Pistol Brace Amnesty

[WobblyPossum]

Is the thinking that imported pistols are a problem under the new rule or just a theoretical concern based on interpretation?

The text of the actual rule document referencing 922(r) was posted a few pages back. It's on page 246-247 and is pretty clear. I wouldn't say it's a theoretical interpretation. If the rule goes into effect, meaning pistols with braces installed retroactively become SBRs, then the 922(r) concern is real. The crime is assembling a rifle or shotgun in the banned configuration with more than 10 foreign parts. If installing the brace made the gun a rifle, then the crime was committed and can't be uncommitted unless the person made the pistol 922(r) compliant prior to installing the brace. Who would have done that and for what reason? Up until now, they told you installing a brace onto a pistol didn't make it into a rifle so 922(r) wasn't even a thought.

@HCM asked a good question upthread. While there is a statute in place preventing the government from prosecuting you criminally based on honest information you submitted while trying to comply with the NFA, we aren't familiar enough with the statute to know if it would prevent the government from civilly forfeiting the gun in question without reimbursement as contraband.

[HCM]

The text of the actual rule document referencing 922(r) was posted a few pages back. It's on page 246-247 and is pretty clear. I wouldn't say it's a theoretical interpretation. If the rule goes into effect, meaning pistols with braces installed retroactively become SBRs, then the 922(r) concern is real. The crime is assembling a rifle or shotgun in the banned configuration with more than 10 foreign parts. If installing the brace made the gun a rifle, then the crime was committed and can't be uncommitted unless the person made the pistol 922(r) compliant prior to installing the brace. Who would have done that and for what reason? Up until now, they told you installing a brace onto a pistol didn't make it into a rifle so 922(r) wasn't even a thought.

@HCM asked a good question upthread. While there is a statute in place preventing the government from prosecuting you criminally based on honest information you submitted while trying to comply with the NFA, we aren't familiar enough with the statute to know if it would prevent the government from civilly forfeiting the gun in question without reimbursement as contraband.

AFAIK there has never been a successful criminal prosecution under 922r, however, getting somewhere between 700k and few million so called “assault weapons” off the street via mandatory surrender or forfeiture would be just the kind of nonsense the current administration would tout as “progress” or “a win” regardless of it actually being an unenforceable quagmire.

[Joe in PNG]

So, if someone stuck a Glock 19 into a CAA Roni or similar brace chassis, what's the deal if the 922R thing is a thing?

[StraitR]

1445116[/URL]]So, if someone stuck a Glock 19 into a CAA Roni or similar brace chassis, what's the deal if the 922R thing is a thing?

Therein lies the rub. Based on the current language in the rule, a Glock “pistol” dropped into a braced chassis would have created a (short barreled) “rifle” configuration. If this was done with an imported Glock, it would be in violation of 922r, thus the firearm would need to be surrendered or destroyed. No removing the brace option, no amnesty SBR registration option.

ETA: Of course there’s the “but how would they know?” stuff. Right, they likely wouldn’t if you didn’t post pics and videos all over social media. I’m not debating that, just stating how the new rule would apply to an “imported” pistol as it’s written.

[Suvorov]

So does anyone here think that this 922R can of worms has anything to do with this rule not yet being entered in the register?

[Borderland]

So does anyone here think that this 922R can of worms has anything to do with this rule not yet being entered in the register?

No, but it has everyone trying to figure out what they're going to do if it does.

I planned ahead for the mag restrictions here that eventually happened last year.

Didn't buy anymore and sold the 20 rounders while I could.

[Totem Polar]

No, but it has everyone trying to figure out what they're going to do if it does.

I planned ahead for the mag restrictions here that eventually happened last year.

Didn't buy anymore and sold the 20 rounders while I could.

I too planned ahead for the mag restrictions. But it sort of looked… well, like the opposite of your solution.

Not that reasonable minds can’t differ, I’ll still buy you a beer any time you venture east.

[03RN]

Therein lies the rub. Based on the current language in the rule, a Glock “pistol” dropped into a braced chassis would have created a (short barreled) “rifle” configuration. If this was done with an imported Glock, it would be in violation of 922r, thus the firearm would need to be surrendered or destroyed. No removing the brace option, no amnesty SBR registration option.

ETA: Of course there’s the “but how would they know?” stuff. Right, they likely wouldn’t if you didn’t post pics and videos all over social media. I’m not debating that, just stating how the new rule would apply to an “imported” pistol as it’s written.

I'm glad I sold that trash after I posted pics and videos

[BillSWPA]

My best guess is that they are trying to get as many people to comply before publishing, knowing that as soon as they publish, companies that make braces or braced pistols will challenge the rule in court. That is only a guess.

[WDR]

I really don't understand folks who are already filing forms and rushing to comply to a rule that has yet to be posted in the federal register. I guess you can hope to "get in at the front of the line", but my previous experience with NFA wait times tells me your place in line means marginally less than something to the people or the process. It goes through when it goes through, with little logic or reason it seems.

I do think this will lead to SBR/SBS challenges in the future.... "common use" and "unusual and dangerous" could probably be challenged here, along side their military/militia purposes. Wishful thinking, maybe, but in a large swath of the country, gun laws have gotten better, not worse, in the last 20-30 years.