You are so fucked!!!

I think many are missing this point.  This letter and all the ATFs bullshit is intentionally vague.  They are trying to scare people and it is working.  

I have one AR pistol. I built it according to the laws and made up rules. I have adjusted the build based on frequent new made up rules.

I am getting really tired of the government trying to constantly make me a criminal.

Maybe this will be the rule change that has me raising the black flag. Who knows.

since it is a case by case decision made by the ATF, my big question is this............

will ATF allow letter approval if a person were to submit a detailed description including weight, length, cal, optic, brace type and PICS?

OR will they be an ass and require physical submission like they require the industry to do.

how did you build it according to the laws and made up rules if they won't tell us what they are?

Sadly, or not sadly, I am fucked also.

I posted my summary of the non-guidance letter a page or so back.

So far, it looks like they are NOT yet claiming whole lines of pistols are SBRs. It appears to me that they are claiming, as they have already, that they MAY consider an individual pistol an SBR based upon subjective things. At that point, if you "good-faith" owned that pistol prior to publication in the federal registry, you would have those remedies at your disposal. The key, IMHO, is that they would do this on a case-by-case basis for an individual's pistol. Ultimately, I believe they could very well lose the case if someone took it to court, as happened in Ohio 2018. I believe FATF is well aware of this possibility and won't make big bites, other than to shake this pathetic branch of a non-guidance, UNTIL FJB and FKH actually push things along like DJT did with bump stocks. Right now, I don't think this non-guidance letter, with no force of law, is anything more than stating the fucked up thinking that they have tried to dazzle the manufacturers with since at least 2018.

The way I am proceeding at this time is doing nothing different. In order for my pistols to be declared SBRs, I would have to be under investigation for something else and the investigatory agency would have to recognize the FATF guidance nonsense to submit them for evaluation. Even if that happened, FATF would have to 1) Use discretion as to if they were even going to evaluate them (from the non-guidance so far) 2) Determine they were not pistols 3) Offer the remedies since my pistols were clearly documented before the publication 4) Decide to spin the wheel in court hoping for a win 5) Win the case.

If things change and all of a class of pistols (accessory manufacturers, specific "features", or both) are deemed SBRs, then I might throw a stock on and then again I might not. The reason I might not is in the hopes that I would still win my case in court based upon the fuckery around pistols and the FATF for so long. I don't anticipate drilling a third hole at this time or any time in the near future. FA just hasn't been that useful for me and the chances of screwing up my lowers is high enough to fail the risk vs benefit test for my situation.

ETA: In case it wasn't clear... No way in Hell will I be registering them as SBRs or "turning them in". FATF and sic semper tyrannis.

Well since “Shall not be infringed” why bother with a bump stock? Put a stock on it, while your at it, drill the third hole and install the fun parts.  Do you have a CCW permit? If so why? Ever buy a firearm and fill out a 4473? You can’t pick and choose than make the statement shall not be infringed, then not follow through. Your being just a hypocritical as the goverment.

Made up rules prior to these made up rules.

Attached File

Bingo.

They will likely not accept individual submissions. They have said that before. They stopped accepting manufacturers' submissions around 2018.

I've posted about that last part SEVERAL times to you in this thread. Have you watched the video at the time stamp I suggested yet?

i thought the whole catch 22 issue was that the atf was not reviewing physical submissions due to time, manpower, volume and incompetence.

YET THEY STILL WILL COME BACK AND WRING YOU STATING THEY DID NOT APPROVE THAT CONFIG DUE TO IT NOT BEING PHYSICAL EVALUATED.

Hence my question. will they admit letter approval for individuals.

The big difference is that I am not voluntarily giving the king a detailed description of what I own...or needing to get permission to cross state lines, or notifying them if certain changes are made, or jumping through hoops to sell it.    

I am not afraid of being on the list as a potential gun owner, but is as far as it goes.   Future advancements in 3D printing will make some of the credit card trail go away.   We might be on some lists, but look to the future.....I bet there are people out there already that legally own several weapons without ever having to submit a 4473.

Yep. It remains to be seen.

What I think the "evaluation" mentioned in the non-guidance means is that they will determine it before taking action such as offering the remedies or going to court. I don't read it as they are going to offer to evaluate the individual pistols and offer a determination letter before-hand. That determination will be in the form of an investigation after the fact so they are threatening to find SOME pistols as SBRs, IMHO.

I think these "rules" are the same "rules" they were applying since at least 2018 when they weren't accepting submissions. IMHO, this is only them putting down on paper what they have already been doing. It has no force of law and, IMHO as well, might really bite them in the ass in an HONEST court of law.

It’s not what you own, it’s that you own. They can find out what you own, from neighbors, social media, that guy at the range or where you shoot. If you have applied for a CCW or filled out a 4473, you’ve asked for permission. Either you are all in or your all out., your all in you just have not realized it yet.

THIS.....

Unless you shoot at a place with Range Nancys....nobody checks anymore.  MANY years ago a SBR or a Suppressor was an oddity.  Most of the time the people at the range wanted to see it and touch it.  They were RARE.  A MG was a circus side show when somebody brought one to the range.

NOW.....everything has a brace on it and a can on it.  Nobody pays attention anymore to what the configuration is.  Nobody cares.

It's like when people started downloading music in the late 80's early 90's.  The music industry threatened and sued until it became a joke.  The ATF is making themselves a irrelevant joke.  

I truly feel sorry for you people that live in states where the state Nancy's your ass worse the the ATF.

Don't comply and live your life they way you want.  If they attempt to make more rules, do what you need/feel like doing to voice your frustration and displeasure.  If they actually make the rules...DON'T FOLLOW THEM.  

Before the Obama gravy years, you had to keep your NFA uppers and other assorted NFA parts at the ready in storage.  Now NOBODY PAYS ATTENTION and that's because the ATF made it impossible for anyone to understand the rules.  Everybody did what they wanted to and nobody cares what anybody else it doing.

I agree.

But I have to ask, why should people continue to vote for the cock suckers who enact these laws and regulations?

In other words.. if you are going to ignore the edicts from the very people you elect... why continue to vote for them?

You gotta pick a team or you're not a "patriot".

No, I’m saying what is the point in voting for the very people who enact the edicts you are just going to ignore anyways?   Seems like it’s wiping before you poop

As a side note, I’d wager the vast majority of people who take concessions on the BOR via voting the lesser of evils aren’t the type who will ignore these draconian laws and regulations. I’d love to be proven wrong.

Because under the lesser of two evils doctrine one side does not impose as harsh draconian edicts as the other.

That is always the way it has been and always the way it will be.

Buddy,  you might want to go back and quote the whole of what I responded to.  As usual in your posts, youre wrong about what was said/done.

BTW nice car been meaning to say that every time I respond to you but forget.

Congrats you finally posted something we both agree on.

Is there a link to the ATF letter for all of us to comment on?   I have been searching for it an unable to find it.  

You are trying to make an argument of absolutes to justify registration.

What you own DOES matter...it is the EXACT reason why we are having this conversation.   They are asking you to register something that does not need to be registered, and people are falling all over themselves to justify doing it.   I don't think big guv is worried about the person that bought a single shot .410 a dozen years.  But they ARE worried about the person that legally has a 1/2 dozen AR pistols on 80% lowers (thus off the books) and they can't do anything about it except try to scare and trick that person into registering them as SBR's.    It is why 80% lowers and braces are at the top of the ATF's hit list.   These items erode the kings power from within.....legally.....just like bump stocks did (too bad there was so little push back from gun owners.....seems like it is happening again.  SAD).

There is some sense to FATF releasing this non-guidance and getting it on record. The picture that is forming in my mind is that they stopped accepting manufacturers' braces for determination because, in their opinion, it's NOT the brace that makes the pistol an SBR. They were telling SB Tactical that as long as it has the flappy things and stays in the same sort of design, it is fine as an accessory. Where FATF is saying something is an SBR is when the total package "looks" to them like it functions more as an SBR than as a pistol. It's no way to run a fair regulatory agency, IMHO, but it does make more sense.

They don't consider braces alone as the factor making a pistol an SBR. That's one reason they stopped giving brace manufacturers determinations. If someone had a determination on brace X,Y, or Z, the person could claim that their brace made the whole pistol okay with FATF. By no longer evaluating manufacturers' braces, FATF could keep going down the line of their subjective determinations. Where this is really crazy is when they got their asses handed to them in the 2018 Ohio court case. The pistol had all of the goodies and didn't even have a brace. FATF still lost. I guess they are counting on FJoe and the FHoe to strengthen their untenable position on the matter.

Again, people who have this ‘Stockholm’ defeated view that ‘it is what it is..10 chains is better than 12’ aren’t the revolutionary types.   In other words, they aren't the next Thomas Jefferson

"You don't go around murdering people - therefore you obviously follow all laws" sure is an interesting argument to say the least.

I am not saying this is true.

I have thought about similar ideas. I have to wonder if the ATF looked on YT, and went to local ranges and said "Oh fuck, we more or less made millions of SBR's because we did not close a loop hole". I think the reason a lot of us did the brace is because of being able to keep it loaded in a car that states say no to having a loaded rifle.

Now here is where I jump off the deep end. WHAT IF the ATF had many many discussions and for once said "we fucked up. Bad. We lost the case in Ohio. One way that we could let owners keep their rifles is to open up the Form 1 SBR as a free option, because we fucked up with these 'interpretations'". Now I am not saying that they're that smart.... but you have to admit they know they let millions of people make an SBR. (call it what you want, but a lot of us did MK18 builds with a brace haha)

The catch is that people will not bite onto that carrot. Will I? Uh yes, on one lower that I was going to SBR in spring anyway. I already have a NFA item. Ok so I am 1 out of (insert number here). If the user chooses not to form 1, tough shit for the ATF. I think it is a desperate attempt to kind of say sorry for our huge fuck up. I accept the tax free stamp, but not the apology. Many of us will choose different paths during these times. The best bet is still to be a cohesive force of gun owners instead of splitting hairs on peoples individual opinions and decisions.

Of course there is still the fact that half of GD doesn't own guns, so half the accounts that yell "I will not comply" is probably a 13 year old that found this site and would shit his fucking pants if the ATF knocked on his door.

Yes there is! In this thread we're discussing just that.

Here is the direct link to submit a comment: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2020-0001-0001

Well until the "next Thomas Jefferson" it will always be the lesser of two evils.

But when you take command I will support you.

Thank you.  This should be pinned.

The idea that the ATF would throw gun owners a bone for one of their fuckups is pretty far-fetched.

I don't completely disagree but I don't think they suddenly realized something. I believe they always intended on keeping this subjective holistic approach. FATF never really seemed to say that just because they approved an accessory like the brace that the whole pistol was GTG in all situations. If anything, I think the Ohio case was a bit of cold water to FATF. They did not want their previous letters included in the case and motioned against the court so doing. When they realized that the court was going to allow the determinations to be entered into the case, FATF dropped the case. They were about to lose on two fronts, IMHO; previous determinations and the definition of a firearm (which neither main parts of an AR satisfy completely when separated into upper and lower). I think this non-guidance we see today is simply them attempting to solidify a position that they have held since the beginning... It's not an accessory that defines the pistol but how, in the opinion of FATF, the pistol functions with all accessories and attributes over all.

So, no, I don't think they suddenly realized that they messed up. I think they realized in the Ohio case that their own conflicting determinations were making the impression that the accessory defined the pistol and not their tyrannical "holistic" decisions on an individual pistol. This non-guidance is fortifying the notion that FATF, and FATF alone, will decide for each individual weapon based upon their opinion of it's "apparent intent" based upon the totality of accessories and attributes.

Every pistol registered into an SBR after this notice will be a stab at the heart of liberty as it, in the minds at FATF and federal government, indicates how willing people maybe to roll over for reclassification (like bump stocks), registration, and potential gun grabs. The closer the registration rate is to zero, the more strongly we are telling FATF to go pound sand.

Y’all are way too worried about CCW, 4473, credit card lists.

There is literally hundreds of millions of people that check those boxes.  An overwhelming amount of people to work through.  And it doesn’t even tell them who actually owns guns or if guns are even at that address.  

A list that includes 50%+ of the people in the US isn’t a very useful list.  They could throw darts at a map and get similar info.  In some rural areas they don’t even have to guess.  The chances of any particular house having guns is 80% or more.  

When assessing risk, it’s not a concern.  They’re not going after 150,000,000 names.  Not when they have a much smaller, much more convenient list of compliant individuals to make an example of.

Being on that small list - a list that personally identifies you via finger prints.  A list that specifically names firearms and identifies them via description and serial number.  A list that requires you to have that registered firearm in your possession.

That’s a whole different ball game.

No they don’t care what you own, they care that you own. They don’t give a shit if you have a M240, or a single shot 22, the end game to them is ZERO guns! Zero. When preparing a NICS check, it’s listed as handgun or long gun, nothing more, they know gun owners, their letting us out what we have through social media, phone calls, public display, it’s all there. Like I said you applied for a CCW they know you carry and have something you can conceal, you go to the gun shop buy a Barrett or a Mossberg 410, they know you have a longun, it’s not about what you have, it’s about you are a gun owner.

I completely disagree. I don't think this non-guidance has, at its core, anything to do with FATF suddenly "figuring something out". To present the above as the most likely working theory will result in mass scapegoating of people who simply used their constitutionally protected property in the manner which best suited their usage. This non-guidance is a consolidation of what FATF has been saying since the very beginning.

??

For those planning on registering their pistol into an SBR, even those who were planning to do so before this latest non-guidance... Please consider NOT doing so. We have "common use" sewn up. The moment you register your pistol into an SBR, you statistically remove one more braced pistol from "common use" and weaken the message to fedgov that we will not be complying.

(Note: Earlier in the thread, I did recommend to one person that they consider registering their duty pistol as an SBR and purchase another to keep skin in the will-not-comply pistol camp. I still stand behind that because he is between a rock and a hard place IF his individual pistol gets determined to be an SBR or IF his department decides to believe Fudd Lore that ALL braced pistols are now, or soon will be, SBRs.)

Yea I kinda got scattered yesterday. Point I was making was simple, the majority of pistol owners leave them home, just like most gun owners. Take a few pictures post on Facebook or IG and put them away. Then you have those who can’t carry a loaded rifle, but can a pistol, Washington is one of those, I tried and realized it was not worth the hassle and can hunt with a rifle anyway. Honestly I saw it as a way to circumvent the NFA, and I did it, but I the end went back to what worked. The biggest argument is I can carry across state lines legally without permission. Which is true, but how many actually do? I’m betting it’s not as who argue that, most don’t live close or if they do don’t anyway. Then you have neighboring states laws that may or may not allow them, or foreign country in my case. I don’t go to Oregon as it’s over 6 away, Idaho 2.5, and then I take a rifle with better range than a pistol braced AR anyway, then I have my truck gun., so back to moot point.

I don’t agree with what the BATFE is doing, but hey I did comment about the absurdity of this, but in the end I’m betting minds above my pay grade are made up and this is a feel good comment period anyway, unless everyone and gun manufacturers step up. Look at the time they did this, makes it harder for those to comment with the holidays. Then what comments are actually beneficial and which ones are not. Granted the hunting ones posted are great, but to say I can carry it loaded in my car and not a rifle, that’s not beneficial. That says circumventing the NFA, and it says are they looking for a fight that a regular handgun can’t control?

My biggest point is at the end of the day, the BATFE know that, and I’m guessing that 80%-90% are really simply going around the NFA, and I have always said this will end one day soon, a decision is far easier to change than a act of Congress, so I’m going to make the best of it. Plus at the end of the day, how many brace owners will this effect in a negative way, other than those who use them to hunt. Yes it sucks, but hunting is not a right, and therefore I’m betting they exclude those comments, so what comments are going to carry weight?

I was really hoping for more than 4500 comments on the fATF page. I'm not shocked though.

I’m least worried about NFA, for the very reasons you stated, their going after joe or Janice gun owner first, and those who try and do it on the sly, for your very reasons NFA will be last as it’s the unknowns they worry about.

The 1968 amnesty for machine guns is precedent. They allowed non functioning machine guns for years. My uncle had an MP40. There was a weld holding the barrel to the receiver and the barrel was welded shut at the chamber and the face of the bolt had a blob of weld on it. In 1945 he needed no stamp to bring it home. Since the receiver was intact after the GCA68 passed it was a live gun. They allowed these to be registered at no cost.

Unknowns are too dangerous.

You’re not going to resist when they come for your NFA items.  You’re law abiding and, typically, well off.  Too much to lose.  So when they ask, you’ll hand em over.

That’s a PR opportunity right there.  Pictures will be taken, examples will be made.

You’re not a threat, like Cletus and the boys - who just might light up the alphabet boys when they come knocking.  They’ll get to them, but later.

Lists always lead to confiscation.  The more detailed the list the likelier it is to be used first.

I agree. I also made the preface about my deep end thoughts. I do agree with your last sentence. It might not seem like that, but I saw in the NFA forums, someone mention the form1 would only be to register the pistol. If that was the case.... no. Not only no, but fuck no. I think the only people who will bite onto the pistol form 1 will be the scared bunch. If they allow open SBR conversions, I know I am not alone in thinking "Hey, saved a couple hundred bucks". We are kind of in our own league already because of the NFA process and it's bullshit.

I think the concern that "logical" people have is the common snitch. You should already know who they are in your family and friends. BUT, that does not mean the scared bunch should be abandoned. I personally can't stand fudds, or the boomers who say 'one shot per every two seconds sir!!'. The reason for the short example is because even though they make me want to pull my hair out, I want them to know I will get my rifle out for them, just like I expect them to get their 30.06 out for me if I needed help. Your neighbor may have registered his pistol because he is the cat that drives the speed limit. You still should have his back, and he should still have yours. You both still have the common ground of 'I have rights for this gun for protection', but you just took different routes to keep what you have.

Geographical lines have kind of been drawn since covid. I have a bad ass sheriff and cops in my city. I do not worry about shit like this. If I was in a different area, maybe I would think differently. The best solution to this all would be to learn how to band together. If you need to call that guy who registered a dumbass, do so but be ready to ensure you both can keep ALL of your firearms. The legal/illegal groups need to learn to see eye to eye when it would come down to confiscation. That is the main concern of this whole thing isn't it?