaucrat doesn't know what's going on. That's a surprise to you?

It's worse than that. He is a former prosecutor, which makes what he said even nuttier.

 

[TheMailMan]

FAQ's are not legally biding.

The FAQ is taken directly from the Rule. It's just in an easier form to read because most people are idiots.

 

[Otto_Mation]

I know this has been beaten to death here, but I thought that I would come up with a concise short list of options on how to deal with this brace rule for those that have not done any research other than on ewtube or not at all. The rule has morphed considerably since its inception. A lot of the information out there is old, has changed or is just plain wrong. These are the options as I understand them if you choose to comply:

• Just remove the brace. What you do with it and how you store it afterwards is up for debate, but removal of the brace is compliance. Then hope that this rule is overturned.
• Replace the barrel or entire upper with a barrel length of 16 inches or more. Then hope that this rule is overturned.
• Register it as a Short-Barreled Rifle. After approval you can replace the brace with a real stock if you like. Doesn’t change things for you if it is overturned you have a legal SBR.

If you choose not to comply, you will need to research the risks. It's all pretty simple and I hope this helps.

 

[oldag]

I know this has been beaten to death here, but I thought that I would come up with a concise short list of options on how to deal with this brace rule for those that have not done any research other than on ewtube or not at all. The rule has morphed considerably since its inception. A lot of the information out there is old, has changed or is just plain wrong. These are the options as I understand them if you choose to comply:

• Just remove the brace. What you do with it and how you store it afterwards is up for debate, but removal of the brace is compliance. Then hope that this rule is overturned.
• Replace the barrel or entire upper with a barrel length of 16 inches or more. Then hope that this rule is overturned.
• Register it as a Short-Barreled Rifle. After approval you can replace the brace with a real stock if you like. Doesn’t change things for you if it is overturned you have a legal SBR.

If you choose not to comply, you will need to research the risks. It's all pretty simple and I hope this helps.

I am not certain that the first bullet (pun intended) is accurate.

 

[TheMailMan]

I know this has been beaten to death here, but I thought that I would come up with a concise short list of options on how to deal with this brace rule for those that have not done any research other than on ewtube or not at all. The rule has morphed considerably since its inception. A lot of the information out there is old, has changed or is just plain wrong. These are the options as I understand them if you choose to comply:

• Just remove the brace. What you do with it and how you store it afterwards is up for debate, but removal of the brace is compliance. Then hope that this rule is overturned.
• Replace the barrel or entire upper with a barrel length of 16 inches or more. Then hope that this rule is overturned.
• Register it as a Short-Barreled Rifle. After approval you can replace the brace with a real stock if you like. Doesn’t change things for you if it is overturned you have a legal SBR.

If you choose not to comply, you will need to research the risks. It's all pretty simple and I hope this helps.

There's NO debate about what you need to do with the removed brace. The FAQ makes it very clear.

Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” so that it cannot be reattached

 

[Otto_Mation]

There's NO debate about what you need to do with the removed brace. The FAQ makes it very clear.

Permanently remove or alter the “stabilizing brace” so that it cannot be reattached

It says to permanently remove OR alter the stabilizing brace so that it can not be attached. Not AND. Clear as mud and doesn't make sense. That combined with Deddelbach's testimony to congress that you just need to remove it and the fact that braces are not illegal and can be used on other non-SBR's makes it debatable in my mind. I have various AR's and spare parts that can be swapped around including stocks. There is nothing illegal about having extra stocks that have not been altered.

 

[benenglish]

That Washington state lawyer YT channel posted a pretty good summary today, comparing and contrasting the text of the rule, the text of the FAQ, and the testimony of the ATF chief to Congress.

My personal attitude is that every law or rule or regulation must be read as "If the biggest asshole in the world wanted to use this text against me, how could they twist it to hurt me?"

By that standard, it seems to me that merely separating the brace from the pistol but keeping both of them in the same house will catch somebody a "constructive possession" case.

IOW, the ATF chief didn't understand his own rule, the FAQ works hard to not answer the frequently asked questions, and the text of the rule is a minefield.

At least that's how it appears to me.

 

[Eastexasrick]

every law or rule or regulation must be read as "If the biggest asshole in the world wanted to use this text against me, how could they twist it to hurt me?"


At least that's how it appears to me.

That should be written in stone.

 

[candcallen]

Anyone get approved? How long did it take fir the special approval.

 

[Bozz10mm]

By that standard, it seems to me that merely separating the brace from the pistol but keeping both of them in the same house will catch somebody a "constructive possession" case.

I agree, if they wanted too, they could probably charge someone with constructive possession.....but, unless they come to your house with a warrant, that's not going to happen. I sincerely believe, and maybe I'm being naive, that they are not going to be conducting warrant searches door to door on just any and everyone who has purchased a brace, or a pistol. Now, getting caught out in public with a braced pistol would be a different story.

 

[candcallen]

I agree, if they wanted too, they could probably charge someone with constructive possession.....but, unless they come to your house with a warrant, that's not going to happen. I sincerely believe, and maybe I'm being naive, that they are not going to be conducting warrant searches door to door on just any and everyone who has purchased a brace, or a pistol. Now, getting caught out in public with a braced pistol would be a different story.

I can also see them acquiring customer lists and making visit looking for information or education. Past performance predicting future actions.

 

[Bozz10mm]

Maybe. In my mind, I just don't see them putting that much effort into it. They have done what Biden wanted, ban braces on pistols, mission accomplished.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Maybe. In my mind, I just don't see them putting that much effort into it....

I went over the three ways ATF will get involved.
1. Somebody voluntarily submits to FATD something for a formal decision.
2. An F1/F4 is involved; then ATF is just facilitating the decision you made.
3. There’s an arrest/prosecution and FATD is given evidence to make a decision on. This will likely be DEA, CBP, or FBI agents that seized an “armory” of AR pistols sans braces used in a criminal enterprise. The ATF violation will be just another charge throw against the wall.