• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Pistol Brace Final Ruling

In my first ever introductory post in this forum, I clearly stated I would be the dumbest one here. And let me prove that statement, once again.

Why do we need an ATF? Not asking for a friend or ironically. I just don't get it.
 
ToddM said:
Interesting they don't specific what "length" has changed but this is verbatim from the FAQ they have up.

"10. ONCE THE FIREARM IS REGISTERED AS A SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE (SBR) CAN I REMOVE/CHANGE THE “STABILIZING BRACE” OR ATTACH AN ITEM MARKETED AS A STOCK? IF SO, AM I REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ATF IN ADVANCE?

Yes, the firearm is registered as an SBR, and you can change out the “brace” device or stock for a different brace or stock. You do not need to contact ATF/NFA because changing the brace/stock 5 does not change the configuration of the SBR. However, if the length of the firearm has changed you will need to notify the NFA Division."

So the question I guess is if the length of the firearm includes if the length of the stock changes, or if it's barrel length only.
Click to expand...
An SBR has to be registered in one configuration.
An overall length and barrel length must be specified.
The Form 1 has to reflect the overall length of the gun with the buttstock extended.
It also has to reflect one barrel length.
After it is registered in one configuration the barrel length may be changed.
If it is a permanent change, you may inform ATF if you want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 260284
Bundy said:
when this gets ruled unconstitutional, they’ll know everyone that was gonna fall in line. I’m gonna go ahead and quote you; “you do you”!
Click to expand...
And what exactly do you think the ATF is going to do to those who "fell in line"? Kick in our doors to sieze guns that the court just ruled were legal to own? Take my tax stamp back for a pistol that was also ruled legal to have?

I guess to the tin foil hat kids on the short bus, ohh no!!! They will know I have a couple guns.

What do you think I put my fucking suppressors on? Of course they know I have guns, I'm already on their registry. I don't have a $1,000 30 cal suppressor to mount on my motorcycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30calDeath
I just hate the fact that this organization can make up new rules that hold the strengths of laws just to mess with law abiding citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FuhQ, nikonNUT and AMGtuned
TACC said:
I just hate the fact that this organization can make up new rules that hold the strengths of laws just to mess with law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...
Sure, this is what people have been bitching about with the EPA, and the like for decades. The gun industry isn't unique to executive branch regulators making shit up as they go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikerret and Bigrederic
Also, their latest final ruling states...
Screenshot_20230113_190937_Chrome.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FuhQ and Tx_Aggie
ToddM said:
They're not wrong, they aren't banning anything, you just have to register a pistol with a brace as an SBR to retain it legally. It's just like suppressors aren't banned, but you need to tax stamp them for legal possession.
Click to expand...

The highlighted text says it will still be legal to use a brace on a pistol. Not an SBR, a pistol.

In all of the examples they have provided, they are treating the brace as a stock, and so are considering the firearms pictured to be SBRs, not pistols.

So yes, of course it’ll be legal to have a registered SBR with a brace on it (why someone would do that I have no idea).
But they’ve also already said possession of a brace and compatible pistol may be considered constructive possession.

So since you seem to feel this is all clear as crystal, can you provide an example of how a person could use a brace on a pistol without the ATF seeing that as converting it into an SBR?

An example that is obvious enough a person wouldn’t need to send the thing to ATF for an opinion (& to possibly have it confiscated).
 
ToddM said:
IMO it's very clear, they are not banning anything you can still put a brace on a pistol, but if you do so it becomes an SBR and you need to register it as such to stay legal. It's legal to put an 8" barrel on a rifle with a stock too, as long as you register it as an SBR.

The highlighted text says nothing about "legal" it says they are not banning using a brace on a pistol and they aren't they are just requiring you to register it as an SBR if you do.

IMO this is why they state "Other options include removing the stabilizing brace to return the firearm to a pistol" In other words if you add a brace to a pistol, it's now an SBR, period, end of discussion.

If you don't like my interpretation just make up your own mind.

My guess is this will be the end of the "brace" market if the law holds up. As you said no one is going to want brace on a form 1 gun, they are going to want a real stock. No one is going to buy a new braced gun if it requires a Form 1 and it's not skirting NFA laws as it's been for years. Most won't want to deal with form 1's at all, if they did braced AR's wouldn't have sold in the millions.
Click to expand...

My point is that words have specific meanings. Under the NFA and GCA, the term pistol and rifle have specific meanings.

And considering these meanings, a plain reading of the statement “nothing in this rule bans the use of stabilizing braces on pistols” does not mean that using a brace on a pistol converts the pistol into a different type of firearm (an SBR).

The sentence seems to say that it would still be lawful (in some instance) to use a stabilizing brace on a pistol, implying the firearm remains a pistol and does not become something else (an SBR).

Which seems ridiculous because, as you point out, it stands in direct contradiction to all of the places where they are clearly treating braces as stocks and as such something that must convert a pistol to a (short barreled) rifle.
 
Tx_Aggie said:
My point is that words have specific meanings. Under the NFA and GCA, the term pistol and rifle have specific meanings.

And considering these meanings, a plain reading of the statement “nothing in this rule bans the use of stabilizing braces on pistols” does not mean that using a brace on a pistol converts the pistol into a different type of firearm (an SBR).

The sentence seems to say that it would still be lawful (in some instance) to use a stabilizing brace on a pistol, implying the firearm remains a pistol and does not become something else (an SBR).

Which seems ridiculous because, as you point out, it stands in direct contradiction to all of the places where they are clearly treating braces as stocks and as such something that must convert a pistol to a (short barreled) rifle.
Click to expand...
As I understood it, putting a stock or shoulder device on a glock 19 requires a tax stamp as an SBR. Sure it's still a pistol, but it needs a $200 tax stamp. I read the ATFs language specific to pistols in the same light.
 
tomcatfan said:
As I understood it, putting a stock or shoulder device on a glock 19 requires a tax stamp as an SBR. Sure it's still a pistol, but it needs a $200 tax stamp. I read the ATFs language specific to pistols in the same light.
Click to expand...

Nope. It needs the stamp because it has a stock, and so is no longer a pistol. A glock 19 with a shoulder stock is legally an SBR, not a handgun.

Within the language of the GCA and NFA a pistol cannot have a stock, and a firearm with a stock cannot be a pistol. And ATF should be using the correct meanings of these words in their publications.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tomcatfan
Ronws said:
In my first ever introductory post in this forum, I clearly stated I would be the dumbest one here. And let me prove that statement, once again.

Why do we need an ATF? Not asking for a friend or ironically. I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
We "needed" one because in 1919 they made the Volstead Act, which made alcohol pretty much illegal. People said no, the government made the earliest version of the ATF's ancestor to enforce said Act, and in the 30s when it was repealed, they decided to just go after the ones who kept on making moonshine and not paying taxes n shit.

And then they decided in 1942 that they should be enforcing firearms laws too. And then in the 1950s they also decided they'd be used to enforce tobacco tax laws. In other words, it's ALL about taxes and those $200 stamps you gotta get for your fun toys, so the government can have more of your money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ewoaf, HerCoStarNTheBeaverPictur, Islander and 1 other person
ToddM said:
They're not wrong, they aren't banning anything, you just have to register a pistol with a brace as an SBR to retain it legally. It's just like suppressors aren't banned, but you need to tax stamp them for legal possession.
Click to expand...
If I had no firearms at all would I then need a stamp. This is certainly a ban of a widely used and formerly legal, unrestricted firearm accessary.

The fact that people would try to support BAFTE's interpretation that possession of an A.D.A. accessary constitutes an NFA item is an example of modern day hyperbole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FuhQ and Tx_Aggie
Son of Dorn said:
We "needed" one because in 1919 they made the Volstead Act, which made alcohol pretty much illegal. People said no, the government made the earliest version of the ATF's ancestor to enforce said Act, and in the 30s when it was repealed, they decided to just go after the ones who kept on making moonshine and not paying taxes n shit.

And then they decided in 1942 that they should be enforcing firearms laws too. And then in the 1950s they also decided they'd be used to enforce tobacco tax laws. In other words, it's ALL about taxes and those $200 stamps you gotta get for your fun toys, so the government can have more of your money.
Click to expand...
I was hoping someone would respond as you did. Thing is, how useless was it? Making more laws for people who do not care about laws.

Even so, why worry about braces now? If they already solved the problem of moonshiner gangsters, how is criminalizing a handicapped person going to help things?

Signed, still stupid after all these years,
Ron.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FuhQ
It will get shot down. Supreme Court has already ruled on this type of thing. Look at "Major Questions" cases, most recently involving the EPA. Basically they said these type of administrative actions are far too sweeping and go beyond their scope / autority provided by Congress. Thus Congress needs to make these types of legal changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FuhQ and Tx_Aggie
Ronws said:
I was hoping someone would respond as you did. Thing is, how useless was it? Making more laws for people who do not care about laws.

Even so, why worry about braces now? If they already solved the problem of moonshiner gangsters, how is criminalizing a handicapped person going to help things?

Signed, still stupid after all these years,
Ron.
Click to expand...
They're worrying about braces now because they see it as a threat to their income stream. They've been wavering on them for years and now with the support of the gun-fearing folks, they're now able to ensure that they can maintain a stream of taxation. They don't care if you're handicapped or not. They didn't care if moonshining was the only way to pay your other taxes and keep your family afloat during the Great Depression, or if the bar you put all your time and money and effort in was forcibly closed down by Volstead because you were suddenly criminalized for selling booze.

Like I said, it's all about those $200 tax stamps. That's all the BATF has ever been about, taxes taxes taxes. Getting as much money for the government as possible, whether it's enforcing Volstead, taxing tobacco production (that used to be a SUPER high source of income for the gov't and in the late 1800s it was one of the MAIN means of income for it), or the assorted Gun Control Acts. They'll disguise it as being FOR THE CHILDREN or some crap, of course, but it's not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronws
tomcatfan said:
As I understood it, putting a stock or shoulder device on a glock 19 requires a tax stamp as an SBR. Sure it's still a pistol, but it needs a $200 tax stamp. I read the ATFs language specific to pistols in the same light.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Once the "stock or shoulder device" is added it is no longer considered a pistol but is classified as a SBR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomcatfan
Of their 5 choices, I choose option #6: Do nothing, and wait for this to be halted in court, and presumptively thrown out entirely.

Worst case scenario, my 4 SBR‘d lowers would have spare uppers…already have ‘em in different calibers anyway. This just makes it a lot tougher to take a better self-defense firearm in the form of an 8” or 9” barreled 300BLK AR pistol across state lines when travelling. Just more stupidity from the bureaucrats…but I repeat myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FuhQ and Klay23
Off topic (maybe?) but has anyone looked at the new "rules of behavior" on the eFiles page? Why exactly do they need access to my tax returns?

P.S. Wasn't there a month ago.
 
nikonNUT said:
Off topic (maybe?) but has anyone looked at the new "rules of behavior" on the eFiles page? Why exactly do they need access to my tax returns?

P.S. Wasn't there a month ago.
Click to expand...
Might have something to do with how they plan to approve/deny the millions of form 1s they’re about to get. These are going to have to be batch processed by machine. There’s no way humanly possible for them to use human examiners to go through each form the way they’ve done in the past. Not with the workforce they have, anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikonNUT
J. W. said:
Might have something to do with how they plan to approve/deny the millions of form 1s they’re about to get. These are going to have to be batch processed by machine. There’s no way humanly possible for them to use human examiners to go through each form the way they’ve done in the past. Not with the workforce they have, anyway.
Click to expand...

Ever consider that's the point? Flooding an office that handles 500k applications a year with upwards of 10 million applications is enough to result in a backlog that would last decades. It's a de facto ban on all NFA transfers accomplished via bureaucratic obstruction. A suppressor and MG ban done without the need to pass any legislation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: banks74, TylerN, BurtG and 3 others
Tx_Aggie said:
Ever consider that's the point? Flooding an office that handles 500k applications a year with upwards of 10 million applications is enough to result in a backlog that would last decades. It's a de facto ban on all NFA transfers accomplished via bureaucratic obstruction. A suppressor and MG ban done without the need to pass any legislation.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It could be. Lawsuits will happen, and something of that magnitude will end up in SCOTUS. I think they’d lose the endgame with that move, but they’d clog up the works in the time being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikonNUT and Tx_Aggie
nikonNUT said:
I read where the GOA is estimating 78 years to get them all processed. If it goes down I can kiss that TacSol I have in jail goodbye!
Click to expand...

If there are 40 million braces in the country, and everyone one of them got a Form 1, that's about right. ATF estimates 7 million, I think the Congressional research office put the number between 10 & 40 million. But it's probably a safe bet that a lot of people will choose something other than registration (and many probably live in states where they cannot own an SBR).
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikonNUT
M4orturnate said:
Im really considering grabbing like 4 lowers and getting free stamps. I already have a bunch so im in their system. If i wasnt theres no way id take this bait
Click to expand...
Exactly. I was already planning on SBR'ing 3-4 things because I already have a few suppressors. Saves me money 💰 to buy more ammo. Or hookerz'n'blow. Whatevs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Islander, nikonNUT, M4orturnate and 1 other person
I still remember the solvent trap suppressor issue where people form 1'd the solvent traps and made suppressors. ATF later rescinded the Form 1's and said that those people had illegal suppressors and either had to turn them in or destroy them.

I have a lack of faith and confidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikerret, banks74, TylerN and 4 others
One of the best things anyone can do right now is go and buy a membership to Gun Owners of America. Maybe one of you guys planning on obeying and getting your "free" tax stamp can do a review for the rest of the hide on how those ATF boots taste. You cucks complying with this are greatly disappointing.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: ewoaf, Diesel79, maceface and 5 others
Romeo458 said:
"Final" ruling this time, promise and stuff.

Our local and surrounding DNR have said they can shive their checklist, it's a pistol in a caliber allowed for hunting then it's a pistol. If the locals don't lick fed boots they will never know, if they are boot lockers then use your damn voices and energy to get them out and good people in. These rules don't mean shit, and if any 2A groups have an ounce of sense the lawsuits are already incoming.

Stop thinking like a slave asking who's gonna let me and start thinking like a free man saying who's gonna dare to try and stop me.

Click to expand...

Bravo, I never thought I’d see a Larkin Rose video posted here
 
  • Like
Reactions: Romeo458
ELCO82 said:
One of the best things anyone can do right now is go and buy a membership to Gun Owners of America. Maybe one of you guys planning on obeying and getting your "free" tax stamp can do a review for the rest of the hide on how those ATF boots taste. You cucks complying with this are greatly disappointing.....
Click to expand...
I can already tell you, the boot tastes like shit. It tasted like shit before the pistol brace rule was even a thing. Just go to the armory section and check up on the "form 4 wait time" thread.

The rules are bullshit, but so many are. Do you drive? Do you own a home? Do you buy shit? Do you have a job and pay taxes? Have you ever bought a gun from a dealer? How's that boot taste?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronws
There is reality and fantasy.

My fantasy is I wouldn't have to do anything to be on the ATF or other gov radar.

The reality is I already have a bunch of SBRs, suppressors, AOWs, etc. already. So adding another one to the list means nothing to me.

And while I would like nothing better to be off radar, I have a family, I compete and travel regularly, and I represent 2 professions which fund all of the preceding...
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikerret, just browsing, tomcatfan and 4 others
So this is theoretical but... Someone decides to register a pistol that has a caliber of "Multi". Is that going to fly or is it an insta denial?
 
nikonNUT said:
So this is theoretical but... Someone decides to register a pistol that has a caliber of "Multi". Is that going to fly or is it an insta denial?
Click to expand...
I heard “multi” is a no-go now, but I don’t know that for a fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikonNUT
nikonNUT said:
So this is theoretical but... Someone decides to register a pistol that has a caliber of "Multi". Is that going to fly or is it an insta denial?
Click to expand...
Multi is a no go.
Has to be registered in one configuration.
After it is registered you can run it in any caliber you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikonNUT
J. W. said:
I heard “multi” is a no-go now, but I don’t know that for a fact.
Click to expand...

Gasgun said:
Multi is a no go.
Has to be registered in one configuration.
After it is registered you can run it in any caliber you want.
Click to expand...
And that's why I asked. Checked out a pistol today that was marked "Multi" and it got me pondering. The manufacturers factory marks are ok for the 120 day thing (supposedly) but that goes against the multi caliber doesn't fly on a Form 1. I see more hypocrisy by the minute. Not that that surprises me!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: J. W.
nikonNUT said:
And that's why I asked. Checked out a pistol today that was marked "Multi" and it got me pondering. The manufacturers factory marks are ok for the 120 day thing (supposedly) but that goes against the multi caliber doesn't fly on a From 1. I see more hypocrisy by the minute. Not that that suprises me!
Click to expand...

Receivers can be “multi” because they don’t have a barrel, but any complete firearm that goes through an ffl will have a caliber recorded in the dealer’s bound book. And caliber is often marked on the barrel instead of the receiver.

That pistol you were looking at almost certainly had a caliber marked on the barrel, even though the receiver said “multi.”

And yes, you can swap barrels or uppers on a registered SBR to temporarily reconfigure it however you like, as long as you are able to restore it to the original length and caliber (say by retaining the original upper).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasgun, J. W. and nikonNUT
The part I can't get a clear answer on..... an AR lower receiver can be registered as an SBR and the tax stamp fee is waived along with the ownership engraving?
 
Tx_Aggie said:
And yes, you can swap barrels or uppers on a registered SBR to temporarily reconfigure it however you like, as long as you are able to restore it to the original length and caliber (say by retaining the original upper).
Click to expand...
That makes perfect sense! I know ziich about SRBs. Thank you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tx_Aggie
See what happened to the Bumpstock Ban? Granted it was 5 years later, but still... It was ruled unconstitutional and completely bullshit by the 5th Circuit Supreme Court.

My point being... I wouldn't jump the gun and start signing up for those free hand-out stamps just yet. Only the scarediest NRA-backing Fudds will jump at the chance to register, and then when it's struck-down, the government has more fodder for their ILLEGAL firearms registry.

Unless you were already planning on registering your lower as an SBR, and then sure, get you a free stamp...If it works that way. Personally, I'd just pony-up the $200 and Form-1 it myself whenever I get ready to. I do have a few that I plan on Form-1'ing anyway. Also, once it's a registered SBR, who the fuck would keep the brace on it, unless you were disabled? Once mine are registered, I'm snatching braces and chunking them in the trash, and putting real stock on them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tx_Aggie
Gasgun said:
Multi is a no go.
Has to be registered in one configuration.
After it is registered you can run it in any caliber you want.
Click to expand...
What about OAL's? I heard that it has to be listed along with an actual caliber now... What if it's registered as a 9" barrel, but I want to run a 7.5" barrel? Theoretically, just like caliber, it shouldn't matter once registered, but now that they also want to know an OAL range, then what?
 
FuhQ said:
What about OAL's? I heard that it has to be listed along with an actual caliber now... What if it's registered as a 9" barrel, but I want to run a 7.5" barrel? Theoretically, just like caliber, it shouldn't matter once registered, but now that they also want to know an OAL range, then what?
Click to expand...
You’re just supposed to notify them of length/caliber change, just like before.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BurtG
J. W. said:
You’re just supposed to notify them of length/caliber change, just like before.
Click to expand...
But if you can register a caliber, and then change it at will, and swap on any upper you wish at any time without telling them every time you pull 2 pins, then why is OAL any different?

I thought any SBR’d lower is able to be used on any caliber/barrel length/configuration upper, at any time you wish, since uppers are just 2 pins to swap… Since the lower is the registered part, that basically them getting their $200, and you engraving it, should be all that matters. Right?
 
FuhQ said:
What about OAL's? I heard that it has to be listed along with an actual caliber now... What if it's registered as a 9" barrel, but I want to run a 7.5" barrel? Theoretically, just like caliber, it shouldn't matter once registered, but now that they also want to know an OAL range, then what?
Click to expand...
OAL has always had to be listed.
You are registering a rifle.
It has a caliber, a barrel length and an overall length.
It has to be registered in that configuration.
Once registered, any barrel of any length and caliber can be installed on it.
Any buttstock (that will change the OAL) can be installed.
There is no requirement to keep the parts to return it to the registered configuration.
OAL is measured with the buttstock extended (firing configuration) and the muzzle device removed (unless permanently installed).

People sweat this stuff too much. I understand. If you’re new to NFA, it seems really opaque.

I have 2 AR pattern SBR’s. Both done on Form 1.
Both have a 10.3” barrel listed on the form.
One has had a 14.5” barrel installed for the last 3 years.
I sold the 10.3 off of it .
I didn’t bother to let ATF know because I don’t have to and I’m pretty sure that they really don’t care.
It’s registered, they got their $200, all good. My dog remains unshot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMGtuned, 1911hombre, nikonNUT and 4 others
Gasgun said:
OAL has always had to be listed.
You are registering a rifle.
It has a caliber, a barrel length and an overall length.
It has to be registered in that configuration.
Once registered, any barrel of any length and caliber can be installed on it.
Any buttstock (that will change the OAL) can be installed.
There is no requirement to keep the parts to return it to the registered configuration.
OAL is measured with the buttstock extended (firing configuration) and the muzzle device removed (unless permanently installed).

People sweat this stuff too much. I understand. If you’re new to NFA, it seems really opaque.

I have 2 AR pattern SBR’s. Both done on Form 1.
Both have a 10.3” barrel listed on the form.
One has had a 14.5” barrel installed for the last 3 years.
I sold the 10.3 off of it .
I didn’t bother to let ATF know because I don’t have to and I’m pretty sure that they really don’t care.
It’s registered, they got their $200, all good. My dog remains unshot.
Click to expand...
I’m far from new to NFA, just all the stupid SBR bullshit regs.

So, like I said, they got their money and all your info, that’s all they care about.
 
vh20 said:
How is this notification supposed to be submitted?
Click to expand...
Letter. They state you’re supposed to notify them, but I’m not 100% that it’s legally mandatory. I know a lot of people don’t. Maybe someone else can chime in here.
 
J. W. said:
Letter. They state you’re supposed to notify them, but I’m not 100% that it’s legally mandatory. I know a lot of people don’t. Maybe someone else can chime in here.
Click to expand...
If it were mandatory there would be a form for it. A 5320. something.
There isn’t one.
I’m waiting for someone to post the reg that says that it is required to notify ATF of caliber or barrel length changes.
Not what ATF requests, but requires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikonNUT and J. W.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
BIDENS STABILIZER BAN
Replies
199
Views
9K
AZgeek
A
Hobo Hilton
More from the Southern District of Texas
Replies
5
Views
445
MK20
MK20
Srgt. Hulka
The ATF Backed Down.
Replies
40
Views
2K
Shootin Stuff
Shootin Stuff
Blue Sky Country
Today's gun related WTF: Cali appeals court upholds ammo background checks, Democrats terrified of "ghost guns"...
Replies
9
Views
905
UKDslayer
U
Top Bottom
Back