Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

[TipBledsoe]

From ATF email 23-May-2023:

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF final rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” amending the regulatory definition of “rifle” to clarify when a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The final rule took effect on January 31, 2023, the date it was published in the Federal Register. Affected persons have 120 days from the date of publication to come into compliance, which is May 31, 2023. The compliance options provided under the final rule are the following:

• Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm,
• Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached,
• Turn the firearm into your local ATF office,
• Destroy the firearm,
• Register the firearm tax-free by May 31, 2023.

The option to register the firearm tax-free pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F will be discontinued in the eForms System effective May 31, 2023, at 11:59 p.m. (ET).

For additional information regarding the final rule, including instructions on how to register your firearm, please visit: Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (atf.gov).

 

[majormadmax]

So, if I remove and destroy all the braces on my AR pistols, but have regular stocks on my AR 15 rifles right next to the pistols, is that constructive possession?

As always, the ATF cannot give a straight answer...

Can I possess a pistol and unattached “stabilizing brace”?

An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case.

Source: ATF FAQs

Slightly clearer...

"A new constructive possession case has popped up, but it is somewhat different than the above constructive possession scenario. In this case, a gentleman had an H&K SP89 pistol, along with a front grip (which by itself would require the registering of the SP89 as an AOW) but also a stock, which would require that the pistol be registered as a short-barreled rifle. Unfortunately, the gentleman fell on hard times and sought to sell the SP89 with all of his “accessories,” which included the front grip and shoulder stock. Unbeknownst to him, he sold pistol and accessories to an undercover cop. For more info, see my post here."

 

[Otto_Mation]

As always, the ATF cannot give a straight answer...

Can I possess a pistol and unattached “stabilizing brace”?

An NFA firearm need not be assembled to be regulated as such. Whether a person may be in constructive possession of an NFA firearm depends on the facts of a particular case.

Source: ATF FAQs

Slightly clearer...

"A new constructive possession case has popped up, but it is somewhat different than the above constructive possession scenario. In this case, a gentleman had an H&K SP89 pistol, along with a front grip (which by itself would require the registering of the SP89 as an AOW) but also a stock, which would require that the pistol be registered as a short-barreled rifle. Unfortunately, the gentleman fell on hard times and sought to sell the SP89 with all of his “accessories,” which included the front grip and shoulder stock. Unbeknownst to him, he sold pistol and accessories to an undercover cop. For more info, see my post here."

Just another reason that I made the decision to register mine. Then whatever stuff I have that could be misconstrued as constructive possession becomes a nonissue. The other thing is that if you have a suppressor, they know who you are anyway. Even if you do not have a suppressor, they know who you are, they are building a registry from 4473's. So my thoughts were to register and then I could configure my pistols any way that I wanted too.

 

[oldag]

So, if I remove and destroy all the braces on my AR pistols, but have regular stocks on my AR 15 rifles right next to the pistols, is that constructive possession?

ATF:
"I like the way this guy thinks..."

 

[pronstar]

If the barrel is 16" or greater you cou;d put a tampon or dildo on it and be legal.

Sexual Assault Rifle?

 

[benenglish]

Sexual Assault Rifle?

View attachment 388963

You had to pick that one? Sheesh...

 

[innominate]

I was just reading through some of the ruling again. If I'm reading it correctly a sig mpx stabilizing brace would not make a sbr if the rear raised areas are removed.

This is the text from the bottom left in the pic below;

FATD determined that this would not
be a ‘‘short-barreled rifle,’’ provided the
‘‘brace’’ device is used as originally
designed, not used as a shoulder stock,
and the raised ridges are removed from
the rear of the device. FATD’s
classification relied on the
manufacturer’s continued
representation that the design of the
‘‘brace’’ was to assist disabled shooters
when firing heavy pistols with onehand—indeed,
the stated intent was
‘‘[c]entral’’ to ATF’s conclusion.42

 

[Byrd666]

I was just reading through some of the ruling again. If I'm reading it correctly a sig mpx stabilizing brace would not make a sbr if the rear raised areas are removed.

I asked them about "as designed/intended" use for disability. The answer was a flat, "NO."

As well as the fact that Sig braces were specifically called out. All Sig braces.

Y'all might want to try to push that envelope. Just let me know when you do, so I can sit here and watch to see how it works out.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I was just reading through some of the ruling again. If I'm reading it correctly a sig mpx stabilizing brace would not make a sbr if the rear raised areas are removed.

This is the text from the bottom left in the pic below;

FATD determined that this would not
be a ‘‘short-barreled rifle,’’ provided the
‘‘brace’’ device is used as originally
designed, not used as a shoulder stock,
and the raised ridges are removed from
the rear of the device. FATD’s
classification relied on the
manufacturer’s continued
representation that the design of the
‘‘brace’’ was to assist disabled shooters
when firing heavy pistols with onehand—indeed,
the stated intent was
‘‘[c]entral’’ to ATF’s conclusion.42

View attachment 388971

I don’t believe that’s what ATF said. That section in the final rule is historical background from the 2015 evaluation, which ATF repudiates in the Final Rule.

If you go to ATF’s webpage on the rule, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
And look down to the Related Resources section, review these two show and tell booklets.

Related Resources
NEW: 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

NEW: Common weapon platforms with attached “stabilizing brace” designs that are short-barreled rifles

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

 

[oldag]

Need a Philadelphia lawyer (or two, or three) to chime in on this crap.

 

[Eastexasrick]

I don’t believe that’s what ATF said. That section in the final rule is historical background from the 2015 evaluation, which ATF repudiates in the Final Rule.

commercial/download[/URL]

If you do not read and understand the material which Todd has pointed out, at least understand what "repudiates" . should mean to yall. They are saying " never mind what we put in print, we were wrong. Everything we said, and wrote, was bullshit, here are the new rules. That is "repudiates".

 

[innominate]

I don’t believe that’s what ATF said. That section in the final rule is historical background from the 2015 evaluation, which ATF repudiates in the Final Rule.

If you go to ATF’s webpage on the rule, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces
And look down to the Related Resources section, review these two show and tell booklets.

Related Resources
NEW: 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

NEW: Common weapon platforms with attached “stabilizing brace” designs that are short-barreled rifles

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

That makes sense. Too many damn pages to read

 

[TheMailMan]

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?

The rule dropped 1/13/2023 and you could submit applications starting on that date.

 

[TheMailMan]

So the injunction applies to two individuals and the members of the FPC? Or basically just the two individuals?

No one knows.

 

[TheMailMan]

So, if I remove and destroy all the braces on my AR pistols, but have regular stocks on my AR 15 rifles right next to the pistols, is that constructive possession?

No.

 

[cav2108541]

Update to Pistol Brace Ruling.

ATF Requests Funding for Pistol Brace Amnesty Registration Program

Uncovered information shows that ATF has plans to force gun owners to register firearms through a new ATF Pistol Brace Amnesty program.

www.ammoland.com

Yep. The next ATF 'thing' will be making ARs illegal unless they are registered. Then magazines, then pistols, then it goes on and on never stopping until they decide to go door to door for confiscation. always the same with gun grabbers, first it's the camel's nose under the tent, then the next thing you know the whole camel in the tent with you. I smell camel poop.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Only 124 pages to catch up.

 

[V-Tach]

Did an E-Form 4 today for another suppressor and you could tell the system was overloaded.....it kicked me out several times before I finally got it submitted..........

My son was part of the problem...he registered seven under the amnesty today.....

 

[Otto_Mation]

 

[PinnedandRecessed]

There seems to be no rhyme or reason how long the process takes. Just saw a guy get an 11 day approval while others are 60+ days out on an Efile Form 1 and still waiting. ATF is advertising 40 days. We all knew it was gonna be a cluster*&k.