Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=331)
-   -   What's up with ATF's stabilizing brace regs? (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1756811)

Lanejsl 11-10-2021 7:39 AM

What's up with ATF's stabilizing brace regs?
 
Does anyone know what the status is? I've heard rumors that they wanted it to go into effect in January but we are not in mid November and that wouldn't seem to give folks much opportunity to get in compliance.

bugsy714 11-10-2021 8:23 AM

No movement publicly so far just that they said what they wanted to happen pretended to listen to her comments on it and it stalled there for the moment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

M1NM 11-10-2021 8:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanejsl (Post 26344759)
that wouldn't seem to give folks much opportunity to get in compliance.

You've stumbled upon their evil plan.

Experimentalist 11-10-2021 8:48 PM

Oh, there's been movement
 
In the October 2021 issue of "Small Arms Review" magazine, Johanna Reeves, ESQ. writes about the ATF's proposed rulemaking on Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached "Stabilizing Braces".

On 10 June the ATF gave notice of proposed rulemaking to clarify when a firearm with a brace is a pistol or something else.

ATF discusses the proposed rulemaking here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...ilizing-braces

There is a worksheet ATF is proposing to help make case by case determinations. A copy may be viewed and / or downloaded here: https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download

As the ATF website says, I think it's still proposed. But it may be wise to get ahead of the game by taking a look at what's posted.

Hope this is helpful.

Lanejsl 11-19-2021 7:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwiese (Post 26375534)
Always wondering why CA people are worried about possible future Fed
action when they ALREADY have *California SBR* risk.

If you have a braced pistol in CA you should have NFA AOW'd it to exploit
the CA exemption to CA SBR laws.

The Federal ATF memos, at least while still valid, have zero bearing on
separate CA SBR and in fact give cops/judges/DAs a road map.

Also, a gun that is an NFA AOW and was legally not a Federal SBR may
be in a 'more interesting place' legally, pending any ATF action, than
such a gun that's just an ordinary pistol with brace.

Wasnít at all relevant to my question. Wasnít looking for legal advice on CA law but thanks for playing.

bugsy714 11-19-2021 8:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwiese (Post 26375534)
Always wondering why CA people are worried about possible future Fed
action when they ALREADY have *California SBR* risk.

If you have a braced pistol in CA you should have NFA AOW'd it to exploit
the CA exemption to CA SBR laws.

The Federal ATF memos, at least while still valid, have zero bearing on
separate CA SBR and in fact give cops/judges/DAs a road map.

Also, a gun that is an NFA AOW and was legally not a Federal SBR may
be in a 'more interesting place' legally, pending any ATF action, than
such a gun that's just an ordinary pistol with brace.


How does registering it like that affect your ability to transfer it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Experimentalist 11-21-2021 1:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwiese (Post 26375534)
Always wondering why CA people are worried about possible future Fed
action when they ALREADY have *California SBR* risk.

If you have a braced pistol in CA you should have NFA AOW'd it to exploit
the CA exemption to CA SBR laws.

The Federal ATF memos, at least while still valid, have zero bearing on
separate CA SBR and in fact give cops/judges/DAs a road map.

Also, a gun that is an NFA AOW and was legally not a Federal SBR may
be in a 'more interesting place' legally, pending any ATF action, than
such a gun that's just an ordinary pistol with brace.

This is very helpful to me, thank you for posting.

If anyone has insights into the mechanics of registering a pistol as an NFA AOW - perhaps recommend a legal mind to assist - I would appreciate it.

vandal 11-21-2021 2:41 PM

Have people (CA or no) been successful in registering a braced pistol as an AOW?

It would seem that those features conflict with each other -- one designed to allow for one hand operation, the other allowing for two-hand operation.

I tried twice and they just kind of ignored my applications... after months and months telling me to resubmit.



Quote:

Originally Posted by bwiese (Post 26375534)
Always wondering why CA people are worried about possible future Fed
action when they ALREADY have *California SBR* risk.

If you have a braced pistol in CA you should have NFA AOW'd it to exploit
the CA exemption to CA SBR laws.

The Federal ATF memos, at least while still valid, have zero bearing on
separate CA SBR and in fact give cops/judges/DAs a road map.

Also, a gun that is an NFA AOW and was legally not a Federal SBR may
be in a 'more interesting place' legally, pending any ATF action, than
such a gun that's just an ordinary pistol with brace.


jcwatchdog 11-22-2021 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwiese (Post 26375534)
Always wondering why CA people are worried about possible future Fed
action when they ALREADY have *California SBR* risk.

If you have a braced pistol in CA you should have NFA AOW'd it to exploit
the CA exemption to CA SBR laws.

The Federal ATF memos, at least while still valid, have zero bearing on
separate CA SBR and in fact give cops/judges/DAs a road map.

Also, a gun that is an NFA AOW and was legally not a Federal SBR may
be in a 'more interesting place' legally, pending any ATF action, than
such a gun that's just an ordinary pistol with brace.


I know there are some people who registered their bullet button ar pistols with braces that were accepted. I didnít at the time because I didnít own a brace and hadnít been planning on buying one. Does that count for anything?

bugsy714 11-22-2021 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog (Post 26383435)
I know there are some people who registered their bullet button ar pistols with braces that were accepted. I didnít at the time because I didnít own a brace and hadnít been planning on buying one. Does that count for anything?


Do you mean they registered it as a BBRAW? What he is talking about is registering it federally as an NFA item Ayo W


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jcwatchdog 11-22-2021 1:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugsy714 (Post 26383497)
Do you mean they registered it as a BBRAW? What he is talking about is registering it federally as an NFA item Ayo W


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes I mean about the bullet button AW pistols registered with a brace. He mentioned that the braces may be in violation of CA SBR laws anyways, however if they were, why were ar pistols accepted for registration with pictures of them having braces installed.

If anything was out of place with the registration they would kick back the registration and require you to correct it.

bugsy714 11-22-2021 1:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog (Post 26383562)
Yes I mean about the bullet button AW pistols registered with a brace. He mentioned that the braces may be in violation of CA SBR laws anyways, however if they were, why were ar pistols accepted for registration with pictures of them having braces installed.

If anything was out of place with the registration they would kick back the registration and require you to correct it.


I think the point he is making is that there has not been a test case regarding the pistol brace with a A.R. pistol determining if California would consider it a SBR under the California law


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sbo80 11-22-2021 4:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcwatchdog (Post 26383562)
If anything was out of place with the registration they would kick back the registration and require you to correct it.

This came up 100 times during the registration threads. Successful registration is absolutely not "proof" that something is legal. It is only proof that you submitted a form and some clerk at the DOJ processed it. If your firearm is illegally configured, your registration will not save you from prosecution.
*To the OP question, I don't think anybody knows yet. Until they publish final rules, it's still in limbo and there's been no info since they asked for comments.

jcwatchdog 11-22-2021 9:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbo80 (Post 26384226)
This came up 100 times during the registration threads. Successful registration is absolutely not "proof" that something is legal. It is only proof that you submitted a form and some clerk at the DOJ processed it. If your firearm is illegally configured, your registration will not save you from prosecution.
*To the OP question, I don't think anybody knows yet. Until they publish final rules, it's still in limbo and there's been no info since they asked for comments.

Thatís not necessarily the case. Thordsen has quoted that the DOJ refusing to register a bullet button rifle with a thordsen stock proves that the stock is CA compliant for featureless, as thatís why they denied the application. Likewise if the doj has accepted braces as braces, this would prove the doj doesnít see the brace as a stock.

Experimentalist 11-26-2021 1:31 PM

I can appreciate there may be unique circumstances where acceptance or denial of registration may be useful.

In the general case acceptance of registration means just what others here have pointed out, some clerk thought the application worthy of acceptance.

Weren't there instances of CA DOJ showing up at people's homes to inspect certain entries? Pretty sure there were.

Dr.Lou 11-26-2021 2:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1NM (Post 26345041)
You've stumbled upon their evil plan.

Good job, Scooby! :D

jcwatchdog 11-27-2021 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Experimentalist (Post 26394881)
I can appreciate there may be unique circumstances where acceptance or denial of registration may be useful.

In the general case acceptance of registration means just what others here have pointed out, some clerk thought the application worthy of acceptance.

Weren't there instances of CA DOJ showing up at people's homes to inspect certain entries? Pretty sure there were.


I donít remember many of those. I know some had to do with 80% builds and self made single shot ar pistols. But those all revolved around 80%. I donít know of any regular sse ar pistols with a bullet button and a brace generating any visits from the doj.

beanz2 11-28-2021 7:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lanejsl (Post 26375829)
Wasnít at all relevant to my question. Wasnít looking for legal advice on CA law but thanks for playing.

You donít know who youíre replying to.

beanz2 11-28-2021 8:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bugsy714 (Post 26375895)
How does registering it like that affect your ability to transfer it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Iíve never registered one as an AOW, but other Title 2 items are a PITA to transfer. Either the buyer accepts the fact heíd be waiting for a Form 4 a long time* before he has possession of it, or, you deregister then transfer as a Title 1. The buyer will have to wait to re-register it as an Title 2 until you, the seller, gets the letter of deregistration from the ATF.

In the second scenario, the engraving you had put on the Title 2 item devalues the gun as it no longer applies to the buyer and he has to re-engrave it with his info if he makes it a Title 2 again.


* there is hope. Rumors afloat that ATF is doing eForm 4 in 2022.

Fate 12-11-2021 1:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beanz2 (Post 26398936)
You donít know who youíre replying to.

You still riding old CGF hasbeen jock? That dude is no hero. And he (like the OP stated) was off topic.

Lanejsl 02-02-2022 1:18 PM

Looks like they are planning to make the brace ban effective 8/22.

foreppin916 02-03-2022 11:31 AM

I registered an AR pistol as a BBAW with an SBm4 (non adjustable) attached and noted in the registration it was an arm brace.

It was accepted.

It is now an form 1'd approved AOW.

no issues with DOJ......................yet.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bugsy714 (Post 26383497)
Do you mean they registered it as a BBRAW? What he is talking about is registering it federally as an NFA item Ayo W


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


vandal 02-03-2022 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreppin916 (Post 26607410)
It is now an form 1'd approved AOW.

That's awesome as CADOJ can't try to charge you with CA SBR, as AOWs are exempted from CA SBR laws. Well done.

I tried to do the same but ATF just sat on it for months and then told me to resubmit.

Dr.Lou 02-09-2022 2:20 PM

According to a discussion I recently had with a couple ATF folks, it's still working its way through main justice, state department, etc. It's decision is scheduled to be published in August.

M1NM 02-09-2022 2:57 PM

1-30-22

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/br...l-regulations/

BREAKING: Federal Register Publishes Schedule For ATF’s Firearm, Silencer, and Pistol Brace Final Regulations

page 357 (5111) https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/w...ations-Doc.pdf

They also want to redefine what makes a receiver so swapping uppers or having uppers as "parts" will be a thing of the past.

Stage 104. Definition of ‘‘Frame or Receiver’’ and Identification of Firearms

new regulatory definitions of firearm frame or receiver and frame or receiver because they are outdated.

Silence Dogood 02-09-2022 5:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1NM (Post 26625992)
1-30-22

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/br...l-regulations/

BREAKING: Federal Register Publishes Schedule For ATFís Firearm, Silencer, and Pistol Brace Final Regulations

page 357 (5111) https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/w...ations-Doc.pdf

They also want to redefine what makes a receiver so swapping uppers or having uppers as "parts" will be a thing of the past.

Stage 104. Definition of ĎĎFrame or Receiveríí and Identification of Firearms

new regulatory definitions of firearm frame or receiver and frame or receiver because they are outdated.

I think this (bold) might be FUDD and that the new ďregulatory definitions of firearm frame or receiverĒ that they propose have to do with 80s. Still not good but very different.

The page of the document you link to does not say anything about uppers but it does allude to unserialized home made firearms:

from the middle column, about halfway down on p.357(5111), Stage 104:
Quote:

Risks: Without this rule, public safety will continue to be threatened by the lack of traceability of firearms.
Can someone else confirm or deny this with citable sources that explicitly say?

Silence Dogood 02-09-2022 6:07 PM

Also, since they are openly talking about ďtraceabilityĒ, which would seem to clearly betray the spirit of the prohibition against a Federal registry of gun owners even if it does not break the letter of the law, could this new rule-making be the step too far taken by the other side which gives 2A defenders what we need to win a SC case solidifying our right to self/home-made arms.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.