Pistol Brace Amnesty

[Screwball]

I think people are interpreting that wrong. That is speaking to parts kits, not pistols, and it still doesn’t say you can’t reconfigure a SBR back to a pistol, If anything, the last sentence of that same paragraph speaks to returning items to original pistol configuration, saying “Likewise, because it is the same weapon when reconfigured as a pistol, no “weapon made from a rifle” subject to the NFA has been made.”

Well, I’m going to have to disagree with you on multiple points…

That rule is specifically related to the Thompson Center decision. That was people who bought a Contender pistol, and it was figured as if they built it into a rifle, it couldn’t go back to a pistol (that is what your argument is, more/less). This was the whole, “put the long barrel on first, then stock” concept.

It is not speaking to parts kits as you are referring to. It is speaking to parts kits that were being sold to convert a pistol to a rifle. Thompson Center did some, as did Beretta with their Neos kit. We are not talking about a demilled AK, and you build it on your own receiver.

That ruling sets the grounds as long as the manufacture/remanufacture does not create an NFA firearm… you can return back to pistol status. In short, you make the legal definition of a rifle (16” barrel and stock) out of that pistol without making an SBR, you can revert back to the pistol.

Form 1ing the Glock to an SBR… that is manufacturing it into an NFA firearm. It’s why a Form 1 is filed. ATF is viewing a pistol with a brace as a NFA firearm, but their amnesty is allowing you to take the brace off or put a 16” barrel on to make it compliant (or register it with the tax waived). But if you file the paperwork… you created a NFA firearm, thus can’t go back to pistol in that manner.

I will grant that if you SBR a Glock, you can physically put it back into the same configuration that it was as a pistol… but legally, it will always be an SBR. That is shy of installing a 16” barrel and stock.

[The Rat]

This video has making the rounds today:


The short version is that if your background check is delayed, the ATF auto-denies your application after 88 days. If that happens with a brace submittal, because you've already admitted to them that you have what they consider an illegal SBR, they may proceed with an "enforcement action." This could be problematic especially if someone submits right at the end of the 120 day grace period and can't resubmit again.

Thoughts? My initial thought is that it'd take an awful lot of manpower to go after that many gun owners, but it does still seem like a big problem in the current scheme.

[Joe in PNG]

There's proper paranoia about the actions of a government, and then there's stupid paranoia.

The "IT'S A TRAAAAPPPP!!!!" thing falls into the second category.

[LittleLebowski]

*caresses 16” AUG lovingly*

[MickAK]

Thoughts? My initial thought is that it'd take an awful lot of manpower to go after that many gun owners, but it does still seem like a big problem in the current scheme.

If you look at Federal enforcement actions they do a pretty decent job of avoiding people that are going to give them sticky court cases.

[Joe in PNG]

*caresses 16” AUG lovingly*

If you care to hook a poor brother out and donate one my way...

[Lon]

If you look at Federal enforcement actions they do a pretty decent job of avoiding people that are going to give them sticky court cases.

I’ve had a hard time just getting them to take cases against real criminals.

[BillSWPA]

This video has making the rounds today:


The short version is that if your background check is delayed, the ATF auto-denies your application after 88 days. If that happens with a brace submittal, because you've already admitted to them that you have what they consider an illegal SBR, they may proceed with an "enforcement action." This could be problematic especially if someone submits right at the end of the 120 day grace period and can't resubmit again.

Thoughts? My initial thought is that it'd take an awful lot of manpower to go after that many gun owners, but it does still seem like a big problem in the current scheme.

Where does this 88 day automatic denial come from?

Even if the 88 day automatic denial is a thing, I doubt prosecuting someone for following the rule would hold up well in the courts.

While it is completely true that a gun could be configured numerous ways that would make compliance anyone's guess, I have to question not knowing how to advise a client when I have set forth a clearly compliant configuration above.

[Joe in PNG]

At this point, I may just have to junk the brace on my Evo3 and eat the cost (unless I can find the 16" bbl for it). I'm still working overseas on a regular basis for the next couple of years, but I don't have the time or inclination to set up a trust.

And even if I did get it registered, or get a rifle barrel, I'd still end up just junking the brace anyway.

[StraitR]

1443366[/URL]]Well, I’m going to have to disagree with you on multiple points…

That rule is specifically related to the Thompson Center decision. That was people who bought a Contender pistol, and it was figured as if they built it into a rifle, it couldn’t go back to a pistol (that is what your argument is, more/less). This was the whole, “put the long barrel on first, then stock” concept.

It is not speaking to parts kits as you are referring to. It is speaking to parts kits that were being sold to convert a pistol to a rifle. Thompson Center did some, as did Beretta with their Neos kit. We are not talking about a demilled AK, and you build it on your own receiver.

That ruling sets the grounds as long as the manufacture/remanufacture does not create an NFA firearm… you can return back to pistol status. In short, you make the legal definition of a rifle (16” barrel and stock) out of that pistol without making an SBR, you can revert back to the pistol.

Form 1ing the Glock to an SBR… that is manufacturing it into an NFA firearm. It’s why a Form 1 is filed. ATF is viewing a pistol with a brace as a NFA firearm, but their amnesty is allowing you to take the brace off or put a 16” barrel on to make it compliant (or register it with the tax waived). But if you file the paperwork… you created a NFA firearm, thus can’t go back to pistol in that manner.

I will grant that if you SBR a Glock, you can physically put it back into the same configuration that it was as a pistol… but legally, it will always be an SBR. That is shy of installing a 16” barrel and stock.

We definitely read this differently, which is fine, I’m just looking for concrete evidence and I don’t believe this example is it. This is about a parts kit sold by TC that included a stock, it was not a “pistol” or even a “pistol kit”. Taken from the paragraph above your example.…

“The Thompson/Center Court viewed the parts within the conversion kit not only as a Contender pistol, but also as an unassembled “rifle” as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(c). The inclusion of the rifle stock in the package brought the Contender pistol and carbine kit within the "intended to be fired from the shoulder" language in the definition of rifle at 26 U.S.C. 5845(c).”

Nowhere does it state that if you “create an NFA firearm” from a pistol that it cannot be reconfigured back into a pistol. The paragraph you use as an example refers to creating an SBR from the “Contender pistol and carbine kit” which based on the paragraph quoted above, could never start life as a pistol due to the kit itself being “intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

It’s semantics and a bit of nuance, I know, but this isn’t an exercise in logic and reason. The example you’re using is apples and oranges to a firearm purchased as a braced pistol or a stripped lower that started life as a pistol.

The Glock in a chassis seems like a better comparison. If you register it as an SBR, it’s only an SBR if you affix a stock showing intent in use. No stock, no SBR as it must be made or remade, blah blah blah, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Without a stock, it cannot be intended to be fired from the shoulder, so does not meet the definition of a rifle, thus cannot be a short barreled rifle either.

Remember, the ATF is now saying your braced pistol is, and has always been an SBR, and you are the unlicensed possessor. Yet, they give you the option of removing the brace and make it a pistol. No brace (stock), no intent to fire from the shoulder, aka no rifle and by extension no SBR. They’re telling you it can be reconfigured to a pistol from its current SBR state, registered or not. They’re not saying you have to “create a NFA item” by registering it, it’s already an NFA item per their new rule, they’re just extending the opportunity for amnesty.

Anyway, thanks for the good discussion. Hoping this gets more digestible and clearer as the days pass. I blame any typos on the time and iPad from bed.