Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

[toddnjoyce]

Historical examples of #3 happening:

Fort Bragg Soldier with Apparent Plot to Remove Racial Minorities from Eastern North Carolina Pleads Guilty to Possessing an Illegal Short Barrel Rifle

www.justice.gov

St. Cloud Man Sentenced To 21 Months In Prison For Possessing A Short-Barreled Rifle

Orlando, Florida – United States District Judge Carlos E. Mendoza has sentenced Yunis Isaac Mejia (28, St. Cloud) to 21 months in federal prison for possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle. Mejia had pleaded guilty on January 28, 2022.

www.justice.gov

Orono Man Sentenced for Possessing Unregistered Short-Barreled Rifle

www.justice.gov

San Jose Man Pleads Guilty To Illegally Possessing A Short-Barreled Rifle And Ammunition

SAN JOSE – Mark Dehart pleaded guilty in federal court today to possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle and to being a felon in possession of ammunition

www.justice.gov

 

[candcallen]

Keep it
Destroy it
Turn it in
Register it
Just take it off....not so fast

Supposed clarification to ffl dealers came out yesterday afternoon. Some will say it is as it always was except for the atf directors testimony otherwise that you could just take it off.

 

[oldag]

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 am not so sure that they may not start knocking on a door or two.

 

[GeorgeS]

Don't let allow enforcement into your home or business unless you called them.
Don't talk to uninvited law enforcement types without a lawyer present.
Don't post photos of 'contraband' on the internet.

 

[toddnjoyce]

…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.

Allow me to foot stomp and riff on this.

We’ve proven in this thread ATF doesn’t have the grammatical capacity to understand what they put in the CFR actually means. If you’re relying on an FAQ, verbal testimony of a politically appointed person, or anything other than the exact text of the CFR (because that tells ATF how to implement the US Code statutes), good luck with that as ignorance of the law is not usually a solid defense.

The definition of what a rifle is in 27 CFR 478 and 479 changed. People better start getting used to that, because ATF is saying the only way to get to an SBR is to start with a rifle. That’s significantly different than before with the pistol to rifle to pistol theory from previous eras.

 

[Darkpriest667]

Allow me to foot stomp and riff on this.

We’ve proven in this thread ATF doesn’t have the grammatical capacity to understand what they put in the CFR actually means. If you’re relying on an FAQ, verbal testimony of a politically appointed person, or anything other than the exact text of the CFR (because that tells ATF how to implement the US Code statutes), good luck with that as ignorance of the law is not usually a solid defense.

The definition of what a rifle is in 27 CFR 478 and 479 changed. People better start getting used to that, because ATF is saying the only way to get to an SBR is to start with a rifle. That’s significantly different than before with the pistol to rifle to pistol theory from previous eras.

So should I be registering these things or not?

 

[jimbo]

So should I be registering these things or not?

Someone needs to start a poll.

 

[benenglish]

The definition of what a rifle is in 27 CFR 478 and 479 changed. People better start getting used to that, because ATF is saying the only way to get to an SBR is to start with a rifle. That’s significantly different than before with the pistol to rifle to pistol theory from previous eras.

I don't own any "large format pistol" of any sort unless I count the single shot target pistols.

That said, I'm going to have to again read the applicable CFR and then re-read the Thompson Center case and then ponder some things. I do own a rifle manufactured before that case where the action was originally papered as a pistol.

I'm at the age where I'd like to simplify life and the ATF decides they want to complicate it like this? May a pox fall on all their houses.

 

[toddnjoyce]

So should I be registering these things or not?

 

[TheMailMan]

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.

If you can reattach the brace you're not in compliance. That's VERY clear.

 

[TheMailMan]

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

14 submitted on 1/25, all 14 approved. Approvals dates from 2/28 to 4/28.

Approvals are running 7-100+ days.

 

[Darkpriest667]

typical bureaucrat deflect and distract.

I am not a dummy. My IQ is well above average and I CANNOT FIGURE OUT WHAT THE **** IS LEGAL AND IS NOT WITH THESE JACKASSES.

I have no idea what to do here and ignorance of the law is no excuse. On the one hand, registering them is admitting you committed a felony, on the other hand not registering them is committing a felony after June 1. Damned if you do damned if you do not.

 

[TheMailMan]

Keep it
Destroy it
Turn it in
Register it
Just take it off....not so fast

Supposed clarification to ffl dealers came out yesterday afternoon. Some will say it is as it always was except for the atf directors testimony otherwise that you could just take it off.

Relying on the word of a politician is never good. The ATF director is a politician. They are not appointed because they know a lot about the subject matter.

 

[TheMailMan]

Allow me to foot stomp and riff on this.

We’ve proven in this thread ATF doesn’t have the grammatical capacity to understand what they put in the CFR actually means. If you’re relying on an FAQ, verbal testimony of a politically appointed person, or anything other than the exact text of the CFR (because that tells ATF how to implement the US Code statutes), good luck with that as ignorance of the law is not usually a solid defense.

The definition of what a rifle is in 27 CFR 478 and 479 changed. People better start getting used to that, because ATF is saying the only way to get to an SBR is to start with a rifle. That’s significantly different than before with the pistol to rifle to pistol theory from previous eras.

This simply isn't true. People are getting PAID approvals for pistol to SBR. You can create a rifle from a pistol, just like it's always been.

 

[Eastexasrick]

May a pox fall on all their houses.

Their bodies severed in twain, bowels brunt to ash, their vitals cast to the beasts of the field

 

[toddnjoyce]

…I am not a dummy. My IQ is well above average and I CANNOT FIGURE OUT WHAT THE **** IS LEGAL AND IS NOT WITH THESE JACKASSES….

I can’t either, which is why I’m not making any recommendations.

 

[Bozz10mm]

It says to permanently remove OR alter the stabilizing brace so that it can not be attached. Not AND.

I believe that has changed. According to Mrgunsandgear, it says remove AND dispose of or alter.

 

[Bozz10mm]

14 submitted on 1/25, all 14 approved. Approvals dates from 2/28 to 4/28.

Approvals are running 7-100+ days.

I'm curious about this. You submitted forms 1 prior to the rule taking affect, prior to the amnesty period, and did not have to pay the $200 tax?

 

[Otto_Mation]

Looks like it is not nation wide.

 

[oldag]

https://thereload.com/fifth-circuit-blocks-biden-pistol-brace-ban/

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) can’t enforce President Joe Biden’s ban on pistol-brace-equipped guns.

That’s the result of a ruling from a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals released on Tuesday. The court issued a preliminary injunction against Biden’s brace ban in Mock v. Garland. The scope of the order may be limited to the named plaintiffs in the case, which was brought by two individual plaintiffs and the gun-rights group Firearms Policy Coalition.