Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

[Bozz10mm]

The AP5 better not be part of this.

The AP5 is originally made by MKE in Turkey and then imported by Century Arms. Does it come with a brace?

 

[toddnjoyce]

The AP5 better not be part of this.

One key word I missed on that is *some*. ATF implies on p.247 that *some* 922r firearms may have no path forward other than destruction or turn in.

And while that’s bad, the worse part is ATF’s position that ALL these SBRs are SBRs because manufacturers and importers failed to complete a voluntary process.

 

[GeorgeS]

An interesting legal argument could be made that 922(r) only applies to the importer, not the end user. This is similar to the argument (succssful in one court) that serial numbers on gun are only relevant to interstate commerce and not the end user (who could remove the S/N).

 

[Renegade]

An interesting legal argument could be made that 922(r) only applies to the importer, not the end user. This is similar to the argument (succssful in one court) that serial numbers on gun are only relevant to interstate commerce and not the end user (who could remove the S/N).

922(r) only applies to the assembler.

 

[Renegade]

So that’s part the RIA scenario 4 discussion that starts on p. 241.

ATF states in their commentary, “The Department disagrees that all the firearms at issue in this rulemaking were legal at the time of purchase and lawfully possessed. ATF became aware that many short-barreled rifles equipped with a “stabilizing brace” had been sold by various manufacturers as pistols without the submission or receipt of a voluntary classification request from ATF …These unregistered short-barreled rifles have been transferred in violation of the NFA, and further possession of any such unregistered firearm continues to be a violation of the NFA.

That’s on p. 242; the 922r part of the discussion is secondary, but ATF implies there’s no legal path forward on those except destruction or turn in.

Literally unphucking believable since ATF had previously APPROVED these configurations.

 

[GeorgeS]

922(r) only applies to the assembler.

The original assember (i.e., importer's employee or subcontractor) only or a post-purchase assembler, as well?

 

[Renegade]

The original assember (i.e., importer's employee or subcontractor) only or a post-purchase assembler, as well?

922 (r)It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply to—
(1)
the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(2)
the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.

where person is defined as:

921 (1)
The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.

So yes it looks like you could also go after the importer, if they did assembly (as opposed to just did importing of parts kits).

 

[oldag]

The atf seems to contradict itself on that. They also say

An AR-type pistol with a standard 6 to 6-1/2 inch buffer tube may not be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder even if the buffer tube provides surface area that allows the firearm to be shoulder fired because it is required for the cycle of operations of the
weapon.

Could you please point me to where you found this?

Of course it has the "may", which leaves it entirely open to ATF interpretation.

Thanks.

 

[innominate]

Could you please point me to where you found this?

Of course it has the "may", which leaves it entirely open to ATF interpretation.

Thanks.

From their site. But like Todd pointed out. They also say how the firearm was designed is a factor. They could easily argue that the ar design is meant to have a stock on the buffer so in turn all ar's are rifles. It's a total cluster

 

[toddnjoyce]

Could you please point me to where you found this?

Of course it has the "may", which leaves it entirely open to ATF interpretation.

Thanks.

See p106-107 and 162.

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

 

[Olegunguy]

OK, if a Sig MCX has a 16” barrel installed, from what I’ve read, the SBR is no longer the problem, but another problem area is encountered.

 

[toddnjoyce]

OK, if a Sig MCX has a 16” barrel installed, from what I’ve read, the SBR is no longer the problem, but another problem area is encountered.

Yep. It’s an NFA weapon made from a rifle now unless you get to >26” OAL in it’s shortest configuration.

 

[vmax]

The way Scalia screwed us over in the Heller decision means that overturning the NFA is a non-starter. But we really, really need a "National Firearms Act Technical Corrections Act" that removes silencers and short barreled weapons (and bump stocks, too) from federal notice in any capacity. If we could tack on some corrections to the travesties of 1986 as well as add a new amnesty (as per the one after the GCA passed), that would be the icing on the cake.

Oddly people are speculating that Scalia's "common use" ruling in Heller will be the basis for alot of lawsuits to over turn this bullshit ATF rule.
These braced pistols are and have been in common use and not for unlawful purposes.
While not 100% perfect ..Heller is settled case law and holds a great deal of weight on our side in this

"the Second Amendment protects “arms 'in common use at the time' for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"

 

[Olegunguy]

Yep. It’s an NFA weapon made from a rifle now unless you get to >26” OAL in it’s shortest configuration.

Not at all good; I think the thing is 27” total length as is.

 

[Bozz10mm]

In the often-cited case of Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925), the Supreme Court defined the scope of the constitutional ex post facto restrictions:

• "It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto."

 

[toddnjoyce]

Not at all good; I think the thing is 27” total length as is.

Which MCX SKU are you referring to?

 

[Olegunguy]

That’s totally misleading then, what’s stated in this chart.

 

[Olegunguy]

Which MCX SKU are you referring to?

Not sure, I’ll have to check; it’s an MCX Rattler in 5.56.

 

[toddnjoyce]

That’s totally misleading then, what’s stated in this chart.

If you’re making legal interpretations based on an infographic of a 293 page rule, you get whatever happens.

If you were to take an MCX Rattler, put a 16” barrel in it and get to >26” OAL rifle, you still have the short barrel to deal with with. Stamp or destroy or surrender roll the dice on constructive possession are your options for that <16” barrel in your possession.

 

[toddnjoyce]

In the often-cited case of Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925), the Supreme Court defined the scope of the constitutional ex post facto restrictions:

• "It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done, which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto."

If that was taken in context and at face value, you wouldn’t have NFA34, GCA68, FOPA, or the old AWB and a bunch of other stuff.

Alas, ATF is giving you an option to comply, therefore it is entirely legal on that argument.