Pistol Brace Amnesty

[fly out]

So does that mean you can have an imported braced pistol to register as an SBR?

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

The best I can say is that ATF personnel said that they would process those applications.

I'd be nervous about ATF backtracking and saying, "turns out we didn't have authority to look the other way" or some liberal judge saying that for them. I'm certain I'm overly cautious about this whole mess but we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if they weren't making up stuff as they go along. There is way too much discretion (their word) going on here.

If it was me, and I was going to file with an imported braced pistol, I would wait until the last few weeks, just in case the whole thing goes away in the meantime. But that's just me.

[4RNR]

The best I can say is that ATF personnel said that they would process those applications.

I'd be nervous about ATF backtracking and saying, "turns out we didn't have authority to look the other way" or some liberal judge saying that for them. I'm certain I'm overly cautious about this whole mess but we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if they weren't making up stuff as they go along. There is way too much discretion (their word) going on here.

If it was me, and I was going to file with an imported braced pistol, I would wait until the last few weeks, just in case the whole thing goes away in the meantime. But that's just me.

I was was talking to a buddy who has one and that's pretty much what I told him. Wait a little longer see what happens

Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk

[fly out]

I think the key to that is going to be whether it’s a functional buffer tube required for operation of the firearm a la AR’s.

Of course, that's what they say, now. It's the old joke (not a joke) about negotiating with gun grabbers. They want A, B, C and D. We give them A, B and C, safeguarding D, and the next week they are on the warpath against the D "loophole."

In two weeks we'll see the YT videos from the usual suspects showing how they effectively shoulder a featureless buffer tube.

Maybe we'll soon be able to buy fishing vests with extended shoulder pads that go up. Wouldn't that be ironic?

[WOLFIE]

If this idea or something similar has been mentioned before, forgive me. I would like the NRA, GOA, and the 2nd Amendment Foundation to team up and challenge the law regarding SBR firearms on the following premises. There are many many “pistol brace” SBR firearms in the hands of the common populace for some time now. And how many have been used in a crime??

[HCM]

Of course, that's what they say, now. It's the old joke (not a joke) about negotiating with gun grabbers. They want A, B, C and D. We give them A, B and C, safeguarding D, and the next week they are on the warpath against the D "loophole."

In two weeks we'll see the YT videos from the usual suspects showing how they effectively shoulder a featureless buffer tube.

Maybe we'll soon be able to buy fishing vests with extended shoulder pads that go up. Wouldn't that be ironic?

The functional vs non functional buffer tube was one of the first brace issues, when someone put one on an AK pistol.

[fly out]

For anyone who hasn't seen it, this is "pistol zero"



ATF used the AK pistol and the MP5 as visual examples of guns that don't need any "rearward attachment" in order to function (as opposed to the AR mechanism). Therefore, any rearward attachment on an AK or MP5 is pretty much going to be automatically suspect.

[BillSWPA]

For anyone who hasn't seen it, this is "pistol zero"



ATF used the AK pistol and the MP5 as visual examples of guns that don't need any "rearward attachment" in order to function (as opposed to the AR mechanism). Therefore, any rearward attachment on an AK or MP5 is pretty much going to be automatically suspect.

I have not seen it and am glad you posted it.

That pistol has standard AR-15 iron sights - the type which supposedly require shouldering the gun.

[Paul Blackburn]

The interesting thing about the pistol brace is not the brace but that fact that it put between 3 and 40 million SBR's according to the ATF in the hands of gun owners without any escalation in crimes being committed with them. Even though according to the ATF they're so dangerous and deadly they need to be registered.

Non compliance in the form of hounding your reps and not registering these firearms does send a message. I'm quite certain damn near everyone that owns one has other firearms they can use while this shakes out.

Given the numbers, that they were approved, that they are for disabled people, the recent court rulings, the timing is in our favor to consolidate and send a message.

It's not a hill to die on but at least fight when the deck is stacked in your corner.

[Ed L]

This has been a source of constant confusion to me:

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.”

So according to the above passage, you don't have to worry about 922(R) if you have a foreign made gun with a brace that you wish to SBR and register? When I read that, I thought that it meant the opposite.

[fly out]

This has been a source of constant confusion to me:



So according to the above passage, you don't have to worry about 922(R) if you have a foreign made gun with a brace that you wish to SBR and register? When I read that, I thought that it meant the opposite.

You're right to be befuddled, and, by extension, cautious. "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."

They said yesterday that 922(r) is not an issue. Their examples don't necessarily say that. Who is to say "subsequently equipped"? If you bought a brace and attached it, sure. If you bought a pistol with the brace, are you sure?