New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[nucular]

As much as I hate to be the one defending the ATF, I really don't see it happening that way. They won't be opening 4 million background checks on day one, they'll be processing however many they normally process at once, so the system will be under no more stress than is already is.

Since Form 1s already take 12+ months we know that the background check must only be open for a fraction of that time, otherwise everyone would fail, no one would get an SBR, and everyone would be subject to enforcement action since failing the background check means you can't have *any* firearms, let alone an NFA weapon.

Form 1s for SBRs aren't taking 12 months. More like 1-2 months. Form 4s and form 1s for suppressors are at 9ish months.

 

[nucular]

You think anyone in our current admin, fbi or atf really give a **** what the public thinks?

Hard to say but if they can incrementally push control over time and still reach their goal vs. pushing fast and creating an uprising then probably yeah.

 

[Cameramonkey]

As much as I hate to be the one defending the ATF, I really don't see it happening that way. They won't be opening 4 million background checks on day one, they'll be processing however many they normally process at once, so the system will be under no more stress than is already is.

Since Form 1s already take 12+ months we know that the background check must only be open for a fraction of that time, otherwise everyone would fail, no one would get an SBR, and everyone would be subject to enforcement action since failing the background check means you can't have *any* firearms, let alone an NFA weapon.

I dont trust them. No, they wont be submitting all at once. But I can easily see them getting overwhelmed and folks timing out. As this is a big machine, I can see them steamrolling folks because thats whats supposed to happen when a denial occurs.

The fact that they dont know their own rules enough to write in that exception is disturbing. (we wont take action until an ACTUAL denial FOR CAUSE is issued)

Which leads to another question. What about legit denials pre 88 days? Will they give you the chance to surrender, or just take legal action? (improper expungements, etc.)

 

[bobzilla]

Hard to say but if they can incrementally push control over time and still reach their goal vs. pushing fast and creating an uprising then probably yeah.

Why do you think they’ve been pushing Jan 6 and domestic extremists so hard? They’ve spent the last 2 years brainwashing the masses that people like us are the enemy. This won’t create an uprising. Throw 20k people in prison and the bulk of 2A supporters will give in and become hood little subjects.

 

[nucular]

Why do you think they’ve been pushing Jan 6 and domestic extremists so hard? They’ve spent the last 2 years brainwashing the masses that people like us are the enemy. This won’t create an uprising. Throw 20k people in prison and the bulk of 2A supporters will give in and become hood little subjects.

We don't need the bulk of them. 50 or100k could make some noise.

 

[snorko]

Since Form 1s already take 12+ months we know that the background check must only be open for a fraction of that time, otherwise everyone would fail, no one would get an SBR, and everyone would be subject to enforcement action since failing the background check means you can't have *any* firearms, let alone an NFA weapon.

The difference is with a standard form 1 you do not manufacture the SBR UNTIL you have approval. With this "amnesty" crap, you are admitting you are already in possession of a de facto SBR based on the BATFE's flip flopping.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Which leads to another question. What about legit denials pre 88 days? Will they give you the chance to surrender, or just take legal action? (improper expungements, etc.)

I expect it will be however they handle it now if you get denied.

The difference is with a standard form 1 you do not manufacture the SBR UNTIL you have approval. With this "amnesty" crap, you are admitting you are already in possession of a de facto SBR based on the BATFE's flip flopping.

That's a different question than the background check issue, and they've said as long as the Form 1 was submitted within the 120 day window you're good until the stamp is issued.


But no I don't trust it all to work out correctly either, I won't be submitting a Form 1 and I've already converted my "SBR" back into a legal pistol.

 

[nonobaddog]

But no I don't trust it all to work out correctly either, I won't be submitting a Form 1 and I've already converted my "SBR" back into a legal pistol.

I hope you are right. But it took them 300 pages to write this "rule" so there might be a "gotcha" in there somewhere.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I hope you are right. But it took them 300 pages to write this "rule" so there might be a "gotcha" in there somewhere.

The rule itself is only about 20 pages (still very long for what its accomplishing) the rest is responses to comments they received on the proposed rule.

 

[tackdriver]

ITS A TRAP! (?) Thats interesting. And the fatality isnt to the ruling making it go away, get defeated, etc. The fatal flaw hurts us.

TL;DR(W) You give them proof you already have a SBR according to the new ruling when you submit the details on your Form1 app.
After 88 days, an open (unfinished) background check automatically defaults to a deny.
When you and 4 million of your best friends all submit for the free form 1 to play by the rules, there is no way they can keep up with the load, making checks go beyond 88 days. Instant felons.

And an ATF rep at SHOT said that an enforcement action would be taken. They dont appear to have thought out this process fully.

So maybe its better skipping the free Form 1 and just converting to a rifle or paying the $200 for a SBR that doesnt exist yet?



EDIT: derpending on how generous you are, this is either accidental or on purpose.

I'm missing something. Is the "Free" Form 1 significantly different from the normal Form 1?

Why can't we:
1. Remove the brace, now you have a pistol and a part to convert it.
2. File the Form 1, because you want to re-attach the brace to the pistol and convert it to a SBR.
Send the pictures of the two parts separated from each other, or whatever.
3. If your Form 1 is approved, you reattach the brace. If not, you have your answer, and you never committed a felony.

Is there a better way to take advantage of the current opportunity, without opening ones self to a felony charge?

Some may say 'constructive possession' or whatever. The ATF has stated a 120 day window for compliance, AND stated that if you file for a stamp, you can possess and use until the request is approved or denied (even if it takes years). Given the STAPLES v UNITED STATES case, requiring that you had actual knowledge that you were violating the law, I don't see how they can get there - especially if the brace/stock is not attached.

Also, given the ATF's statements about the 120 days and the ability to continue possession while waiting on approval, there may be an argument for entrapment, if they show up at our doors. I'm not very familiar with precedents on entrapment, but from a layman's perspective, this seems to fit.

As for the 88 day automatic denial -> they show up at your door, thing - I don't get this either. The 88 days applies to the background check portion of the process. With modern information systems, this should take minutes - maybe days if they involve local LE or something. I'd LOVE to know the details of the checks the ATF are doing, and how they are significantly different than the instant check at the LGS or a LTC.

I thought it was a check to see if you are prohibited. Is there different, heightened, criteria for a SBR than a handgun? If so, what is the difference? This isn't a background investigation to get a TS-SCI clearance or anything.

Much of this smells like a fundraising drive for pro-2A groups. Just because I agree with them doesn't mean I trust them. They seem to want to scare me with what the gov't is going to do to me, just like the anti-2A groups scare others with 9mm-lung-ripper-outers and black assault rifles with death ray lasers attached. Neither are helpful for us average people.

I need to decide what to do now, and just don't understand. I'm looking for solutions, not more threats. I want the gun, configured the way I want it. I don't want to get charged with a crime. Why should I spend the extra $200? I'd rather spend it on ammo than give it to the ATF.

I must be missing a lot I need to know.

 

[nonobaddog]

The rule itself is only about 20 pages (still very long for what its accomplishing) the rest is responses to comments they received on the proposed rule.

Thanks - maybe I'll read it after all.

 

[PRasko]

ITS A TRAP! (?) Thats interesting. And the fatality isnt to the ruling making it go away, get defeated, etc. The fatal flaw hurts us.

TL;DR(W) You give them proof you already have a SBR according to the new ruling when you submit the details on your Form1 app.
After 88 days, an open (unfinished) background check automatically defaults to a deny.
When you and 4 million of your best friends all submit for the free form 1 to play by the rules, there is no way they can keep up with the load, making checks go beyond 88 days. Instant felons.

And an ATF rep at SHOT said that an enforcement action would be taken. They dont appear to have thought out this process fully.

So maybe its better skipping the free Form 1 and just converting to a rifle or paying the $200 for a SBR that doesnt exist yet?



EDIT: derpending on how generous you are, this is either accidental or on purpose.

I don’t mean to say I told ya so, but I literally said this was a trap back on post 134…

This is nothing more than an attempt to turn law abiding conservatives into none voting felons.

 

[tackdriver]

I hope you are right. But it took them 300 pages to write this "rule" so there might be a "gotcha" in there somewhere.

I've never read a contract or legal document over a page that I didn't find a "gotcha" in. I just co-signed on a lease for my daughter that was filled with them. I couldn't change the language, and she needs a place to live, so we signed it. I talked with her about the risks, and how to minimize them, but that's the best we could do.

We get into this mess because the NFA/GCA are not an honest, logical, attempt to solve a legitimate problem begin with. There real purpose was to ban something that could not be banned; to infringe on a right guaranteed in the Constitution. To get around the law, the gov't played games. "It's not a ban, it's just a tax." To get around their games, those wanting to excercise thier right, invented other games. "It's not a stock, it's a brace for those with disabilities." ... and here we are.

The deeper it gets down the illogical, irrational, and dishonest rabbit hole - the more difficult it is to make any move that doesn't require a lot of word salad. The more words, the greater the chance for "gotchas" later (intended or not in the present). The only real solution is to role everything back to a logical, reasonable, and honest position. I don't see that happening soon.

 

[Fixer]

Interesting take on the new “rule”.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Interesting take on the new “rule”.

Tell us you havent read the whole thread without telling us you havent read the thread.

(Dupe of post 400)

 

[2in1evtime]

As i have never purchased a AR pistol, were these sold as pistols or rifle or other? If you have one and covert it to a rifle would that be illegal if sold as a pistol?? I no longer have any ar with pistol braces but was just curious about this?

 

[Shibby575]

It as far as I can tell has not been published to the register. If it never gets published it never goes in to effect.

 

[nonobaddog]

It as far as I can tell has not been published to the register. If it never gets published it never goes in to effect.

But you can still send them proof that you are a felon anyway, right?

 

[bobzilla]

..... The ATF has stated...

Full stop. The ATF has said that braces were legal. The stated bumpstocks were fine. The ATF says a LOT of **** they change their minds on continually. Why ANYONE would be dumb enough to fall for this latest in a long line of lies is beyond my comprehension. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me again and again and again and again..... well that's just me being a moron.

 

[Lands03]

GOA lawyer with some interesting points about the ruling.
Talked about an 88 day automatic denial if your application wasn't approved in that time.
Also brought up the fact that what the ATF is doing it backward from their norm (typically you get permission - tax stamp- then build your item, this time, you already have the item before getting permission).