ATF's Big Moves in the AR/AK Pistol Arena

[rdtompki]

I have two SBRs, but there are millions of AR pistols in the wild. These new pending vague "rules" are clearly design to get all pistols registered as NFA items. ATF, in its generosity, has indicated that if you're the victim of a pre-existing felony (i.e., you own a pistol), you'll be able to register same and they will wave the $200 fee. "Guns and Gadgets" has an excellent video on YT. Going forward pistol sales will clearly be curtailed.

[Duke]

“We all act like foot massage don’t mean anything but we all know they do. That’s what’s so cool about them.”

-Vincent Vega



This started on day one when a hundred new guys a week sent letters to atf asking “are you sure I can?”

[rdtompki]

...This started on day one when a hundred new guys a week sent letters to atf asking “are you sure I can?”

Not that it would make any difference to the anti-gunners, but has anyone every watched a YT video where a pistol wasn't being shouldered?

[Duke]

Not that it would make any difference to the anti-gunners, but has anyone every watched a YT video where a pistol wasn't being shouldered?

Nope

That’s the aspect of it I don’t understand.


“We” bitch and bitch about lack of clarity

They issue clarity - and no shit it’s got a short barrel and “shoulder thing that goes up” - so they’re like we thinks it’s an SBR and metric shit ton of you have those

So get a stamp, put on a real stock and move on.

Guns guys be like “but I don’t want an SBR. I want an ambiguous firearm thing “

[HCM]

I have two SBRs, but there are millions of AR pistols in the wild. These new pending vague "rules" are clearly design to get all pistols registered as NFA items. ATF, in its generosity, has indicated that if you're the victim of a pre-existing felony (i.e., you own a pistol), you'll be able to register same and they will wave the $200 fee. "Guns and Gadgets" has an excellent video on YT. Going forward pistol sales will clearly be curtailed.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?45610-ATF-Singles-out-23-SB-tactical-Firearms-Braces&p=1157308#post1157308

The guns and gadgets guy is a hack who both exaggerates and outright lies to drive clicks on his channel.

He also gives his own (inaccurate) interpretations of legal matters based on his alleged former LEO status.

LEO /ex LEO does not equal Attorney. That drama queen is so full of shit it’s coming out his ears.

[BehindBlueI's]

If I had one, I'd probably register it then put a real stock on it and maybe use it as my duty rifle. We're allowed SBRs and SBSs, but you're on the hook for the paperwork and fees if it's personally owned. My SBS is employer owned, but we have to provide our own rifles now.

At this stage in the game and with the current market I doubt I buy one. My days of being a rifleman or being part of the clearing team in any but the most pressing circumstances are drawing to a close.

[OlongJohnson]

I haven't read the official version yet, but presuming it didn't change from the preview version, you needed to have the braced pistol prior to publication of the document to be eligible for the no-tax permission slip. It's published now, so that door is closed and you're either in or out.

[rdtompki]

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?45610-ATF-Singles-out-23-SB-tactical-Firearms-Braces&p=1157308#post1157308

The guns and gadgets guy is a hack who both exaggerates and outright lies to drive clicks on his channel.

He also gives his own (inaccurate) interpretations of legal matters based on his alleged former LEO status.

LEO /ex LEO does not equal Attorney. That drama queen is so full of shit it’s coming out his ears.

You've got to take most everything on the Interweb with more than a grain of salt, but when the G&G guy is literally reading from the draft "letter" I'm inclined to pay more attention, if for a heads up if nothing else. I'd welcome watching a lengthy YT video or reading an article on this issue authored by a firearms attorney. Anyone have a link?

[HCM]

You've got to take most everything on the Interweb with more than a grain of salt, but when the G&G guy is literally reading from the draft "letter" I'm inclined to pay more attention, if for a heads up if nothing else. I'd welcome watching a lengthy YT video or reading an article on this issue authored by a firearms attorney. Anyone have a link?

Here you go:

https://blog.princelaw.com/category/firearms-law/

[JCS]

So I could by a brace now, not have to pay the $200 fee if this passes and then switch it out to an actual stock without paying for another stamp? I may pick one up just for this reason.

[GyroF-16]

So I could by a brace now, not have to pay the $200 fee if this passes and then switch it out to an actual stock without paying for another stamp? I may pick one up just for this reason.

Only up until yesterday. That “deal” only applied to guns acquired before the policy change was published- which was today.

[Hambo]

So I could by a brace now, not have to pay the $200 fee if this passes and then switch it out to an actual stock without paying for another stamp? I may pick one up just for this reason.

Now I wish I'd bought several pistol lowers.

[KellyinAvon]

I don't own an AR/AK pistol. I'm still on-board with the fight to stop this in it's tracks (write/call/email/draft copy/paste letters for the masses/show up at the Statehouse) because if we lose this one, the next fight will be for my guns.

[Poconnor]

Where do they get the authority to waive a tax? Sounds like a bait and switch. The whole NFA sees to be abolished.

[olstyn]

Where do they get the authority to waive a tax? Sounds like a bait and switch. The whole NFA sees to be abolished.

That is an interesting question.

[Poconnor]

I suspect they know it is not an NFA item and the tax is not required. If they said you cannot shoulder a brace? Ok- that is a clear cut rule/interpretation. It is my understanding that my 870 Tac 14 is a non NFA firearm until I conceal it. Then it becomes an AOW. They need to make things easier; not more difficult.

[HCM]

Only up until yesterday. That “deal” only applied to guns acquired before the policy change was published- which was today.

Yesterday was when the proposed rule was released for public comment.

My understanding is "the date of this notice" is not effective until the actual rule is "published" in the federal register.

joshs would know for sure.

[Rex G]

I bought my DDM4 V7P in 2018, so I reckon that makes me “eligible” for consideration, but I originally bought the weapon because its status as a legal pistol fit some legal niches, in some jurisdictions, not because I wanted an SBR-ish play-toy. I actually want its legality as a braced pistol to continue, though, well, I reckon that if I am offered an amnesty period to legally SBR the thing, I might as well take advantage of the opportunity.

[Totem Polar]

I bought my DDM4 V7P in 2018, so I reckon that makes me “eligible” for consideration, but I originally bought the weapon because its status as a legal pistol fit some legal niches, in some jurisdictions, not because I wanted an SBR-ish play-toy. I actually want its legality as a braced pistol to continue, though, well, I reckon that if I am offered an amnesty period to legally SBR the thing, I might as well take advantage of the opportunity.

Or ditch the brace, and still be able to bag, drive, and cross state lines with the gear. JMO. Much like yourself, if I wanted another rifle in my life, I would have found a rifle.

16” vs 10” is just not a factor. I’m not willing to beg for 6 inches. Unlike LittleLebowski ‘s mom...*



* (I kid, I kid... please don’t have a drunken P-F’er kill me.)

[Nephrology]

I have 1 braced AR pistol and 2 SBRs. I already have a 16" LW upper on order to replace the 11.5" upper on my pistol.

Frankly while I could get a free SBR lower out of this, I will probably pass. The 16" LW sionics upper is much nicer than the "el cheap-o" 11.5" PSA upper it will be replacing, and the hassle of sending it for engraving and filing the paper work doesn't really feel worthwhile for a PSA bullet hose.

will probably just keep the upper as a spare or something if I don't sell it off first.

[Rex G]

Or ditch the brace, and still be able to bag, drive, and cross state lines with the gear. JMO. Much like yourself, if I wanted another rifle in my life, I would have found a rifle.

16” vs 10” is just not a factor. I’m not willing to beg for 6 inches. Unlike LittleLebowski ‘s mom...*



* (I kid, I kid... please don’t have a drunken P-F’er kill me.)

Well, ditching the brace was my first reaction, but, the opportunity for a “free” SBR is something that should not be missed. It is not that much trouble to acquire another AR pistol, or another AR lower upon which to mount the 10.3” upper, as needed.

A backpack or bag large enough to contain a folded LAW-folder-equipped AR15 is one place where six inches does make quite a bit of difference. Moreover, if I were to find myself in legal possession of an amnesty-legal SBR, it should not be all that much extra trouble to have it re-barreled to an even handier length. Notifying BATFE of the change in configuration would be necessary, but that is not like starting a Form 1 from scratch.

Edited to add: Of course, I will have to educate myself on what it entails to own/keep an NFA item. There may be things that I do not yet know that I do not know.

[GyroF-16]

Or ditch the brace, and still be able to bag, drive, and cross state lines with the gear. JMO. Much like yourself, if I wanted another rifle in my life, I would have found a rifle.

16” vs 10” is just not a factor. I’m not willing to beg for 6 inches. Unlike LittleLebowski ‘s mom...*



* (I kid, I kid... please don’t have a drunken P-F’er kill me.)


Or, fight back and demand ACTUAL criteria for what constitutes an acceptable brace for an AR pistol.

Not meaning to slam you, Totem Polar, as I think you want the same.
I just don’t want to be too quick to accept this kind of BS, arbitrary rule-making.
We shouldn’t need to depend on a government official’s assessment of whether something is legal.

The ATF needs to act as the referee, applying written, predictable rules like a football game, not acting as a judge awarding style points like ice dancing.

[Totem Polar]

Or, fight back and demand ACTUAL criteria for what constitutes an acceptable brace for an AR pistol.

Not meaning to slam you, Totem Polar, as I think you want the same.
I just don’t want to be too quick to accept this kind of BS, arbitrary rule-making.
We shouldn’t need to depend on a government official’s assessment of whether something is legal.

The ATF needs to act as the referee, applying written, predictable rules like a football game, not acting as a judge awarding style points like ice dancing.

No slam perceived, and I concur. It’s ideally “letter of the law” and not “daily feelz of the law,” no argument from me.

[rdtompki]

I don't have any pistols, just SBR for home defense and competition, but pistols are obviously very popular for PDW roles and converting to SBR will make travel to multiple states inconvenient. Having an item become NFA I'm sure will further limit the number of states to which you can travel even assuming you do the paperwork (Form 20?). Of course states like CA will forever be off limits.

[Rick R]

From what I saw the new rules basically say “don’t outfit your AR pistol as an SBR or we’ll make it an SBR”. If the brace doesn’t help support the pistol, it’s not a “brace”. If it’s configured with sights, bipod, geegaws and doodads that prevent you from firing it at arms length with one hand, it’s not a “pistol”.

Everyone who posted a sneaky little video online shouldering a braced pistol or shooting with a 4-12x scope, or wrote an inane “clarity” letter to BATFE or added 16# of gear to an AR pistol is partially to blame. How long did everyone think they could rub ATF’s nose in poop and not get a reaction?

[OlongJohnson]

Yesterday was when the proposed rule was released for public comment.

My understanding is "the date of this notice" is not effective until the actual rule is "published" in the federal register.

joshs would know for sure.

I'm reading "publication of this notice" as if "this notice" refers to the thing I'm reading, which was published yesterday.

The summary distinguishes clearly between "this notice" and "final document."

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-27857/p-3


ATF publishes this notice to inform and invite comment from the industry and public on the proposed guidance, Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces,” prior to issuing a final document.

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-27857/p-49


Consequently, following issuance of this notice, ATF and DOJ plan to implement a separate process by which current possessors of affected stabilizer-equipped firearms may choose to register such firearms to be compliant with the NFA. As part of that process, ATF plans to expedite processing of these applications, and ATF has been informed that the Attorney General plans retroactively to exempt such firearms from the collection of NFA taxes if they were made or acquired, prior to the publication of this notice, in good faith. This separate process may include the following options: registering the firearm in compliance with the NFA (described above), permanently removing the stabilizing brace from the firearm and disposing of it, replacing the barrel of the firearm (16” or greater for a rifle, or 18” or greater for a shotgun), surrendering the firearm to ATF, or destroying the firearm.

Until that process is separately implemented, and absent a substantial public safety concern, ATF will exercise its enforcement discretion not to enforce the registration provisions of the NFA against any person who, before publication of this notice, in good faith acquired, transferred, made, manufactured, or possessed an affected stabilizer-equipped firearms.

[psalms144.1]

Looks like the ATF has backed down from this again.

I was looking forward to three "free" tax stamps, because I'm sure the brace will be Executive Ordered out of legality under the new administration, but it is what it is...