AR pistol VS SBR questions

[scout II]

Originally Posted by sigstroker

Just a close-up, or a plethora of pictures showing the whole thing, the brace, the barrel, and all that?

Just one close-up picture of the serial number area. I was surprised they didn't ask for a picture showing the brace mounted to the pistol.

[sigstroker]

Cool! Sounds like you don't even need an upper.

Thanks

[bender152]

Before anyone rushes in to take advantage of the free tax stamp, please watch the following.

https://youtu.be/mOA5R4sfO0A?t=45

tl;dr - If you get denied on your application, you now have an illegal SBR that the ATF has proof on (per you submitting pictures of it). A denial could happen simply because the background check took too long to process.

[sigstroker]

Sounds paranoid. The rule says they won't enforce for 120 days. If you want to be really extra cautious, remove the brace after 120 days if you haven't gotten approval yet.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by sigstroker

Sounds paranoid. The rule says they won't enforce for 120 days. If you want to be really extra cautious, remove the brace after 120 days if you haven't gotten approval yet.

You should view the interview with Stephen Stamboulieh http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1841123 before making any decision. Stephen and Alan Beck were the attorneys in Young v Hawaii.

[_GH05T_]

so this is extra confusing. Is this an SBR or a pistol according to the new law...?

[beanz2]

Originally Posted by sigstroker

Saw this on arfcom, a tiny ray of sunshine.

Indeed:
BE69EAA3-41F3-44B1-BB04-7B7E2F38146B.jpg

[sigstroker]

Thanks!

[bender152]

Again, please be cautious before running in to get a free tax stamp.

If you have an imported pistol with a brace, watch the following.
https://youtu.be/tK4gJeJ_CI4?t=54

tl;dr - "Any foreign made pistols with stabilizing braces would be in violation of 922(r)."

[beanz2]

Originally Posted by bender152

Again, please be cautious before running in to get a free tax stamp.

If you have an imported pistol with a brace, watch the following.
https://youtu.be/tK4gJeJ_CI4?t=54

tl;dr - "Any foreign made pistols with stabilizing braces would be in violation of 922(r)."

ATF just clarified that this will not be the case.

See the ATF’s updated PDF: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...pdated12523pdf

747B5E41-F855-40B7-8D6C-4823D889CEAC.jpg

[sigstroker]

I dunno, the way I read it, it's still a problem.

[tacticalcity]

I was hoping to see this challenged in court via a lawsuit by now.

[c-mo]

I read ATF automatically denies applications that are older than 80 days and the current backlog is 6 months to a year. So basically the 120 day amnesty means nothing.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

I was hoping to see this challenged in court via a lawsuit by now.

According to a Washingtongunlaw.com Y-tube video less than 24hrs ago, the rule has not yet been published in the federal register. Thus, it is not yet effective and no one has standing to file a court challenge at this time.

[beanz2]

Originally Posted by c-mo

I read ATF automatically denies applications that are older than 80 days and the current backlog is 6 months to a year. So basically the 120 day amnesty means nothing.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

It’s 88 days from the start of NICS check by the ATF examiner, not from the date of Form 1 application.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by beanz2

It’s 88 days from the start of NICS check by the ATF examiner, not from the date of Form 1 application.

If my recollection is correct, NICS checks are done by the FBI, not the ATF. It may also not be correct with respect to the 88 day time period according to Washingtongunlaw.com. What Mr. Kirk said in one of his Youtube videos is that the actual time is 90 days but that the ATF uses 88 days to be on the safe side. He also said that it applies to the 4473 form not a form 1 of form 4 form. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocVVgRFw1oQ

[sigstroker]

AFT requests the FBI to do the background check. The citizen doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes or when the request gets made. It may be an automated request with e-forms.

[beanz2]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

If my recollection is correct, NICS checks are done by the FBI, not the ATF. It may also not be correct with respect to the 88 day time period according to Washingtongunlaw.com. What Mr. Kirk said in one of his Youtube videos is that the actual time is 90 days but that the ATF uses 88 days to be on the safe side. He also said that it applies to the 4473 form not a form 1 of form 4 form. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocVVgRFw1oQ

I did not mean to say that the ATF is the agency that does the NICS background check, the NICS system is run by the FBI. It is merely that the ATF examiner triggers the process, similar to your FFL doing a background check when filling out a 4473 if you do not have a CCW.

I believe a NICS check is done when the ATF processes Form 1 and Form 4 as well. When you read the Forms, there are mention of NICS in there somewhere.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by beanz2

I did not mean to say that the ATF is the agency that does the NICS background check, the NICS system is run by the FBI. It is merely that the ATF examiner triggers the process, similar to your FFL doing a background check when filling out a 4473 if you do not have a CCW.

I believe a NICS check is done when the ATF processes Form 1 and Form 4 as well. When you read the Forms, there are mention of NICS in there somewhere.

I understand and was not trying to argue. I was just trying to prevent possible misunderstandings. I heard that the ATF and FBI got into a tiff so that ATF has to do its own BG checks, but that could be wrong. My FFLs do not do BG checks on me because my Idaho CCW exempts me. As a fellow gun person have a great day.

[beanz2]

Originally Posted by BAJ475

I understand and was not trying to argue. I was just trying to prevent possible misunderstandings. I heard that the ATF and FBI got into a tiff so that ATF has to do its own BG checks, but that could be wrong. My FFLs do not do BG checks on me because my Idaho CCW exempts me. As a fellow gun person have a great day.

Understood. You have a great day too, sir.

[sigstroker]

Tidbit from an NRA email:

First, at the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, ATF confirmed that braces that are removed from firearms do not necessarily have to be destroyed or altered in a way that prevents them from being reattached to a firearm. While the rule claims that destruction or alteration is required for owners who choose the option of simply removing the brace from their firearm, that requirement would be contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.

Under Thompson/Center, possession of a firearm and parts that can only be assembled into an NFA “firearm” constitutes possession of an NFA firearm. But, if the parts can be assembled into multiple lawful configurations, then the parts are not considered an NFA firearm (unless an unlawful configuration is actually assembled).

This should mean that a person who possesses an AR-15 pistol with a stabilizing brace and also possesses a 16-inch barreled upper receiver and/or a registered NFA lower should be able to keep the brace without destroying it or altering it. But, a person who only possesses a pistol with a stabilizing brace may have to dispose of or alter the brace to avoid creating an NFA firearm (in ATF’s view).

Bottom line, you probably don't have to destroy any braces you might remove.

[beanz2]

It’s on.

https://www.federalregister.gov/publ...ilizing-braces

[scout II]

I have read that they said it would be done by the end of January. I guess they actually did that.
It looks like people with imported pistols and a brace don't have to worry about adding 922r compliance stuff.



ATF updated the final rule’ Frequently Asked Questions page to include the following answer to the question of whether section 922(r) applies to firearm impacted by the rule.

No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the GCA at 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. As discussed in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is for the “assembly” of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm would cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembly” has already occurred. Accordingly, a person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a “stabilizing brace” will have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.

[beanz2]

Yes, and the 88-day limit applies to NICS check duration, not time between filing of Form 1 to approval.

[sigstroker]

Originally Posted by scout II

I have read that they said it would be done by the end of January. I guess they actually did that.
It looks like people with imported pistols and a brace don't have to worry about adding 922r compliance stuff.



ATF updated the final rule’ Frequently Asked Questions page to include the following answer to the question of whether section 922(r) applies to firearm impacted by the rule.

No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the GCA at 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. As discussed in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is for the “assembly” of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm would cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembly” has already occurred. Accordingly, a person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a “stabilizing brace” will have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.

I don't think anything has changed wrt the bolded. If a foreign gun was "assembled" with a brace, they consider it 922r illegal.

The second part, the key word is "subsequently". If it was imported, then you put a brace on it, then they don't have a problem with it.

[sigstroker]

Does anyone have the letter AFT sent to ffl's?

We have 2 local gunshops where one of them refused to have anything to do with braced AR's as soon as they got the letter. The second one was happy to sell up to the day the rule appeared in the Federal Register.

[kustomkat1950]

Good morning all!!

would like some clarification if possible...

I have been eyeballing a pistol (well, PSA calls it one, so it is) with a 10.5 barrel. Has a brace-ish on it...

My interpretation is that with this new rule, I would have to register it or go the SBR route? Am I off base?

In Coastal GA if that helps. Just looking for answers. But honestly, not going to lose sleep over it...

Thanks all, and congrats to all of you for being free and taking your money outside of CA...Best thing I ever did.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by kustomkat1950

Good morning all!!

would like some clarification if possible...

I have been eyeballing a pistol (well, PSA calls it one, so it is) with a 10.5 barrel. Has a brace-ish on it...

My interpretation is that with this new rule, I would have to register it or go the SBR route? Am I off base?

In Coastal GA if that helps. Just looking for answers. But honestly, not going to lose sleep over it...

Thanks all, and congrats to all of you for being free and taking your money outside of CA...Best thing I ever did.

Note sure what a brace-ish is but if it comes under the new rules that became effective yesterday it is a SBR and you would have to apply for a tax stamp and pay the $200 fee if the regulations survive.

[beanz2]

Originally Posted by kustomkat1950

Good morning all!!

would like some clarification if possible...

I have been eyeballing a pistol (well, PSA calls it one, so it is) with a 10.5 barrel. Has a brace-ish on it...

My interpretation is that with this new rule, I would have to register it or go the SBR route? Am I off base?

In Coastal GA if that helps. Just looking for answers. But honestly, not going to lose sleep over it...

Thanks all, and congrats to all of you for being free and taking your money outside of CA...Best thing I ever did.

That window closed yesterday

Now the transfer has to be on Form 4 and it’ll cost you $200 and a year extra.

If it was still at the dealer, I’m not sure if he has to file a Form 3 to himself. He may want to check with ATF. Then it’s another week or two.

If you had bought it 1/30 or earlier, it would have been possible to register it without paying the $200.

[sigstroker]

Originally Posted by beanz2

That window closed yesterday

Now the transfer has to be on Form 4 and it’ll cost you $200 and a year extra.

If it was still at the dealer, I’m not sure if he has to file a Form 3 to himself. He may want to check with ATF. Then it’s another week or two.

If you had bought it 1/30 or earlier, it would have been possible to register it without paying the $200.

That's what the rule says. Wonder how that works if the dealer in only a Title I dealer.

The poster above could see if PSA will ship it without the brace, but he still has to cough up $200 for the stamp. I don't know why he would have to wait a year, he could still file an e-form. Although, who knows, if 20 million people (half the braces in circulation) all file, it could be a couple years before approvals.

[sigstroker]

And just like that, PSA is now selling AR pistols with a bare buffer tube.

[c-mo]

I CCW my M&P shield Plus and occasionally slide it into the MCK Gen2 micro conversion kit For a day at the range. As I understand it I would fill out a form 1 and register my handgun as an sbr. What is the downside of registering it? Could I add/remove it from the chassis as I do today? Would there be additional restrictions?



Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

[beanz2]

Originally Posted by c-mo

I CCW my M&P shield Plus and occasionally slide it into the MCK Gen2 micro conversion kit For a day at the range. As I understand it I would fill out a form 1 and register my handgun as an sbr. What is the downside of registering it? Could I add/remove it from the chassis as I do today? Would there be additional restrictions?



Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

Besides the usual concerns of a federal gun registry, I can’t think of any. When you take it out of the chassis, it’s no longer a SBR. Not any different from taking the stock off an 11” AR SBR made from a pistol. Some states will not let you conceal carry a rifle and some will.

Too bad I can’t CC this in my home state (NV)

but in my future “6 months minus 1 day” state (UT), I can

[sigstroker]

Whereabouts (roughly) did you land in UT?

[beanz2]

Near St George

[sigstroker]

Cold in the winter? Although I guess you can say that about the whole state.

edit: Have you seen the West Desert Shooter youtube channel? Lots of wide open long range desert shooting. It's somewhere in Utah, but I have no idea where.

[beanz2]

Cold is relative, lol. There are days when living in deep snow gets tiresome. Also it would be nice to be close to our daughter as we get older. UT is a more gun friendly than (some parts of) NV. So, there is that. Another thing, the Gaia-worshipping libs avoid moving to UT because they don’t want to be converted by the Mormons lol

We’ll explore the Southern UT gun and shooting scene when we’re there.

[GW]

Originally Posted by bender152

Before anyone rushes in to take advantage of the free tax stamp, please watch the following.

https://youtu.be/mOA5R4sfO0A?t=45

tl;dr - If you get denied on your application, you now have an illegal SBR that the ATF has proof on (per you submitting pictures of it). A denial could happen simply because the background check took too long to process.

The ATF has nothing
They aren't asking for a picture of the gun, just a closeup photo of the serial number, same as on the regular SBR form. In addition, if you filed before 1/31/23 and inadvertently gave them a photo of the whole gun, brace and all, then all they have is a photo, with their own date stamp, of a gun that was in a legal configuration at the time.

[sigstroker]

With all these lawsuits now, I wonder what the odds are of any of these eforms getting approved. I'm sure hesitant of filing any forms right now. Why give information to the enemy if I have no chance of free sbr registration?

[tacticalcity]

Unless you already wanted to sbr it I am not sure it is any benefit to do so now. Unless you have a bunch of them the $200 savings is not much of an incentive. If you can still sbr it later right. That said I am told this is supposed to be a little easier than the usual sbr process. But if you’ll prefer it to remain a pistol given a choice then it seems to me it is best to wait and see how these court cases bear out.

I have not heard of any CA residents successfully sbr-ing their pistol. Presumption is still that it would be auto reflected since CA does not allow SBRs. I don’t want to be the test case. But I would not mind one or two of them being SBRs and the rest left as pistols given the choice.