I'm not sure how they plan to expedite a number of forms that could approach the total number of firearms registered in the NFRTR as of 2019.Originally Posted by Duke
My favorite part is the repeated claim that these are "objective" when they dropped this gem in there: "No single factor or combination of factors is necessarily dispositive, and FATD examines each weapon holistically on a case-by-case basis."
They now feel full on empowered with the "political capital" to reverse any and every past ruling or guidance and just "change their minds, change the rules" as they have so many times in the past. Goodbye 80% lowers of all sorts, goodbye braces of every sort. Goodbye many things imported that previously had "a sporting purpose". There is nobody to stand in their way anymore and its time to see what they can do to kiss up to their new boss.
Does this mean that all pistol braces are going to become "illegal" or just the SB Tactical Braces? If it's just SB, what would be a good brace to replace one with?
Hmm.... I just got finished perusing the Polymer 80 thread that derailed into a discussion about (consent vs PC) searches and now I am here. With the way ATF is running things at the moment, this is where my mind goes.
Registering the brace is a de facto gun registration. Will there come a day, after all braces are registered for free (whee!) that ATF decides, “No, we have changed our minds again. Braces are now illegal and must be surrendered.” And for those who do not comply and surrender the now-registered braces, ATF shows up at the formerly law-abiding gun owner’s doorstep with a search warrant to confiscate the brace and/or arrest the brace owner. Heck, they might just skip the search cause once registered, THEY KNOW YOU HAVE IT. (And if you are the type of person who would violate the “surrender your brace” law, you must be very dangerous.) Remember, guns don’t kill people, guns with braces do...
Do I need to loosen (or tighten) my tinfoil?
It is subjectively objective.
Braces have always been at war with Eastasia.
Well, their answer is “free” SBR registration. Remember, they are saying that the brace is a shouldering device.
Once it is registered, being the verbiage makes it out that in process NFA applications are good with the braces, you will have a stamped SBR (unsure if braced TAC-14s will be lumped in, and SBSed). So, once it is engraved and stamp is in hand... bye-bye brace, hello stock. Kind of a pain, but stocks are more appropriate in more situations than braces. I didn’t build my pistols to get around NFA laws, but if they are going to be registered as such, might as well do it right.
My question is what about the non-shotguns and other ARs (over 26” OAL, brace, and vertical grip)? So, they are going SBx? I was planning on AOWing my TAC-14, being adding a folding brace would allow me to go back to a non-NFA status by adding the original grip. Once a stock is on it (that’s what they are saying the brace is), it is a shotgun. To go to non-NFA... I’d have to add an 18” barrel. I’m guessing that sort of puts the heels to that.
Also, are NFA items protected from any further confiscation? Anything written in the NFA specifically that discusses that? That would be my deciding factor, being if I got a stamped SBR, even if they wave the tax... it is a taxable item. If I sell, it is a $200 transfer. So, how can they legally take it away from you?
Pistol braces won't become illegal any more than stocks will become illegal. What they're proposing are subjective standards which will prevent using pistol braces on pistols. If you want to put a brace on a rifle, then what will the ATF do, charge you with using a pistol brace as a stock on a firearm which is supposed to have a stock?
You can't register a brace, it's not a firearm. You can only register the gun which a brace is installed on, as an SBR or SBS. Once that's done though, why use a brace instead of a normal stock?
Wasn't one of the benefits of having a pistol supposedly being easier interstate travel?
The unpublished version is now available for public inspection: https://public-inspection.federalreg...2020-27857.pdf
It will likely be officially published tomorrow, which will start the comment period.
That and avoiding the perception risks potentially associated with lawful defensive use of an NFA item.
-------------------
Wargaming this out, I could imagine it becoming a fight about "common use." If the number of pistols suddenly required to be registered under NFA goes into hundreds of thousands, there's an argument that they are in "common use." So one side would say it's now legitimate for the NFA to cover items in common use, and try to sweep all firearms (or maybe just all handguns, or all semi-autos) into it. The other side would say the NFA was obviously not intended to include items in common use, and it's demonstrated by the numbers that SBRs are in common use, so take SBRs out of the NFA.
Uncertain odds, high stakes.
.
-----------------------------------------
Not another dime.
Reply With Quote