New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Discussion of firearm-related news stories. Please use "Off Topic" for non-firearm news.
Forum rules
Do NOT post the full text of published articles. If you would like to discuss a news story please link to it and, at most, include a brief summary of the article.

New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Bergie on Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:45 pm

Given the ATF has now ruled on braces being regulated on guns w/-16” barrels….what’s your intended action now? (for those that have ARs under 16”) Seems the gist is either A) tell the ATF you’ve built/bought a sub-16” barreled gun and require a license for it, or B) rebuild the barreled upper and put on a 16” barrel. (Knowing that if you wait the 120+ days after 12Jan option A requires a $200 fee!)
*pisses me off because all those ‘pistol’ 300AAC’s now must be tracked?! So if I hunt deer in a shotgun and pistol zone, I can’t use that gun anymore if I swap barrels and it’s now a SBR?
Last edited by Bergie on Mon Jan 16, 2023 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bergie
 
Posts: 163 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:42 am

New ATF final ruling: Pistol Brace vs SBR

Postby gun_fan111v2 on Mon Jan 16, 2023 8:04 pm

User avatar
gun_fan111v2
 
Posts: 1112 [View]
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:31 pm

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol Brace vs SBR

Postby jdege on Mon Jan 16, 2023 8:22 pm

Or simply build the pistol without a brace?
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4520 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol Brace vs SBR

Postby Bergie on Mon Jan 16, 2023 8:57 pm

jdege wrote:Or simply build the pistol without a brace?


But that’s just it- even if you took off the “brace”, according to the ATF you’d still have a pistol if the barrel is less than 16”, hence required to register/license it. Believe me, I thought about just swapping out the brace to a straight tube, but that wouldn’t make a difference to them.

Regardless, this horse has been downed and kicked from a prior thread. (I read the ATF release later than most)
Bergie
 
Posts: 163 [View]
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:42 am

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby warrlac on Tue Jan 17, 2023 12:39 pm

My understanding is that an AR-15 pistol without a stabilization brace is simply a pistol.
User avatar
warrlac
 
Posts: 247 [View]
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:07 pm
Location: Burnsville

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Bearcatrp on Tue Jan 17, 2023 7:44 pm

It will get thrown out in the challenge. ATF let the brace become standard for years. Now they want to change. Since I sold all my AR’s with a brace, don’t have to worry about this.
Bearcatrp
 
Posts: 2997 [View]
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Holland&Holland on Wed Jan 18, 2023 10:42 am

warrlac wrote:My understanding is that an AR-15 pistol without a stabilization brace is simply a pistol.


Unless it isn't. If they can find a picture of someone shouldering it online, then it is an SBR.
User avatar
Holland&Holland
 
Posts: 12533 [View]
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:17 am

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby jdege on Wed Jan 18, 2023 11:11 am

Holland&Holland wrote:
warrlac wrote:My understanding is that an AR-15 pistol without a stabilization brace is simply a pistol.


Unless it isn't. If they can find a picture of someone shouldering it online, then it is an SBR.


Or they find something can be used as a brace in your possession.

It needn't be attached to the firearm. That you have it is enough.
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4520 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Lumpy on Wed Jan 18, 2023 12:56 pm

Seriously, isn't there any movement (other than wishing) to repeal the short-barreled rifle and suppressor provisions of the NFA? Isn't someone in the House advancing legislation on this?
User avatar
Lumpy
 
Posts: 2753 [View]
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:54 pm
Location: North of Lowry, West of Penn

New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby gun_fan111v2 on Wed Jan 18, 2023 5:27 pm

Lumpy wrote:Seriously, isn't there any movement (other than wishing) to repeal the short-barreled rifle and suppressor provisions of the NFA? Isn't someone in the House advancing legislation on this?


I don’t follow politics that closely, but I get the impression that SBRs are being positioned as the next EVIL and eliminating them is supposed to solve the mass shooting problem. With popularity of ARs and other modern sporting rifles, this probably makes an easier target to score political points.
User avatar
gun_fan111v2
 
Posts: 1112 [View]
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:31 pm

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Scratch on Wed Jan 18, 2023 5:29 pm

jdege wrote:
Holland&Holland wrote:
warrlac wrote:My understanding is that an AR-15 pistol without a stabilization brace is simply a pistol.


Unless it isn't. If they can find a picture of someone shouldering it online, then it is an SBR.


Or they find something can be used as a brace in your possession.

It needn't be attached to the firearm. That you have it is enough.

Wait a minute… I thought owning one was fine, as long as it wasn’t installed on a firearm.
01 FFL in Hudson Wisconsin
User avatar
Scratch
 
Posts: 2154 [View]
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Location: Hudson, WI

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby jdege on Wed Jan 18, 2023 9:02 pm

Scratch wrote:
jdege wrote:It needn't be attached to the firearm. That you have it is enough.

Wait a minute… I thought owning one was fine, as long as it wasn’t installed on a firearm.

It's called "constructive possession". And people can and have been prosecuted for the possession of pistols and of stocks or pistol grips that were not attached to the pistol.
User avatar
jdege
 
Posts: 4520 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:07 am

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby xd ED on Wed Jan 18, 2023 10:38 pm

jdege wrote:
Scratch wrote:
jdege wrote:It needn't be attached to the firearm. That you have it is enough.

Wait a minute… I thought owning one was fine, as long as it wasn’t installed on a firearm.

It's called "constructive possession". And people can and have been prosecuted for the possession of pistols and of stocks or pistol grips that were not attached to the pistol.


If the atf had its way, you’d get busted for having a pistol brace on your wish list at Brownell’s web site.
LET'S GO BRANDON
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9046 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Jackpine Savage on Thu Jan 19, 2023 6:43 am

Here's a letter I received from the Firearms Policy Coalition:


Thinking of taking the ATF's bait?

Craig,

Think again.

The ATF has generously offered those of us who possess braced weapons a chance to get a FREE tax stamp to keep them in their current configuration.

If it seems too good to be true, it's because it is.

This devil's bargain is their attempt to have you capitulate, and the carrot they're dangling is rotten.

By signing your name, you not only tell them what you have but also give them permission to come verify your possession of it.

If this doesn't scream registry, we don't know what would.

Instead of taking the bait, TAKE ACTION to kill this rule change!

STOP THE PISTOL BRACE BAN!

For those who do get hooked by the State, good luck ever seeing your tax stamp, and certainly not in the 120-day grace period.

With over 40+ million braces in circulation, if even a fraction of those applied to have form 4s completed for their rifles, the pressure on the already impossibly strained system would be far too much.

People already expect to wait 90-180 days to get a form 4 back, and that is with electronic filing.

A deluge of millions of pending forms would break an already failing system, leading to backlogs the likes of which we have never seen.

This bureaucratic nightmare would only add to their justification for more agents and a more robust background check system, which ultimately leads to a national firearm/gun owner registry.

TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE BUREAUCRACY!

We don't know about you, but that's not something we are willing to accept.

We have three words for just this situation.

**** you, no.

This is why it's vital that all of you keep hitting that action button, and contribute what you can, so this can be fought on all fronts at all times.

Click the TAKE ACTION button below and visit our litigation fund here, so we can take this fight all the way to the finish.

TAKE ACTION!

In addition to this, the most important thing you can be doing to help us is spreading our message. Share this email with all your friends and family! And if you can, consider directly supporting FPC’s work by joining our grassroots army or making a donation. Without you, none of what we do would be possible.

Stay Free,

Firearms Policy Coalition


Contact your reps. Give the Firearms Policy Coalition some money. Don't be in a big hurry to do anything else right now.
User avatar
Jackpine Savage
 
Posts: 1727 [View]
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:45 am
Location: west central MN

Re: New ATF final ruling: Pistol (Brace) vs SBR

Postby Bitter Bastard on Thu Jan 19, 2023 7:49 am

jdege wrote:
Scratch wrote:
jdege wrote:It needn't be attached to the firearm. That you have it is enough.

Wait a minute… I thought owning one was fine, as long as it wasn’t installed on a firearm.

It's called "constructive possession". And people can and have been prosecuted for the possession of pistols and of stocks or pistol grips that were not attached to the pistol.


As long as there is a legal configuration for the parts, you should generally be OK as far as I know. Such as if you have a brace, which now counts as a stock, and an AR-15 rifle you should be clear from a constructive possession rap. Not a lawyer, not legal advice, but that's my understanding.

Good luck!

Bitter Bastard
Bitter Bastard
 
Posts: 338 [View]
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 9:20 am

Next

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron