Pistol Brace Amnesty/Registration

[majormadmax]

You do  NOT need fingerprints if you submit a photograph.

 

[Bozz10mm]

You do  NOT need fingerprints if you submit a photograph.

I thought the photo and finger prints were both required. Plus photos of the firearm?

 

[Otto_Mation]

I thought the photo and finger prints were both required. Plus photos of the firearm?

I have never heard that you do not need finger prints if you have a photo and don't believe that to be true. I am absolutely sure they are a requirement. I submitted prints (EFT) a passport sized photo that I took with my cell phone and the only picture of the gun was a close up of the markings on the receiver that contain the serial number. All were uploaded electronically. I have received two of the three submitted back approved so far. I have also removed the brace and installed stocks on both of the approved ones. I sent a letter to the ATF notifying them of the resulting change in the length of the firearms because of the stock swaps.

 

[TheMailMan]

It may be obtuse for me to point this out but distrust of the government is sometimes not warranted. It's probably useful in the moment and keeps everyone on their toes but it can ultimately turn out to be just a waste of paranoia.

The '68 amnesty was honored in full. Lots of machine gun owners refused to register because they figured that registration was just admitting to a crime and the guys with badges and guns would come after them. That didn't happen.

Of course, I haven't dug into the details of the language well enough to draw a perfect parallel to 1968. In the '68 amnesty, the language allowed anyone to register anything and guaranteed that, regardless of any other law, the amnesty would be granted and the person registering would always be allowed to own that gun. That amnesty wasn't just for the gun, it was for anything else illegal connected to the gun, wiping the slate clean. If you'd just stolen a pallet of M16s from the army, the amnesty guaranteed that you were legally in possession of them, forever. A number of M16s were registered where the SNs had been obliterated and a new one basically scratched into the finish.

In fact, for a number of years until the last of them died, there were some folks with felony records who registered their machine guns. They could go to jail as a felon in possession if they picked up any other gun. But that machine gun? It was theirs, forever, legally.

The question in my mind is this: Is the current federal government as trustworthy as the one in 1968?

A large number of the transferrable machine guns were registered during the '68 Amnesty. I wish more people would have done so.

But the same things were said about that Amnesty as are being said about the pistol brace registrations.

 

[TheMailMan]

From my Form 1...

View attachment 386464

Did you have a question?

 

[TheMailMan]

I know you and I view this differently and you can mock all you want but despite agency guidance on 26 USC 5821 in the Final Rule,

Let's look at what did NOT change in the Code of Federal Regulations

27 CFR 479.62 says filed a completed application to make AND had received the approval of the director. Amazingly, two sections later, there's a regulation on the procedure for approval of an application.



Nowhere in the USC or the CFR did BATFE modify 479.64. Compliance is literally at the mercy of the agency because their discretion is not codified in anything more permanent or enforceable than a PDF document.

Whoever filed for their 'free tax stamp' has admitted under penalty of perjury to possessing an NFA firearm that BATFE does not have legal standing to approve. One day, BATFE is going to figure that out.

Where do you admit to that? Please show me.

 

[TheMailMan]

Need a photo with a formal 1? Cell phone camera is OK?

Question. Will it need to stay a brace only or can you add an actual stock later?

Say an mp5 has a brace but you later decide to go with a pdw type collapsible stock cause you got the amnesty registration done. Can you do that?

Read the FAQ

Final Rule 2021R-08F | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Final Rule 2021R-08F Frequently Asked Questions and SBA Compliance Guide

www.atf.gov

 

[TheMailMan]

I thought the photo and finger prints were both required. Plus photos of the firearm?

He needs to put down the bong.
No photos required of the firearm unless it's a privately made firearm.

 

[TheMailMan]

You do  NOT need fingerprints if you submit a photograph.

Please cite your source for this.

 

[TheMailMan]

I know you and I view this differently and you can mock all you want but despite agency guidance on 26 USC 5821 in the Final Rule,

Let's look at what did NOT change in the Code of Federal Regulations

27 CFR 479.62 says filed a completed application to make AND had received the approval of the director. Amazingly, two sections later, there's a regulation on the procedure for approval of an application.



Nowhere in the USC or the CFR did BATFE modify 479.64. Compliance is literally at the mercy of the agency because their discretion is not codified in anything more permanent or enforceable than a PDF document.

Whoever filed for their 'free tax stamp' has admitted under penalty of perjury to possessing an NFA firearm that BATFE does not have legal standing to approve. One day, BATFE is going to figure that out.

Did you miss where the Director can at their discretion offer amnesties?

 

[toddnjoyce]

Did you miss where the Director can at their discretion offer amnesties?

Reading is fundamental. The GCA68 amnesty authority referenced in Section 207 was not exercised as part of the final rule. If you do some minor research, you'll find Section 6806 of the Internal Revenue Code is still statutory law today. As part of PL 99-5714, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, that part of the IRC was re-alinged to Section 5801.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries​

Effective Date of 1968 Amendment​

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–618 effective Oct. 22, 1968, see section 207 of Pub. L. 90–618, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5801 of this title.

If you follow the bread crumbs and go to 26 USC 5801, you'll find

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries​

Effective Date of 1987 Amendment​

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–203 effective Jan. 1, 1988, see section 10512(h) of Pub. L. 100–203, set out as a note under section 5111 of this title.

Effective Date​

Pub. L. 90–618, title II, §207, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1235 , as amended by Pub. L. 99–514, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095 , provided that:

"(a) Section 201 of this title [enacting this chapter] shall take effect on the first day of the first month following the month in which it is enacted [October 1968].

"(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) or any other provision of law, any person possessing a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [formerly I.R.C. 1954] (as amended by this title) which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record shall register each firearm so possessed with the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate in such form and manner as the Secretary or his delegate may require within the thirty days immediately following the effective date of section 201 of this Act [see subsec. (a) of this section]. Such registrations shall become a part of the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record required to be maintained by section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended by this title). No information or evidence required to be submitted or retained by a natural person to register a firearm under this section shall be used, directly or indirectly, as evidence against such person in any criminal proceeding with respect to a prior or concurrent violation of law.

"(c) The amendments made by sections 202 through 206 of this title [amending sections 6806 and 7273 of this title, repealing sections 5692 and 6107 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as a note under this section] shall take effect on the date of enactment [Oct. 22, 1968].

"(d) The Secretary of the Treasury, after publication in the Federal Register of his intention to do so, is authorized to establish such period of amnesty, not to exceed ninety days in the case of any single period, and immunity from liability during any such period, as the Secretary determines will contribute to the purposes of this title [adding this chapter, and sections 6806 and 7273 of this title, repealing sections 5692 and 6107 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section]."

The FAQs don't mention amnesty. Neither does ATF's webpage on the rule. Nor does it appear in the 98 pages of content posted to the Federal Register notice. Nor is the the authority that is assigned to the Secretary of the Treasure to implement an amnesty period ever get mentioned anywhere in either of those documents. And unlike the authority to determine and assess a tax, the ability to implement an amnesty is not delegated to the departments and bureaus. That's quite literally still a Treasury function in the US Code, unlike the decision to assess a tax, and the Secretary of Treasury did not publish the Final Rule in the Federal Register, DOJ did, because DOJ got ATF in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Now, there's a couple hundred pages of things covered in that bill, including technical and conforming amendments to ensure specific authorities were transferred among the various Secretaries and Departments but the authority to establish a period of amnesty IAW GCA68 was not among those authorities transferred from Treasury.

What you called an amnesty is a tax forbearance decision, as explained in excruciating detail in the final rule. It is not a GCA68 amnesty.

This is reason number 71 why everything about the final rule is on shaky legal justification.

​

 

[PinnedandRecessed]

No photos required of the firearm unless it's a privately made firearm.

Excuse my ignorance but is this not the purpose of a Form 1, making an SBR?

Without going into flip-flop ATF land, pistols with braces were not SBR's when they were manufactured at (insert maker here) factory. It is now the individual (you/me) that is "manufacturing" an SBR from previously purchased parts.

Have you had approvals with no pics of firearm?

 

[majormadmax]

I thought the photo and finger prints were both required. Plus photos of the firearm?

No fingerprints needed if filing a Form 1 under ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F.

Once I uploaded a photo, it grayed that portion of the form out.

 

[majormadmax]

Excuse my ignorance but is this not the purpose of a Form 1, making an SBR?

Without going into flip-flop ATF land, pistols with braces were not SBR's when they were manufactured at (insert maker here) factory. It is now the individual (you/me) that is "manufacturing" an SBR from previously purchased parts.

Have you had approvals with no pics of firearm?

He doesn't understand...

 

[TheMailMan]

Excuse my ignorance but is this not the purpose of a Form 1, making an SBR?

Without going into flip-flop ATF land, pistols with braces were not SBR's when they were manufactured at (insert maker here) factory. It is now the individual (you/me) that is "manufacturing" an SBR from previously purchased parts.

Have you had approvals with no pics of firearm?

Yes I have.

No pictures are required.

 

[TheMailMan]

No fingerprints needed if filing a Form 1 under ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F.

Once I uploaded a photo, it grayed that portion of the form out.

Incorrect. You either have to upload an EFT or mail the prints in with the cover letter.

 

[TheMailMan]

Reading is fundamental. The GCA68 amnesty authority referenced in Section 207 was not exercised as part of the final rule. If you do some minor research, you'll find Section 6806 of the Internal Revenue Code is still statutory law today. As part of PL 99-5714, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, that part of the IRC was re-alinged to Section 5801.


If you follow the bread crumbs and go to 26 USC 5801, you'll find


The FAQs don't mention amnesty. Neither does ATF's webpage on the rule. Nor does it appear in the 98 pages of content posted to the Federal Register notice. Nor is the the authority that is assigned to the Secretary of the Treasure to implement an amnesty period ever get mentioned anywhere in either of those documents. And unlike the authority to determine and assess a tax, the ability to implement an amnesty is not delegated to the departments and bureaus. That's quite literally still a Treasury function in the US Code, unlike the decision to assess a tax, and the Secretary of Treasury did not publish the Final Rule in the Federal Register, DOJ did, because DOJ got ATF in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Now, there's a couple hundred pages of things covered in that bill, including technical and conforming amendments to ensure specific authorities were transferred among the various Secretaries and Departments but the authority to establish a period of amnesty IAW GCA68 was not among those authorities transferred from Treasury.

What you called an amnesty is a tax forbearance decision, as explained in excruciating detail in the final rule. It is not a GCA68 amnesty.

This is reason number 71 why everything about the final rule is on shaky legal justification.

​

Going off the long form version of the final rule.

Starting on page 67 it explains why the director of the ATF and the AG have the power and authority to determine and assess taxes due.
No it's not an amnesty. But the forbearance is legal.

 

[glenbo]

I'm betting this thread will get to post 2,000.

 

[PinnedandRecessed]

I'm betting this thread will get to post 2,000.

Possible. May 31 is just around the corner.

ALSO, If any people are waiting till the last minute, the ATF is giving ya'll the middle finger and saying the deadline is at 12:01AM on May 31st (so really May 30th) NOT 11:59PM.

If you ask me, it's a dick move, but what do you expect?

 

[Bozz10mm]

Possible. May 31 is just around the corner.

ALSO, If any people are waiting till the last minute, the ATF is giving ya'll the middle finger and saying the deadline is at 12:01AM on May 31st (so really May 30th) NOT 11:59PM.

If you ask me, it's a dick move, but what do you expect?

That makes120 days, starting with January 31st.