I haven't seen anyone claiming that.  Every man has to make his own risk assessment and decision.  Direct your ire at the out of control government, not fellow gun owners who view the risks differently than you.

Looking at buying a Galil Ace gen 1 from the EE.  How do I know if it was a factory braced pistol?

If it was factory braced can I pay the $200 later and sbr it the normal way?

U would have to contact manufacturer.
Yes u can register it the normal $200 method

Thanks MAZDOG. If it was a factory braced gun I can just keep the brace off and pay the $200 fee sometime this year when I decide to sbr it? I kind of understand the basic brace rules but confused on the guns that are not American made.

I haven't heard anyone registering answer what they will do when the instruction to surrender the weapons comes. I've asked twice. That is what this is all about. Some men will lose their nerve. That has to be reinforced by their countrymen or we lose it all. Cowardice is always the death of freedom.

Don't worry, their line in the sand always moves.

I think you should be good like that. I like that galil ace. I would’ve bought it but I’ve been going thru a tough year and a half.

I hope I'm not one of the ones you think ignored it, because I never stated what I did for compliance with this.

Hint, nothing got registered.

If it has a brace with it, it's an SBR. Plain and simple.

Because you didn't own it at the time the ruling took effect, you will have to pay $200 if you want to register it.

BINGO

ETA: This one makes me laugh everytime I see it.

I'm just taking the opportunity to get a free stamp on items I was going to SBR anyways.

But didn’t the atf give the option to remove the brace?

Yes. But they also said that you will need to make the rifle unable to add a brace after you remove it. That was a no-go for me.

If they're being bullied into this, they'll happily surrender it when that time comes. My only hope is that when it gets struck down, the cowardice of some will be struck down with it, as they will see how such a stupid ruling is unconstitutional and also how it is immoral. But even that will be a very select few. Most are already tasting show polish to get used to what's coming.

You would have to purchase it, destroy the unserialized brace, and then attach the unserialized brace that you already have that may be identical to the brace it came with. I'd recommend paying for him to have the two shipped separately so you're not naughty in the eyes of the aft and snitched on by the USPS, UPS, etc

It doesnt seem like one needs to destroy the brace if they put it on a 16"+ rifle or replace short upper with long barrel upper. Right?

Just swap out the milspec extension for a pistol oversized buffer tube on the pistol AR so it cannot accept the brace.

I image they will surrender the ones they registered.  

 And not surrender the ones they didn't.

Here is the reality - in 2023 and beyond, they know who has guns and who doesn't, or can algorithm figure it out easy enough.  So what is the smarter play - get some in the system and now, while keeping some firearms out?
Or keep them all out of the system?  Put emotion aside, and the answer isn't as knee jerk as all that.  It's an individual answer.  To those who have only ever paid cash FTF and never take their smart phone with them while shooting, is one answer.  Those who have fingerprints on file on the firearms topic and whose name gets published in gun sport related lists, maybe another.  

The interpretation many have is that getting a gun in the NFA is a risk for future confiscation.  And that may be true... for that gun.  The other side of that coin, is the guns NOT on the NFA, may prove to be the ones at risk.  Right now, thats a very high risk.  At risk of continuing to have and being able to use, for those who engage in places other than their 500 acre private ranch in rural nowhere with no enforcement and no angry neighbors or bitter ex-wives, that is.  From a risk management / actuary perspective - "do both" (one SBR, one 16") has the highest odds of still having one farther down the line.  

So I guess the flip side question, is what is the plan for those who don't register their SBR, and get called out on it?  Will you turn them over then- or are you going to go down in a hail of gunfire over it?  Your wife and kids ok with that plan?  Maybe they'll join in?

Between the 1968 Amnesty and the 1986 ban, I can tell you who the big winners were.  And so does the book Unintended Consequences.  It was the guys who were already on the radar and registered A PORTION of the firearms they had.

It's an individual choice, and if the plan is to just browbeat everyone else to do it your way, to somehow force the ATF plan to fail - that was always a doomed plan that was never going to work.  The better plan was to encourage people to wait for the judicial system to weigh in.  As of yet, they have not - and have not given good signals that it is going to go well.  Whatever your plan is, if it includes acting, it's time to start to think about doing that.

Many words to state you accept disarmament. It’s that simple.

He is talking about buying a gun on the EE. If it comes with a brace, it has to be form 4'ed to him.

He does not currently possess the firearm. If he gets it with no brace, as a pistol, and then adds one, he is creating an SBR. You cannot legally put a stock on a pistol without registering it.

Two sentances - both incorrect.  Ah well.  

Yeah he’s a big talker but he hasn’t posted pictures of his unregistered SBR’s, suppressors, or machine guns either.

I’m just curious. If it makes any difference at all (which is admittedly unlikely) do you think we benefit when we show fear and compliance or unwillingness to bend the knee. Which encouraged action?

As for mouth…done my time against the enemy overseas. Not saying you haven’t. Oath doesn’t expire.

If we talk weak we will be seen as weak.

If you own SBA3 braces and put a smooth pistol tube on I would think you reasonably complied without registering.

My opinion obviously not legal advice

My concern is if I buy it without a brace can I sbr it later paying the $200, the part that confuses me are the guns  that are imported, I dont want to buy a $2,000 Galil pistol with no brace and find out any imported pistol was always a rifle. Shits confusing.

I dont understand this.


Take an MP5 pistol for example, the MKE ones we had a huge thread about when they had a sale last summer.

You could take an SB tactical brace off but if you were to make it so it was unable to attach a brace then a factory (pistol) end cap wouldnt go on either. So essentially you would be making a non functioning firearm.


Or did you mean to say you have to make the brace unable to be attached instead of modifying the firearm?

Almost.
ETA I remember buy more braces build more pistols earlier in the thread. Changed your mind?

I think it could be either. But I don’t know the answer to that.

The rule specifically states that any braced pistol that had its brace removed prior to 31 May is a pistol. It is a special grace period that would normally be prohibited.

Kharn

The short answer is if you didn't have it in your possession and in brace configuration on the letter publish date (March.. something?), you don't fall under the ... scheme.   But yes, if it had an arm-brace on it on March whatever, then rifle/922R/Whatever that the "discretion" has been made to waive enforcement of that.  So if it was in your possession and so configured in March, you are free to convert that all the way back to a full rifle (regardless of 922R), or keep it SBR and register under the program.   Anything that you buy now, even though it's during the grace period, is not covered and you have to pay the $200 tax stamp (and engraving, and the wait).  Which isn't the end of the world, but some people prefer not to pay their prison rapist for the service.  So anyway, unless YOU already had it in your possession prior to March, that ship has sailed.  Also, 922r related discretion waivers may not apply if you are going the $200 post-date route either.

The one line in the compliance option says this:

That makes little sense and contradicts many other places in the supporting text.
Many places make clear that braces are not illegal items in themselves or when used on non-sbr guns.

I think this sums up he situation better:

This isn't that confusing.  Remove the brace and get rid of it.   A carbine reciever extesion (buffer tube)  is actually OK, if that's all you have.  If you have such, AND a brace, in the same case, it's obvious that the intent is to combine the two into an illegal configuration for usage, and that's constructive intent.  (them saying "that's fine, tha's fine.... ZOMG wait! I just had a nap, and interprete that's now illegal" shenanigans aside)  

If you have 2 firearms: 1 configured as a rifle with a carbine stock, AND the bare tube pistol firearm all in the same case, that is not constructive intent.   If you have a spare stock in a parts bin buried across the room for your carbine reciever extension firearm, then it becomes "facts of a particular case" item.  Which is to say if they think you are doing it, and think they can convince a judge and jury of that, they might.

So no, you don't have to replace your reciever extension - though they do recommend it as a removal of all doubt, in case there does happen to be an acessible not-spoken-for carbine stock also in your possession.   You do have to destroy or otherwise alter the brace though, if you have a compatible reciever extension on a pistol configured firearm to which it can be attached.  

Or you can just ignore all of this and carry on - expecting enforcement to be all but none-existant.  Which in fact, is mostly true.  ...   mostly.  .. probably.  You will get more harrassment from Range busy bodies than anyone.

Nope.  As Dr King stated as he quoted St. Augustine:

Just for fun...

According to the ATF director, in a Congressional hearing, they are banning braced pistols because the braces have changed.

I just grabbed a couple of links from Gearheadworks.  I don't think these braces have changed at all.

Legal? Or was the ATF lying....again?

https://gearheadworks.com/approval-letters/
https://gearheadworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mod-1-Approval-Letter.pdf
https://gearheadworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Mod-2-Approval-Letter.pdf

Agreed but it's hard to tell people they definitely don't have to destroy the brace when they point to that one line saying they do.
I agree it's best interpreted as if you really, really want to be sure, destroy or discard it.

Anybody with an AR pistol and rifle has been in possible constructive intent territory all along.

Interesting point that somebody could remove their brace, smash it to pieces and bury it in a landfill and still get nailed for constructive possession for a stray carbine stock.

Yes. That is how it works when you Form 1 a gun. You take it from existing configuration, pay $200 for the privilege of putting a stock on.

Current owner of gun bought it, whether braced, or not, does not matter in this specific scenario. Now, we have this ruling about the braces being stocks. Guy decides to sell his Galil pistol, with no stocks or attachments, just pistol. Completely legal.

You buy it today, and decide later on you want to SBR it, you fill out form, pay money. No different than how people have been Form 1'ing guns since it was a thing.

I have never seen a factory imported AK pistol ever have a brace on it. People add them, sure, but they don't come from the factory like that.

My understanding of imported guns, as Cleary stated in the Rule, is if the gun was imported with the brace, it was unlawfully imported as a non-sporting rifle.  As such, factory-braced imported pistols have to be, by the compliance date, destroyed or turned over to ATF.  There was no option to remove the brace or register for free on these guns, as I recall the Rule examples.  How they could enforce that, I have no idea.

Their position is that everything is up for re-submission and re-classification.
The director confirmed that in congressional testimony.

The judge who enjoined the Illinois ban said Illinois was worse than atf because atf has said explicitly not all braces will be same as stocks.

Somebody should resubmit those. If they get a no-go then atf lied.

Seems like atf would be better off in court if they got some stooge to submit something and they classified it as an acceptable brace.

That was early on.
They since created a special dispensation for those guns.
See Kharn a few posts up.

ATF said that brace determinations are not valid across the entire public, only for the particular weapon and configured as submitted. Make any changes and your determination is void, if your name isn't on the determination you can't build a clone, etc.

Kharn

Odd, their training materials, powerpoints, and the text of the Rule said the opposite.  Is this position change memorialized anywhere by ATF? At SHOT the HQ folks also confirmed this a few times.

The Tailhook letters said this:




--------
Oddly enough, they WERE re-evaluated in 2021.  The Tailhook Mod 2 somehow failed (or would have failed) their 4999 test, but the Tailhook Mod 1 would have passed.  Both of those braces look the same as submitted to me.

I'm looking for the letter for the SB-Mini, as that was evaluated in 2020 on an Ruger 5.56, and re-evaluated in 2021 where it passed the 4999 test and was actually used as an example.  Yet the exact same brace somehow failed in 2023. Pretty sure that brace design has not changed at all.

I remember a faq that said imported guns had no option but destruction.
This is the only current online faq for 922
This seems to contradict itself?



And also
https://thereload.com/atf-says-imported-braced-guns-can-be-registered-rule-to-be-published-next-week/


ETA I guess what they're going with is that the assembly of a braced pistol(sbr) was illegal but not done by the buyer.
If the buyer bought it as a pistol and added the brace themself then it's legal import then amnesty.

The original letter was poorly worded and one could have interpreted it as saying that the guns must be destroyed.  In particular if you cherry picked just reading that one section.  But if you read the whole document, and the way they show examples, it became much less clear.  The YouTuber's freaked out; which actually helped.  It's the one (1) time the YouTube personalities ForTheClick'sBabY shitshow, actually had a positive effect, because the ATF released a refinement basically saying No - you don't have to destroy, shortly thereafter.  If you go read the entire BOOK of this goofy ruling, it's addressed in a few spots, and the reality is no, those guys with firearms that could not legally be imported as rifles, but were imported as Pistols (wait! Now Rifles) are not considered illegal violators of 922r, the AG is exercising his "discretion" to waive enforcement (as documented and signed by the USAG), and they don't have to destroy their firearms.   It's actually an interesting window, and knowing what I know now, I would have tried like a sumbitch to figure out to import crates of Russian SVD "pistols" and other cool shit, we can't get, due to 922r (which only applies to rifles, not pistols)

In any event, To be honest, the whole thing is put together a lot more cleverly, and being executed even more cleverly, than anyone is giving them credit for.  When the very US District Judge who previously had tried to rule portions of the NFA unconstitution, refused to issue an injunction; and basically said "because you are going to lose", that really said something.   This is going to take a court to overrule the 100 year old NFA law, to overturn.  Which COULD happen, but one thing I've learned is if the plan involves the US Judicial system ruling the other guy as unconstitutional; be ready to be dissapointed.

I've said essentially that since page 1 months ago and got called many feels hurting names for it.
It's not close to the blatant overreach so many here claim.

Attached File

Also havent heard anything or seen anyone from the "i will not comply "crowd yet stand up and fire the first shot against the government only seen them post from a keyboard about how they refuse to comply and talk how they will fight any attempt to disarm them.

Can you indicate where they said for reference?
I have never heard that asserted.

I'm sorry, I am so lost here with all these pages and the "latest".

Suppose a guy has a brace on a 10.5 inch ar. What is the law? Not rebellion? Not the line in the sand? What if the brace was purchased years ago.

Summary? Again, thanks and help a guy out here.

As I understand it, law is it's legal as Congress has not passed any laws making braces illegal.

FAFT opinion is they are SBRs and the FAFT are trying to enforce their opinion as if it were law but being a LAW ENFORCEMENT agency they have no power to MAKE LAWS.