I didn’t notice - all mine were US made.Originally Posted by GJM
I didn’t notice - all mine were US made.
Last edited by HeavyDuty; 02-01-2023 at 07:37 PM.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
If anyone cares, the submission numbers incremented by about 10,000 between noon yesterday and noon today.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
My last Form 1 was for a B&T about five months ago. B&T AG, Switzerland was an option for manufacturers and APC9 Pro was an option for model under that manufacturer. You should be fine since those are fairly common types of guns people like to SBR.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
922?
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
The current guidance, see the FAQ question 9, basically says they don’t care. Here’s the answer to the question “I POSSESS A PISTOL, WHICH WAS IMPORTED AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY EQUIPPED WITH A STABILIZING BRACE. DOES 18 U.S.C. § 922(R) APPLY TO MY FIREARM?”
“No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the GCA at 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. As discussed in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is for the “assembly” of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm would cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembly” has already occurred. Accordingly, a person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a “stabilizing brace” will have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.”
Basically, I wish I waited for this before Form 1ing my APC. I could have saved $200 and not had to get it engraved. The engraving on mine doesn’t look good.
I SBRed my only import a few years ago, so I ducked the whole 922(r) issue by flinging money at it.
I’m lovin’ the ruling that SBRs registered under this can retain the maker’s markings without adding anything, which makes sense from the standpoint of their opinion that they were SBRs from birth and marked then. That’s saving me a fair amount of money.
Ken
BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”
Congress finally taking noting of the ATF brace action:
Compliant people are easier to conquer. The BATFE know this and count on it. Look at how many are already complying with an unconstitutional rule.
The more that comply shifts the burden to those that don't comply and push the fight on all fronts.
If ZERO people applied for the FREE permission slip what signal and impact would that have on overturning this?
Its disappointing that so many Americans choose comfort and security over liberty.
Are you loyal to the constitution or the “institution”?
WELL SAID PAUL!
If I was able to, I'd like this a million times!
Aren't pistol braces designed to be "compliant" with the law? Why use a brace at all if you don't want to comply?
Reply With Quote