Well then you would get what you deserved.

If that were the case how is it not "constructive intent" if you posess a legal pistol in any form as well as a rifle?  All you need do is pop the pins and swap the uppers and you have an unregistered SBR

It states on page 248 that the rule does not require one to change the existing buffer tube to a "pistol" tube, in their own words.

In the compliance criteria all that is required is the removal of the brace, nothing mentioned about the buffer tube.  It also states that a brace is fine on a 16" barreled gun, which directly contradicts their assertion that the brace must be disabled or destroyed.

The 6-1/2" round pistol buffer length restriction is no doubt an effort to disqualify the extended round pistol buffer tubes (9") that were created to make shorter barreled uppers (10.5") qualify for a vertical foregrip and "firearm" designation, as well as rifle receiver extensions, that extend LOP.

You can read whatever you want into it, but I am going by their exact wording.

That said, I am not going to do anything until this thing makes it's way through the court system.

That was the poi.... anyway - right!

Forgot the winky eye.....

I may be way off base But, I for one will sit back for 30 to 40 days and see what happens. If we all take up the offer of free registration it's allowing the goverment to have all the weapons registered. The government is saying we have amnesty for 120 days. Amnesty means a pardon is granted to a large group people for braking a law. We all purchased our pistols with ATF approved braces equipped so no law was broken so there can't be AMNESTY.

I
I don't believe they are calling it an AMNESTY........The Federal boys are giving you the opportunity to get it right............is all.

Well, I've been waiting for the Federal boys to get it right by withdrawing the rule.

Text History Tradition.

I agree with fire4effect69 after what we have witnessed over the past few years how can anyone trust the federal government. As for as registering the pistols with braces if you want to SBR them have at it might just go ahead and send them the make, modle and serial # for all your gums.

I completely understand the sentiment, however there is a big difference between them knowing you may have that one thing ((maybe), as you can put on a 16" upper and sell it), and knowing everything you have. I chose to have 1 SBR prior, as it helps with the "Common Use" legal doctrine, which makes it harder to ban in the future. Also, if one doesn't have a garden gun at this point, well, then they're behind.

Any chance the bicep brace will meet requirements if this doesn't get overturned?
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/09/11/ar15-bicep-brace/

A tax forbearance is what it is not an amnesty. They are waiving the tax fee. They are not forgiving the fact that you already made an SBR with no stamp prior to building or buying it. If they want to make it an amnesty then they need to spell it out in their illegal rule which they did not.

Have 2 stripped lowers was gonna do both under amnesty one is built with 10.5 upper sb4 brace.

Ended up putting a new pistol buffer tube which cannot accept a brace or stick on the built one and may just file that one but will wait a couple months

The sb4 is on other lower which is now a complete lower which may just get a 16 inch upper.

Has anything changed in the letter itself that was signed on 1/13/23 by AG Garland?   The pre-print we are printing tomorrow print, that was released on Monday, has the same date on the bottom.

See, here's the thing - the letter is basically an immunity deal, plus other things, singed by the US Attorney general.  Who is the boss of all agents and US DA's.  It will be rather difficult for them to reneg on the letter that he signed.   Despite all the "Don't Trust Them!".   The Letter, and the things said in the published and signed Letter - will stand.

But, (with a nod to the "Don't Trust Them!" crowd), there are quite a few details that are covered by the ATF FAQ.  Not all of which are necessarily in the signed document signed by the US Attorney General.  This is where it gets a little more awkward.

So for the key items, I guess one needs two layers of assessment:  what does the signed letter actually say?   Followed by:   What critical items are in the FAQ, that aren't actually said in the letter?  

The Letter, will stand - it will.  The ATF interpretation as it pertains to certain details; weeeellllll...   The very creation of that letter, kind of originates from there being some consistency issues with that very concept.

I'm going to go with the ATF FAQ and interpretations beyond the letter will probably stand.
   Well... pro... yea, probably.
          Yea, probably.

It’s on the federal register with an effective date of 01/31/2023. Looking to make a donation to help fight this in court. What is the best organization for that, GOA?

Compliance Date:

Any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than May 31, 2023.

So what if I installed a brace on a 20" AR rifle?

FWIW, it doesn't seem like too many folks are interested in actually reading the 290 page ruling, so I sat down for an hour and a half last night and read it myself so I don't have to take the word of some random guy on the internet.

I'll list a few of the bullet points here.  The italic and bold will be direct quotes and is far different version that what people have been banging on the last two weeks.

I saw many very concerning things. The biggest, where the atf/gov said that nfa items are not protected under the 2A was the most alarming to me. I'll give some bullet points and direct quotes will be in bold italics.

Heller thus made clear that machineguns and short-barreled shotguns are “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and thus fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment as historically understood. Id. at 625; see also id. at 627 (accepting that M-16 rifles are dangerous and unusual weapons that may be banned).

There are other lower court references.  But this is ignoring that there are likely multiple tens of millions of them in common use.
---------------------------

Can't claim they're doing this for a rise in crime. They provided the numbers of investigations of them over the last decade.

Since 2014, the FTCB reports that there have been approximately 104 Federal criminal classifications where firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” have been received by FATD for classification as a part of criminal investigations.

Further, since 2015, ATF reports that approximately 63 firearms with “stabilizing braces” have been traced in criminal investigations. ATF has approximately 105 firearms cases or investigations involving “stabilizing brace” devices.

---------------------------

They also said they weren't doing this because of politics too. They promised.
---------------------------

They said they weren't going to use worksheet 4999 anymore, however, they referenced it a gazillion times about the parts from it as justification and basis to use as their criteria.

---------------------------

They said it didn't violate your rights, in part because they are not protected by 2A (nfa), in part because you broke the law in the first place, but mainly because they gave you other options on what to do with them. Register, remove, destroy or give to the government.

---------------------------

Going forward, they are going to make determinations based on what other people do with their property. Meaning, even if you are not breaking the law with yours, if someone else does, could make them rewrite the laws to further incriminate everyone and continue to do this more often.

That logic is as stupid as the cops kicking in your door to give you a speeding ticket while you're sitting on your couch watching soap operas because they saw some other dude speeding on the street in front of your house.

---------------------------

They said it didn't violate post defacto because of some court ruling.  I failed to copy paste portion into my notes.  But it's in there.

---------------------------

They are effectively rewriting 26 U.S.C., § 5485 of what a rifle is.Here is congress' version


§ 5845(c) — The term “Rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.


And here is the atf's new rifle definition.

§ 479.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
Rifle. * * *

(1) For purposes of this definition, the term “designed or redesigned, made or
remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” shall include a weapon that is
equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing
brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder,
provided other factors, as described in paragraph (2), indicate that the weapon is
designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

2) When a weapon provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from
the shoulder, the following factors shall also be considered in determining whether the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder:

(i) Whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or
length of similarly designed rifles;

(ii) Whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the
trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or
attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into
various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method),
that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;

(iii) Whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that
require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;

(iv) Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder
is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or
other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;

(v) The manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials
indicating the intended use of the weapon; and

(vi) Information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general
community.

You have a rifle with a brace, no different than if it has a stock

There are people with physical limitations who have benefited with braces. I've personally worked with a couple. Moving the stabilizing brace forward a bit on the buffer tube so it doesn't create "rear surface area", would help solve that.  Hopefully SB Tactical will come up with version 2. In the meantime, I'm guessing this will be in the courts for a long time.

It has been interpreted this way for a long time, nothing new.  In fact some judges in the SCOTUS will argue the 2A doesn't apply to citizens *at all*, despite cases like Heller saying otherwise.

What has bothered me for a while is the subjectiveness of the justification of the NFA in general, and if/when they decide to ever publish a metric by which "dangerous-ness" can be determined I fear that nothing will fall into the category of being protected by the 2A.

No, because part of what makes a rifle an NFA item is if it has a barrel less than 16". If that's not met, it's not an NFA item. At least not yet...

You didn’t read the rule or the FAQ did you…

One sucky aspect is that I specifically wanted an AR pistol to easily travel with.

Can't do that without forms with a SBR.

At least it's really simple to do the 5320.20, and it's free. I just submitted my first two for interstate travel for four SBR's and it took three weeks to come back approved.

Permanently removing the "mother may I" requirement to travel across state lines would likely make more people willing register that waiving the $200-dollar tax.

In other news the first lawsuit has been filed and, in a post, Bruen world I would really like to think it could eventually take down at least some of the NFA with regards to SBRs and Suppressors.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-gun-regulations-on-stabilizing-braces-targeted-in-court/ar-AA16XhH2?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d10c144b6af44638bc7d9d74fb4f8264

A guy can dream.

You still can, and I plan on adding a pistol lower to do the same. Just without a brace.

Not sure about this but Guns and Gadgets youtube sat in on atf training and this rule may not apply to unchanged Shockwave but do your own research.

Edit: Disregard he was talking about the Mossberg Shockwave

Let me tell you something. If it comes down to the ATF measuring your gun to see if it’s legal you’re fucked anyway. You have landed on their radar and they are going to find something to pin on you so they can justify the fact they are there in the first place. I promise you.

I know that to be all too true. And that is why I try to stay off their radar.

Effective immediately it’s a Felony to sell or transfer your pistol / now SBR.

However, they say they’ll wait 60 days to enforce :)
Attached File

His statement was incorrect and he's posted a correction.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-31/pdf/2023-01001.pdf

Ok, so I actually sat down and read the whole thing.  It wasn't an easy read and some parts I fast skimmed, so no doubt I missed some things.  This isn't your definative summary, just how I read and interpreted it, and what stood out to me.  In particular, I have an eye on "what did the US AG sign his name to" vs "what did someone at ATF say in the FAQ".  One of which will carry a lot more weight in court.

Also, I'm not your boss.  I can't tell you if registering or not, is the path you particularly want to take. Though there are plenty of others who are comfortable saying so.  I'm reposting this here in the moderated forum, as something that maybe someone else will find useful.  As always, corrections encouraged.

Intro - basically what we all know and has been hashed out.  They use the term "objectively", which is to say if it obviously looks like and can be used like a stock, it basically is - and then later give criteria and a basis that are... er, somewhat, defined.  That's not so unconstitutionally vague as people act.

Page 2:
-There it is, they specifically reference MAC "NFA NutKicker" youtube video as evidence (amongst others) of intent.   Dumbass.
-4999.  It's not really as dead as everyone says, it's just not super key anymore.
-Basically it's an SBR based on their 6 criteria points they will be looking at.  Weight, Length of pull, sighting system, surface area of brace, manufacturers (and other promotional by those sponsored, like MAC) marketing materials related to usage, information demonstrating likely usage.  (with fairly scant quantification).
-Rescinds prior letters (which they then spend half the document justifying and saying aren't really wrong)
-If you had possession, you were already in violation of the NFA.  (meaning if there's a record of your purchase of that SKU...)  
-"possessors of such weapons, whether an unlicensed individual or an FFL, may register the firearms to comply with the statutory requirements."  and "Any penalties for failure to take the necessary action for the existing firearms to comply with Federal law would result only from conduct occurring after this time period to take action ends."
(I find the usage of the word "conduct", to be an interesting and carefully selected word.)
-"The Department will consider individuals to be in compliance with the statutory requirements between the date on which a person's application is filed, and the date a person receives ATF approval or disapproval of the application."  So that's your e-mail acknowledgement, counting as your good-to-go.  Frankly, that reads to me that you can put a stock on right away - is how I read that; since you are now in compliance.

page 4

-After the 120 day gig for those weapons affected, the gig closes and "The Department at that time may take enforcement action against any person in possession of an affected firearm that is a short-barreled rifle for which a registration has not been submitted".  Meaning no AHA Gotcha for submitting, and also, they are not going to do enforcement before then, if it still has an armbrace that is.  Again, I find the usage of the word "May" to be a carefully selected word.  Meaning, they May Not, as well.  My personal opinion is that for the vast majority of random private citizens, they Won't.  Though if I were MAC, I'm guessing he's well aware Copper Custom is going to get an audit on June 1; bet you they have a hardon for his NFANutkicker.
-Some language on modifications, as a route.
-$200 fee waiver.
-Anything NEW within the 120 period, is not covered and will be treated like straight new NFA.  (basically, a shot at PSA et al, that they will immediately begin enforcement upon them starting today, if they continue to make and sell <16" AR's with stabilizing braces and not register and treat as NFA SBR's).
-ATF economics estimate.  Which is of course bullshit, but it's likely some kind of requirement by code somewhere that they have to come up with a number.  They are claiming $266.9 million dollars as the cost of the rule.  (LOVE the 4 sig-figs of precision on that).  Which is of course bullshit, because they are counting the $200 tax stamp losses, in addition to admin costs.  That's lost fantasy revenues, since over the last 10 years, you were never going to get $266.9 million dollars worth of new SBR registrations on its own.  I'd call them slimy fucks for pull that shit, but that's DC, every department everywhere does this crap, and it's just part of the game.  Which means they all are basically shady, I suppose. The real question is what additional administration and operating expense is the ATF going to incur from doing this? It's not going to be super trivial, but it's no $300MM.     Followed up by For The Public Safety.  The political theater of all isn't really my purpose here, so whatever.
-Quotes the USCode giving the USAG authority to do all this (which is actually true, well at least for the tax waiver and prosecution enforcement pause)

Page 5-20
-References the GCA violations as 5 years, $250,000 and NFA which is 10 years, $10,000.  While the ATF deserves (ahem) .. ire, at times (looking at you Weaver family and WACO, plus more), the reality is this problem orginates from a fucking whacked out Congress that passed absurd level penalties for this shit.  These prison sentences and fines are INSANE, in comparison to such for acutally hurting people.  But I digress.  Well, that and a USSC that was complicit with the whole shit.
-Some blah blah -  prior letters weren't really our fault  (which, hate to say it, is only partially bullshit - lots of people read way more into those letters than was there.  What IS their fault is their lack of follow-up on enforcement allowed this to runaway, and a lot of good folks thought they were being compliant, who now find themselves going WTF?!)  
-And documenting how people submitted one thing for the letters, and then kind of went runaway on things weren't submitted. (which, again, is actually kind of true - but take that up with Springfield Armory - not random dudes who bought legit shit on the shelf wall)
-I kind of glazed over it after that, as it was just a pile of Brace authorization letters and commentary up the ass.
-WEelllll shit.   I see what they are doing. The build a 15 page case that their prior letters that people used to all buy questionable Arm Brace designs, were in fact consistent and correct.  And frankly, the case isn't as bad as everyone here dismisses.  And so those SB gen3 AR's being mass produced and bought, and were not so approved like that, and were in fact SBR's the whole time.   Meaning, they are making the case that they don't need to Grandfather even.   Crafty.  Might work.  Again though, their failure to enforce that for so long, is going to undermine the shit out of that.  Not sure if that part is addressed or not, I didn't see it but I can't read all this.

Page 20.
-Interesting that they break out form letters.  Basically, if you want to be heard and taken seriously, don't do a form letter - apparently.  Though interesting to see that of the 8% of the letters that were in support of the ruling,  90% of those were form letters.  That tells me there was a major Mother against Guns or whatever movement that they just blanketed people.  I bet at least half of those were fake, TBH.  Of the pro-gun side, about half were originally written comments and letters.  That's not bad.  Also, if 8% of those who wrote in support the rule; with a total of 3% of all respondents being original letters, apparently that means "Many commenters generally supported the rule".  (did you expect them to say anything less?)
-Some of the pro-rule commentary was irritating to read.  
-Ok, they were honest and do say "a majority of commenters opposed the proposed rule..."    And some of these are actually pretty darned well worded and written.  

pg 26
-GROAN:  "...one article posted on SB Tactical's website, dated Dec 23, 2014, which discussed an award for SB Tactical's CEO... states 'its no secret that Bosco's brace can also be used as a shoulder stock by people with two good arms.  With Bosco's brace, all Americans are able to modify an AR-15-style pistol into what's effectively (a short-barreled rifle) - without additional ATF infringement on their gun rights."  
Fuuuuhhhuucck.  That, is the smoking gun that will sink the cause, more than anything.   People got way too comfortable getting away with shit.  Meanwhile the ATF DataCenters were just click click click.  And then more ship-sinking paragraphs of SB shenanigans.  Pro-tip, never just stop wink-wink, when you get away with wink-wink.
-Interesting on how they paint SB Tactical in a bad light by SB's attempt to circumvent "shoulder fired" by showing it sternum fired and chin-fired, basically saying it's therefor obviously shoulder fireable in the manner shown, and that's the bulk of how it will be used.   Mixed emotions on how much I actually buy that, but I can see a judge/jury buy it, with the right presentation.
-And they just pile on piles of NFA Nutkicker style documentation thereafter.

page 31
-Link armbraced guns to crims, including the 19 person massecre.  

page 32
-violates ADA-handicaps.  They say no, because ADA applies to state and local, not Executive branch.  That's a Hell of a path to take, but they say it.  But then go on to state if you have one of the shitter braces nobody wants, and actually use it by a brace, there you go.  Or just register it.   that and, Nobody is allowed to violate the NFA just by being handicapped.

page 35 - buffer tubes.
-Word salad gone wild.  It sounds like a regular buffer tube alone is fine.  

page 37
weight and length.  Basically these are dropped as pre-requisites.     but wait, they then  go word salad again.  And give a several page table fo guns they drew from the National Firearms Collection and weighed (which you have to admit, would have been bad-ass to get that assignment).  Which is to say, if you are as long and heavy as it's rifle counterpart - they are saying it's a rifle.  I guess.

Page 42
-But *I* am using the brace as a brace.  They say that doesn't matter.  

Page 52
-After 10 pages of SEE the ArmBrace is same as a stock!, they then show honey badger on page 52.  To me, that's double dipping dick move, because they already enforced on honey badger for this very thing.  If anything, that selective enforcement lead a lot of people to conclude the other brace systems must be fine, since clearly the ATF is active and  engages in enforcement on what they deem to be an NFA SBR violation - as evidenced by the Honey Badger raid.

Page 68.   First time they've been objectively outright petty.  All the other times they could use those examples as route to show violation.  Here, they call out SB Tactical website for saying "Stiff-Arm The Establishment".   That could mean anything, and even if they meant you ATF, that doesn't mean anything.  

Page 71: This is the one I was worried about. Basically they are making the case that this doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, and reference the 2009 Marzarella case, where "The USSC has made clear the 2nd Amd does not protect ... types of weapons" such as "machine guns or SBR or any other dangerous unusual weapon".   And quite Heller line of "important limitation on TRTKBA with... with historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons", and with that the court rejected challenges to machine gun regulations, and Heller apparently even made it clear that SBR's weren't protected by 2nd amendment"   I
m not super convinced it really said that, but that's what they are claiming.  Maybe.  Basically they are using the fine-print from those very rulings, to make their case.

Page 72: they avoid 4th and 5th amendment arguments saying they aren't taking anything away.  And the tax is free, so that can't be used as a hardship either.  Also site USSC prior ruling that owners "ought to be aware of the possibility that new regulation might even render his property economically worthless".  

Page 76: Ex Post Factor laws.
Basically they are not criminalizing prior conduct nor will enforce. Only going forward.  and enforcement will be on things only now going forward, which there is plenty of precedent.  And a forebarance is granted, to get everyone into compliance.

Page 78 (Good God this thing just drags on and on):law abiding citizenry are going to be trapped by this, since ATF said it was OK, and now they are not.   ATF responds similarly to before (and this will be the heart of their case), that they did NOT authorize most of the forms of braces that were bought and sold.   Which is great, but again, you guys came down on Honey Badger, and nobody else - sending a pretty strong message that everything else must be OK, and so;  Soccer Dad bought one, thinking it was fine.

Page 79: This was politically motivated and so improper.   Answer, this was initially proposed under the Trump administration.  Which.. welll. shit.

Page 80: But my state bans SBR and Assault weapons, mostly limiting options.  Answer: sucks to be you - not our job.  Combined with, remove the brace and make it actually be a pistol, and there you go.   For the ones that don't pragmatically have any options, well, there's not very many of you.  (Seriously, it kind of says that).

Page 82:  What if I submit towards the end, and the system is bogged down, and I don't get my emailed letter of acknowledgement in time?  We got you buddy, we'll extend that for you "in our enforcement discretion".  

Page 86:
-is where they document that you can use pre-existing markings on the firearm, and not engrave.  (80% boys will have to)

Page 87  AH yes, the 922(r) part  (this is kind of the high drama one, that I do have to acknowledge did cause some concern)  
-You don't have to replace parts, because the crime already happened (it's an action crime, not a possession crime) And "Nevertheless, for the purposes of the costs outlined in this standalone Regulator Impact Analysis, ATF assumes this group may use another scenario, such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy."   TBH, I'm not really sure what that even means.  That doesn't actually say the guns must be destroyed.  I think what they are saying is the portion of such affected firearms that would be destroyed, is the same as the baseline portion of all the other firearms that would elect to go the route of destruction or surrender.   And to come up with an estimate of that number, use the same portion that were turned in during the bumpstock ban, as a Proxy, is I think what that's really saying. It's not well written. But it seems to say what I just said, more that it's saying all imported pistols in question must be destroyed.  That's what it looks like to me.   Note, they use similar language in the very next response regarding brace disposal costs, which is consistent with my own estimated interpretation of that meaning.

Page 92:
On the topic of dudes taking advantage and registering a lot of shit that isn't actually with a brace on it, i thought this was interesting

"...did not offer to forbear the NFAtax out of concern that individuals and entities could register all pistols in their possession as SBR ... with the intent of later(making it an SBR).  The Dept still has concerns that allowing tax-exempt registration could induce individuals to register other firearms with the later intent of creating an SBR. Nevertheless, after careful consideration of the comments, the Dept has decided to forbear the making tax when individuals and entities register their affected firearms within a defined period of time....   ATF form 1 requires individuals to sign under penalty of perjury that the description is accurate..."  with pointing out penalties to suggest don't be playing games.
(basically, they know some people are going to pull shit.  For the most part for a private citizen, meh. But if you do so in a way that they can prove (or your tongue and smart-phone document) that you lied, they could come down on you.  So really, If you DO plan on playing grey games, I would suggest taking some photos with the relevant parts on it, and so you can say "see!  there it is" if it comes up.  Frankly, I would suggest everyone who registers, keeps such a photo on file, under your control   I will say, the language seems very clear on the possession before go date.  I guess I'll need to read it again, but it doesn't say ON high-noon ON specific date, so in theory, if you started your Anderson lower as a pistol briefly before you then turned it into a rifle, and it's a rifle today, I think you can still register it.  At least, that's what I see.  And as an individual, pretty much they aren't going to care.  For businesses and FFL's, expect a higher level of scrutiny if you put down 400 units that are all just stripped lowers right now).

Page 93.  Once gun is in limbo (awaiting Stamp), you can't transfer it.   (I wondered about that.  I think ATF is going to lock down a lot of guns that can't be transferred, by slow-rolling the voluntary processing team overtime team on these.)
- A very curious line here.  "removal of a brace from a firearm originally received as an SBR, results in the production of a "weapon made from Rifle", as defined by the NFA.  ATF will use their authorized discretion to allow all the manufacture of a pistol from a rifle without special requirements, so long as done by May 31."  (with some liberties with wording I took, in my quote).  In some ways, is that a unique backdoor to basically convert a firearm that began life as a rifle, into a pistol, with zero action or communications needed to do so?  A curious opportunity if you bought a SCAR rifle, and now want it to be a SCAR 10" pistol, with no brace, you might actually be able to do that - even though it started life as a rifle.  It also suggests that rifles converted to this configuration, may now remain in this configuration and be registered as well - I think.  And there's no paperwork documentation required.  Just, if it ever comes up 10 years from now (it won't), that hey man, that pistol is a rifle: all you have to do is say no-no, that occurred during the forbearances, which the US AG signed a public legal document saying via his authorized discretion, that was a legal and authorized action.

 
Page 94.  Go day is today.  All transfers of so affected firearms are subject to NFA transfer.   (and here's the question - since they aren't yet stamped, can you transfer them?  It would appear the answer is a hard no.  Which means dealers that chose to just NFA stamp their inventory, now may have unmovable inventory for a long time, since stamps are being treated "special".   Meaning, I think a whole lot of braces are being pulled off and thrown away right now)
-Note this also means the guns are now viewed as NFA.  Giving or selling one to your brother or co-worker, is an NFA violation now.

page 97.   Their modification of the definition of a rifle in code  478.11 is lengthy and sucks.  It's basically a condensed form of the Form 4999 type of logic, with so much handwaving a layman is going to have no idea now.  

Are these legal under the new brace rule. I read through the rule and it doesn't really say, or show any pictures of one as an example of being a SBR. I just thought since I still have a few laying around since before braces were popular, it might be a good option to go back to. What is the legality of using a tennis ball, or paracord, or rubber cover? In ATF letter they got in 2014, they are not titled as braces even by the ATF, but as a cheek enhancement. Thordsen is still selling them, waiting for a new ruling from the ATF, just thought I would get the hives opinion

I have to post this here since it's brace adjacent according to the Mods.

Having actually read the thing, the one detail that seems to stand out is that anything that adds length to the buffer tube and aids in shouldering is forbidden.  Paracord wrap is fine, foam cover is fine, plain 6-pos buffer tube is fine.  Tennis ball would be a no-go.  As long as the particular Thordsen device doesn't add length to the buffer tube it should be okay, but there might be gray area about adding surface area to the rear.  I do know that Thordsen has requested clarification from AFT.

That's how I read their interpretation as well.

With all the threads and posts..
I havent seen ....
For those of us first time nfa paper work people that would like to make use of registration and free tax stamp.
Not understanding if it's a specific or special  form
That applies to tax free registration  or same forms someone  registering and paying tax  would use???
That make sense I hope .
Could it be made simple to start the correct form and make a Sticky for the 120 days tax free is open
PDF or what ever gov. Form.
Thanks.
If I missed it sorry.
JP

When you go to teh eForms website there is a big red link for "pistol registration here" and then a smaller blue link for "all other normal eForm stuff here"

You will need either a EFT file of your fingerprints or you will need 2 fingerprint cards with the proper ATF routing/control numbers on them.  ATF will mail them to you free.  You can usually get card prints from your local sheriff etc for cheap

General NFA Forum

SBR Forum

nvm

I didn't see the Maxim Defense SCW brace listed in the ATF document. Does it attached to a Saint Edge PDW meet the ATF's definition of SBR. If yes, then would the Maxim Defense Gen 7 QCB Pistol system be a walk around after removing the brace?  It is a tiny AR Pistol that wasn't available for very long.

Someone sent an inquiry to the ATF about that and they responded that you should keep the brace on it until you get the stamp. It doesn't make any sense, but that's nothing new.



The law prohibits the use of information gained from the NFA registration in a criminal proceeding. If you wanted to be extra careful, you could disappear the brace until the stamp gets approved. That way if they showed up for a "random" check (like the "random" drug test we did at work for the guy seeing pink elephants on the warehouse floor), there would be no SBR.

Well this is going to get interesting. I bought three AR pistols Jan 27, shipped out the 30th, and should be delivered tomorrow to my FFL.  The pistols come with braces installed.  I asked the dealer to remove the braces "just in case" prior to shipping but the dealer said it wouldn't be a big deal, the rule wasn't going to get published, no need to worry, etc etc.  Well now I have to make the call to my FFL today to see if they will allow me to just remove the braces so we can 4473 them as pistols still.  I actually planned on SBR'ing one of them (not the free registration) and then putting 16" and 18" barrels on the other two, but now I really don't know what I'm going to do.  Hopefully I get good news today.

Good luck.   Let us know how it goes.  Technically I think they Gave them 60days all of a sudden.

Question:  If you remove and destroy brace........but still have the buffer tube on the pistol with the notches for accepting a brace and or stock are you in compliance?

This has gone back and forth between posters here and other forums and causes a lot of arguments. And the rule is a contradicts itself in different sections. It talks about just removing/destroying the brace as fine then goes into talking about buffer tubes that have dimples to lock braces into place and 4-6 position carbine buffer tubes and yet in another section it talks about smooth buffer tubes being 6 to 6 1/2 inches in length.

And since I got jumped and accused of not knowing what I am talking about, I will no longer give an answer to that question. Best to either contact the ATF for clarifications or talk to a lawyer that specializes in firearm laws. From what I can tell we all are right and also wrong on this since the ATF has not clarified the subject well enough to be fully understood.

Here's where I hope the courts obliterate the SBR issue. Without a definitive metric from Congress on what constitutes a shoulder arm (i.e. the surface area necessary to constitute a shoulderable firearm) it's unconstitutionally vague and has been from 1934. Not that real criminals give a damn one way or another. For my upcoming birthday I want a TRO against this.

In the rule there is no requirement to replace the existing buffer tube once you remove the brace.  

I would even go so far as to question their requirement to destroy the brace since they also state that installing a 16" barrel on the "pistol" would be in compliance with the rule.  Therefore, technically, you can remove the brace and install it on a rifle with a 16" barrel.  There would be no logical reason to do so unless you just don't want to throw that money you paid for the brace away, but in their own words......

thanks for your .......honesty

My take (and I'm not suggesting I'm right):

*If* the firearm requires a buffer tube for operation *and* you have no accessories that require shouldering to use effectively (buis, SER scope), then it's likely ok for a pistol configuration. I've seen some discussion that running a rifle length tube probably would not pass muster.

A rifle tube will not allowed on a pistol, and I would wonder whether even an A5 buffer tube would as they add length that might be construed as useful for shouldering, but not required for function.

I would argue against their determination that BUIS or a standard eye relief scope requires shouldering to operate.  I have for some time shot an AR pistol with my cheek resting against the tube with a scope, before braces were a thing, and I also have a T/C Contender pistol as well as a Ruger Charger with rifle scopes that I use by tensioning against the sling, pushing forward with my grip hand and pulling back with my non shooting hand.