Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-10-2021, 7:39 AM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-10-2021, 8:23 AM
bugsy714's Avatar
bugsy714 bugsy714 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: OC/LA
Posts: 2,009
iTrader: 136 / 100%
Default

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
__________________
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-10-2021, 8:50 AM
M1NM M1NM is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 7,328
iTrader: 54 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
that wouldn't seem to give folks much opportunity to get in compliance.
You've stumbled upon their evil plan.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-10-2021, 8:48 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 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.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
Who uses 9mm for SD? Anything less than a 50BMG is stupid to use. Personally, I prefer canister rounds out of a 10lb Parrott rifle for SD.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-19-2021, 7:55 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-19-2021, 8:20 PM
bugsy714's Avatar
bugsy714 bugsy714 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: OC/LA
Posts: 2,009
iTrader: 136 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
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
__________________
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-21-2021, 1:49 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
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.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
Who uses 9mm for SD? Anything less than a 50BMG is stupid to use. Personally, I prefer canister rounds out of a 10lb Parrott rifle for SD.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-21-2021, 2:41 PM
vandal vandal is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Walnut Creek
Posts: 2,643
iTrader: 180 / 100%
Default

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 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-22-2021, 12:20 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-22-2021, 12:43 PM
bugsy714's Avatar
bugsy714 bugsy714 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: OC/LA
Posts: 2,009
iTrader: 136 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
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
__________________
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-22-2021, 1:08 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsy714 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-22-2021, 1:12 PM
bugsy714's Avatar
bugsy714 bugsy714 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: OC/LA
Posts: 2,009
iTrader: 136 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
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
__________________
In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-22-2021, 4:57 PM
sbo80's Avatar
sbo80 sbo80 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,846
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-22-2021, 9:05 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbo80 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-26-2021, 1:31 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
Who uses 9mm for SD? Anything less than a 50BMG is stupid to use. Personally, I prefer canister rounds out of a 10lb Parrott rifle for SD.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-26-2021, 2:56 PM
Dr.Lou's Avatar
Dr.Lou Dr.Lou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 732
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1NM View Post
You've stumbled upon their evil plan.
Good job, Scooby!
__________________

NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-27-2021, 11:43 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Experimentalist View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-28-2021, 7:58 AM
beanz2's Avatar
beanz2 beanz2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 10,954
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanejsl View Post
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.
__________________

The wife will be pissed, but Jesus always forgives.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-28-2021, 8:12 AM
beanz2's Avatar
beanz2 beanz2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 10,954
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsy714 View Post
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.
__________________

The wife will be pissed, but Jesus always forgives.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-11-2021, 1:20 PM
Fate's Avatar
Fate Fate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Proud Member of the Quitter Club. Moscow, ID
Posts: 9,417
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beanz2 View Post
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.
__________________
"On bended knee is no way to be free." - Eddie Vedder, "Guaranteed"

"Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." -Thomas Jefferson
, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr dated August 19, 1785
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-02-2022, 1:18 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like they are planning to make the brace ban effective 8/22.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-03-2022, 11:31 AM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 1,181
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

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 View Post
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
__________________
"Ya dude just bought my 67th gun today"......
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-03-2022, 11:37 AM
vandal vandal is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Walnut Creek
Posts: 2,643
iTrader: 180 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreppin916 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-09-2022, 2:20 PM
Dr.Lou's Avatar
Dr.Lou Dr.Lou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 732
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-09-2022, 2:57 PM
M1NM M1NM is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 7,328
iTrader: 54 / 100%
Default

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.

Last edited by M1NM; 02-09-2022 at 3:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-09-2022, 5:54 PM
Silence Dogood's Avatar
Silence Dogood Silence Dogood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 207
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1NM View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-09-2022, 6:07 PM
Silence Dogood's Avatar
Silence Dogood Silence Dogood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 207
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:51 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical