Pistol Brace Amnesty

[Hambo]

3. It’s noteworthy that a JTTF was working this, not a Violent Crimes Squad or Safe Streets Task Force.

That's the most interesting, and not surprisingly, least illuminated part of the story.

[littlejerry]

Highly likely.

Unlike say bump stocks or FRTs which are being compared to an existing statutory definition the whole pistol brace thing is a giant gray area created via litigation and regulation by SIG and ATF. Be that as it may, there is a decade of precedent now for pistol braces and having been “suffered and permitted” long enough for over 4 million of them to be in circulation
they now certainly would be considered to be in “common use.”

Legal and 2A philosophy arguments aside, in addition to the normal 2A NGO groups, 4 million braces means there are multiple businesses with a real financial incentive to litigate this

It would seem the various letters out there from the ATF will complicate any legal arguments.

"We thought it was legal until we weren't sure, then it was OK depending on which body part touched it, but really what mattered was what you believed deep in your soul when you purchased it. Now we're pretty sure it's not legal at all."

[HeavyDuty]

Stay quiet, no pics, be careful. No judgement from me.

Just saying, they have indeed stooped to using informants to bust people for this. Yes, the FBI. I know I feel safer. 21 months in prison for putting a stock on a Scorpion pistol, he’d never been arrested before.

https://www.ammoland.com/2022/07/fbi...urdity-of-nfa/

Cry me a river. He knowingly violated Federal statute. He can FOAD so far as I’m concerned.

[TC215]

1. He knew he was in violation of the NFA.

2. He discussed selling the illegal weapon to the informant.

3. He signed a plea agreement acknowledging the above facts.

3. It’s noteworthy that a JTTF was working this, not a Violent Crimes Squad or Safe Streets Task Force.

4. He was sentenced at the bottom of the guideline range.

5. Like it or not, informants are how many cases are made.


I’m not a fan of the NFA either. But I’m also not dumb enough to knowingly violate it.

Also, it’s somewhat out of the norm for the Bureau to work a “one-off” gun case like this.


Two number 3’s. Classic.

[5pins]

Looking into it… AFT would have people break the law by doing a Form 1 on a factory braced pistol.

If you bought a braced pistol, you aren’t manufacturing an SBR. It came that way. Did not install a stock/brace, as it really was a legal pistol at time of purchase. But we will forget about that, because it’s been debated for years… but let’s say my PSA AK-P is a braced SBR. If this were starting from the beginning in a normal circumstance, you’d Form 4 it (transfer, as in you bought instead of made it). That didn’t happen because it was purchased as a pistol. For me to do that on a Form 1, I’m technically lying on a Federal application. This is on the instructions part of a Form 1…



Granted, we don’t have the specifics on what they are planning… and maybe they have an answer for these situations, but this is what happens when you have an agency start making the rules by themselves.

That is their logic of solvent traps. If you bought the parts to make one then it should have been on a form 4 and therefore can not now be on a form 1.

[HCM]

It would seem the various letters out there from the ATF will complicate any legal arguments.

"We thought it was legal until we weren't sure, then it was OK depending on which body part touched it, but really what mattered was what you believed deep in your soul when you purchased it. Now we're pretty sure it's not legal at all."

Yup.

[HCM]

That is their logic of solvent traps. If you bought the parts to make one then it should have been on a form 4 and therefore can not now be on a form 1.

Yes but no. That is not just their interpretation.

Legally suppressor parts aren’t like gun parts.

The statute (as passed by congress) clearly states any suppressor part or part intended to be a suppressor part is a suppressor.

So legally a “wink-wink” solvent trap, or so-called “80% suppressor kit”are all suppressors because they are intended to be suppressor parts. And they always have been per congress.

Again that is in the statute, not one of ATF’s interpretations.

In practical terms comparisons between the legalities of SBRs and Braces vs Suppressors and the various kits, traps, whatever is apples to oranges and frankly a distraction.

[Screwball]

That is their logic of solvent traps. If you bought the parts to make one then it should have been on a form 4 and therefore can not now be on a form 1.

Well, was talking to people online about it… it sounds like this has happened before with USAS-12s when they became DD.

From what I was told, Form 1 with the standard info like normal (original maker info) and then waved $200… no engraving because it wasn’t made by the applicant.

Past the amnesty period… you can still Form 1 a USAS-12 by paying $200. Since you’d be putting it together, thus being the manufacturer, you’d have to engrave. Seems more logical… so probably will be completely screwed up by AFT. [emoji1787]

That being said, it would be nice if the idea that the firearm was manufactured prior to this decision would allow the same setup, because people wouldn’t have to pay the tax or engrave. Stamp comes back, you buy a stock… done.

I still think the idea is BS and an overreach… but if that is an option, I’ll probably SBR everything I can just to not pay the tax. I kind of was leaning towards SBR/SBS everything (I miss our 14” shotguns and I like stocks), but $1,400 and engraving gets pricey.

[HCM]

1. He knew he was in violation of the NFA.

2. He discussed selling the illegal weapon to the informant.

3. He signed a plea agreement acknowledging the above facts.

3. It’s noteworthy that a JTTF was working this, not a Violent Crimes Squad or Safe Streets Task Force.

4. He was sentenced at the bottom of the guideline range.

5. Like it or not, informants are how many cases are made.


I’m not a fan of the NFA either. But I’m also not dumb enough to knowingly violate it.

That's the most interesting, and not surprisingly, least illuminated part of the story.

Yup.

Despite the breathless tone of the Ammoland article, I’d bet a PF dollar whatever NFA violation came to light was collateral / incidental to whatever actually caused them to investigate him in the first place.

[TGS]

When did it become okay on P-F to approve of, and encourage, the violation of federal firearms laws?

From the P-F.com Code of Conduct "absolutely under no circumstances" list:

Post comments in support of criminal violence or other illegal activities, including illegal modifications of firearms.