AR pistol VS SBR questions

[sigstroker]

Originally Posted by nikonmike5

Still need ATF permission to take them out of state. And you got to give them a destination address.

No you don't. We had this discussion in another thread. The other person did some research and learned something. I think he was an NFA FFL.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by nikonmike5

Still need ATF permission to take them out of state. And you got to give them a destination address.

For each SBR (5.56, 300blk, 7.62x39) I have an equivalent carbine or other rifle for traveling. Now the suppressors that's a different story. I figure if I am taking NFA items out if state it's likely to be a SHTF situation and the .gov will be the least of my problems.

[beanz2]

Suppressors do not need ATF permission to cross state lines as long as the states allow them.

[nikonmike5]

Originally Posted by sigstroker

No you don't. We had this discussion in another thread. The other person did some research and learned something. I think he was an NFA FFL.

Please see https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/fo...a-firearms-atf

[nitroxdiver]

Originally Posted by beanz2

Suppressors do not need ATF permission to cross state lines as long as the states allow them.

Correct

[Loaded_Potato]

Posted this in the regular handguns sub but for you guys who might not see it there, here is the ruling on pistol braces:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...s-used-convert

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Mac Attack]

I wonder what all the people who havve braces handguns but are not allowed to submit a form 1 to SBR them will do? I wonder if we will see a bunch of private and dealer sales as they try to dump them before they get stuck with an illegal SBR.

[bender152]

What's the Form 1 wait time gonna be after this? 2 years?

[atomicwedgy]

The ruling on braced pistols is out today

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by atomicwedgy

The ruling on braced pistols is out today

So how long do we have to purchase a braced pistol that will become an SBR before the rule is published in the Federal Register?

[desertjosh]

Anyone know how to form 1 a pistol chassis "brace" like the MCK? No serial number, can fit multiple handguns ect...?

[scout II]

Originally Posted by desertjosh

Anyone know how to form 1 a pistol chassis "brace" like the MCK? No serial number, can fit multiple handguns ect...?

You are not registering the chassis or brace, you are registering the gun as an SBR with a brace. You would have to put down the make, model, and serial number of the gun you are using in the chassis/brace. The new E-Form 1 for braced pistols does not ask any questions about the brace. It is just like filling out the form 1 for a regular SBR.

[desertjosh]

Originally Posted by scout II

You are not registering the chassis or brace, you are registering the gun as an SBR with a brace. You would have to put down the make, model, and serial number of the gun you are using in the chassis/brace. The new E-Form 1 for braced pistols does not ask any questions about the brace. It is just like filling out the form 1 for a regular SBR.

So I'd have to register my normal XD pistol as a SBR? That sounds crazy to me. I knew I should've waited before buying it

[Loaded_Potato]

Originally Posted by desertjosh

So I'd have to register my normal XD pistol as a SBR? That sounds crazy to me. I knew I should've waited before buying it

I believe scout II is right. You would have to form 1 your XD as the SBR. I also think that when your XD is not in SBR configuration, meaning out of the chassis system, it is not considered an SBR at that time and NFA rules no longer apply. Similar to how you can put a 16 inch upper on an SBR registered lower and freely go across state lines because its not an SBR at that point.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[tacticalcity]

This creates a legal conundrum for California owners of pistol braced pistols that they avoided in other states by having the ability to register them as an SBR. It has long been accepted that the government is not violating EX POST FACTO by allowing registration. However, since California does not allow SBRs, they are in fact violating EX POST FACTO here in California. This is going to need to be addressed and resolved somehow. Hopefully not by a test case involving an arrest. If they do not give California residents a means of keeping their legally purchased braces they create an EX POST FACTO regulation with this ruling.

What is EX POST FACTO? Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). EX POST FACTO is a legal concept that boils down to "if it was legal when you did it they cannot just change the law and punish you for doing it when it was legal. Likewise, if it was legal when you bought it they cannot punish you for that or just confiscate it from you without giving you legal recourse to keep it." Registration gives you legal recourse to keep it. EX POST FACTO is why they let you register things they would rather just take from you. Legally they cannot do so. Not retroactively. They can regulate firearms according to the Supreme Court. But not go back and confiscate things that were once legal simply by changing the law. All they can do is ban future sales and regulate how you use it, transport it, etc. Hence registration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

[sigstroker]

The Constitution also says Congress makes law, nobody else. That's what the Supreme Court says.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

This creates a legal conundrum for California owners of pistol braced pistols that they avoided in other states by having the ability to register them as an SBR. It has long been accepted that the government is not violating EX POST FACTO by allowing registration. However, since California does not allow SBRs, they are in fact violating EX POST FACTO here in California. This is going to need to be addressed and resolved somehow. Hopefully not by a test case involving an arrest. If they do not give California residents a means of keeping their legally purchased braces they create an EX POST FACTO regulation with this ruling.

What is EX POST FACTO? Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). EX POST FACTO is a legal concept that boils down to "if it was legal when you did it they cannot just change the law and punish you for doing it when it was legal. Likewise, if it was legal when you bought it they cannot punish you for that or just confiscate it from you without giving you legal recourse to keep it." Registration gives you legal recourse to keep it. EX POST FACTO is why they let you register things they would rather just take from you. Legally they cannot do so. Not retroactively. They can regulate firearms according to the Supreme Court. But not go back and confiscate things that were once legal simply by changing the law. All they can do is ban future sales and regulate how you use it, transport it, etc. Hence registration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

For Californians and those is other states that prohibit SBRs, there is also a taking issue if they are not allowed to take advantage of the ATF offer of a free tax stamp. And, of course, there is the supremacy issue, especially given that CA does not classify these weapons as SBRs but rather pistols.

[scout II]

I kind of remember back during the 1989 CA assault weapon ban that they at first allowed you to have an SKS with detachable magazine as it was not on the list of banned weapons. Then they decided it was an assault weapon and was banned. By this time the registration period was closed. The only choice you had was to remove the weapon from this state, make it inoperable, or sell it back to the state. I remember that the state actually paid more for the rifle than it sold for. So, maybe CA will offer a buy back for the pistol braces.

[tacticalcity]

Originally Posted by scout II

I kind of remember back during the 1989 CA assault weapon ban that they at first allowed you to have an SKS with detachable magazine as it was not on the list of banned weapons. Then they decided it was an assault weapon and was banned. By this time the registration period was closed. The only choice you had was to remove the weapon from this state, make it inoperable, or sell it back to the state. I remember that the state actually paid more for the rifle than it sold for. So, maybe CA will offer a buy back for the pistol braces.

Not really a desirable option. Certainly not within the constitutional limits of their powers. But there is what is legal and then there is what actually happens. All depends on how much of a fight pro-gun lobbyists are willing to put up. I see this oversight as a great argument to have the entire ruling tossed out since it violates the US Constitution regarding EX POST FACTO laws by not taking into account several states would be prohibited from taking advantage of the otion to register their newly formed SBRs as such. Baring that we could see the feds force those states to allow SBRs for this express purpose. The later ones up it’s own can of worms for the feds and states in question. This ruling was not well thought out. At least not with regards to the legal mess it creates.

Forgive any typos/grammar/autocorrect issues. I am on a phone tiny iPhone mini.

[sigstroker]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

Not really a desirable option. Certainly not within the constitutional limits of their powers. But there is what is legal and then there is what actually happens. All depends on how much of a fight pro-gun lobbyists are willing to put up. I see this oversight as a great argument to have the entire ruling tossed out since it violates the US Constitution regarding EX POST FACTO laws by not taking into account several states would be prohibited from taking advantage of the otion to register their newly formed SBRs as such. Baring that we could see the feds force those states to allow SBRs for this express purpose. The later ones up it’s own can of worms for the feds and states in question. This ruling was not well thought out. At least not with regards to the legal mess it creates.

Forgive any typos/grammar/autocorrect issues. I am on a phone tiny iPhone mini.

It shouldn't matter to kali that there is a piece of paper somewhere that says your braced pistol is an sbr. Look at it and if it looks like a kali braced pistol, that's what it is, according to kali. If AFT wants to look at it, they see it's registration with stamp and it's an sbr according to AFT. It's the same friggin object.

All AFT has to do is register it and issue the stamp.

Oh, and it's not a "ruling", AFT is not a judge. It's a rule.

[tacticalcity]

My understanding is the SBR application will be auto rejected if your location is CA because SBRs are not permitted here. That is what I am reading on the other CA specific threads.

[sigstroker]

I believe it. They would have to be somehow convinced.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

My understanding is the SBR application will be auto rejected if your location is CA because SBRs are not permitted here. That is what I am reading on the other CA specific threads.

What is the basis for that "understanding"? I suggest that you read what I have posted in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me, Status out-of-state CA RAW being registered as an SBR thread, starting with post #8. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...16&postcount=8 Not that what I posted there resolves the questions but because it underscores the issues involved.

[tacticalcity]

I will read it when I get home and am not on a tiny iPhone. Basis for
That understanding is as stated. CA does not allow SBRs and in past attempts by others their applications were rejected. I’d rather others be the test cases. I am sure someone will try to fill out the new form here in CA and report what happens. I am not crazy about being the first to do so. Not sure what unforeseen consequences may arise by filling out a simple form. Time May resolve the issue entirely. It’s a little early. There could be an injunction.
Most certainly will be a lawsuit. For now I have a wait and see and Lee reading attitude. Needless to say this takes some wind out of my hopeful sails as we await a decision from Judge Benitez here in CA on a bunch of exciting cases.

[sigstroker]

On a side note, remember a few months ago when AFT put out that idiotic points system proposed rule? There were some bare bones configurations that were allowed. Notice all of that is gone. Why did they even bother with it?

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by sigstroker

On a side note, remember a few months ago when AFT put out that idiotic points system proposed rule? There were some bare bones configurations that were allowed. Notice all of that is gone. Why did they even bother with it?

Two explanations. First, they are incapable of understanding "shall not be infringed." Second, they think that they are smarter than the rest of us.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

This creates a legal conundrum for California owners of pistol braced pistols that they avoided in other states by having the ability to register them as an SBR. It has long been accepted that the government is not violating EX POST FACTO by allowing registration. However, since California does not allow SBRs, they are in fact violating EX POST FACTO here in California. This is going to need to be addressed and resolved somehow. Hopefully not by a test case involving an arrest. If they do not give California residents a means of keeping their legally purchased braces they create an EX POST FACTO regulation with this ruling.

What is EX POST FACTO? Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). EX POST FACTO is a legal concept that boils down to "if it was legal when you did it they cannot just change the law and punish you for doing it when it was legal. Likewise, if it was legal when you bought it they cannot punish you for that or just confiscate it from you without giving you legal recourse to keep it." Registration gives you legal recourse to keep it. EX POST FACTO is why they let you register things they would rather just take from you. Legally they cannot do so. Not retroactively. They can regulate firearms according to the Supreme Court. But not go back and confiscate things that were once legal simply by changing the law. All they can do is ban future sales and regulate how you use it, transport it, etc. Hence registration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Methinks that you're misunderstanding "Ex Post Facto"

You are quite correct that both the Constitution and the California Constitution specifically forbid "Ex Post Facto" laws. But an "Ex Post Facto" law is one that criminalizes conduct that preceded the law. If the legislature were to pass a law in 2022 that made it illegal to purchase a particular weapon in 1995, then it would be an "Ex Post Facto" law.

But the legislative folks understand this, and the laws they write are written so as not to be retroactive. If the legislature creates a law in 2022 that make it illegal to possess a particular item after 2023, that is not an "Ex Post Facto" law since the proscribed act occurs after the law is created. It makes a great difference whether the initial acquisition, or the current possession, is being punished.

There is no Constitutional right to continued possession of an item that was previously possessed.

There are at least two good reasons why previous firearms bans included "grandfathering" provisions that allowed registration and continued possession of existing weapons: 1) It made it easier for the proponents of the legislation to secure the needed votes to get passage. and 2) It avoided the potential for civil litigation claiming that the ban amounted to a "Constructive Taking" that would require reimbursement to the prior owners of the items.

In today's legislative environment, there isn't much need for "Vote Trading." Proponents of gun controls have more support than in days past. Additionally, there has been some unfortunate case law developments with regard to the Fifth Amendment's "Takings" clause. Under a classic view of the takings clause, if the government took private property, they had to pay. But the Fifth Amendment only requires compensation when private property is taken for public use. Strictly read, there is no requirement to pay when the property is taken for purposes other than public use. If the government takes your pistol brace, they ain't gonna use it, they're gonna destroy it.

[sigstroker]

In addition, because prior ATF classifications of firearms equipped with a “brace” device did not all employ this correct understanding of the statutory terms, all such prior classifications are no longer valid as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

What a load of horse crap! They're saying the AFT four years ago that determined braces were not NFA, were stupid. Probably because Trump was President. But we're much smarter now, so those old classifications are void.

Much of what I've read so far reads a lot like my 6th grade theme papers. I thought they had lawyers working there.

[tacticalcity]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Methinks that you're misunderstanding "Ex Post Facto"

You are quite correct that both the Constitution and the California Constitution specifically forbid "Ex Post Facto" laws. But an "Ex Post Facto" law is one that criminalizes conduct that preceded the law. If the legislature were to pass a law in 2022 that made it illegal to purchase a particular weapon in 1995, then it would be an "Ex Post Facto" law.

But the legislative folks understand this, and the laws they write are written so as not to be retroactive. If the legislature creates a law in 2022 that make it illegal to possess a particular item after 2023, that is not an "Ex Post Facto" law since the proscribed act occurs after the law is created. It makes a great difference whether the initial acquisition, or the current possession, is being punished.

There is no Constitutional right to continued possession of an item that was previously possessed.

There are at least two good reasons why previous firearms bans included "grandfathering" provisions that allowed registration and continued possession of existing weapons: 1) It made it easier for the proponents of the legislation to secure the needed votes to get passage. and 2) It avoided the potential for civil litigation claiming that the ban amounted to a "Constructive Taking" that would require reimbursement to the prior owners of the items.

In today's legislative environment, there isn't much need for "Vote Trading." Proponents of gun controls have more support than in days past. Additionally, there has been some unfortunate case law developments with regard to the Fifth Amendment's "Takings" clause. Under a classic view of the takings clause, if the government took private property, they had to pay. But the Fifth Amendment only requires compensation when private property is taken for public use. Strictly read, there is no requirement to pay when the property is taken for purposes other than public use. If the government takes your pistol brace, they ain't gonna use it, they're gonna destroy it.

While I have heard that argument before I disagree. If that were correct we would have seen Canadian style confiscation of weapons rather than registration. Vote trading might explain how that did not happen nation wide after the first assault weapon ban despite the fact that there was far less support for them then than now amongst those on the right, it does not explain lack of confiscation in California. Where if possible any financial burden would be outweighed by the political support they would gain from the majority of their constituents. Only explanation I can find in the law stopping them is the 2nd Amendment, which they could care less about. And ex post facto. In other words, if they did not believe we had a constitutional right to keep legal purchased property they would have taken these and other guns away a long time ago.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

While I have heard that argument before I disagree. If that were correct we would have seen Canadian style confiscation of weapons rather than registration. Vote trading might explain how that did not happen nation wide after the first assault weapon ban despite the fact that there was far less support for them then than now amongst those on the right, it does not explain lack of confiscation in California. Where if possible any financial burden would be outweighed by the political support they would gain from the majority of their constituents. Only explanation I can find in the law stopping them is the 2nd Amendment, which they could care less about. And ex post facto. In other words, if they did not believe we had a constitutional right to keep legal purchased property they would have taken these and other guns away a long time ago.

We don't have to agree. Respectful disagreement can make for good discussion.

The "Ex Post Facto" avenue hasn't gone anywhere, mostly because the wording of legislation has been very deliberately done to avoid that potential.

California has changed a lot politically in the last 30 years. There just wasn't enough support for confiscation back then. Registration, and use restrictions were about the most that could be run through the system.

The Second Amendment is a very solid tool, but has only been so for a short period of time. But remember that prior to McDonald, the Second Amendment did not apply to California.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by tacticalcity

While I have heard that argument before I disagree. If that were correct we would have seen Canadian style confiscation of weapons rather than registration. Vote trading might explain how that did not happen nation wide after the first assault weapon ban despite the fact that there was far less support for them then than now amongst those on the right, it does not explain lack of confiscation in California. Where if possible any financial burden would be outweighed by the political support they would gain from the majority of their constituents. Only explanation I can find in the law stopping them is the 2nd Amendment, which they could care less about. And ex post facto. In other words, if they did not believe we had a constitutional right to keep legal purchased property they would have taken these and other guns away a long time ago.

IMHO it is not that they believe that we have a constitutional right but that they are not brave enough to try.

[tacticalcity]

I remain hopeful for a lawsuit and injunction. We just have to wait and see. It is early days on this one. Hopefully they can come up with a strong argument. With more than 5 million of these braces (got that stat from the CA thread not sure about it) in circulation it is hard to imagine this would go uncontested.

[beanz2]

How many of you are seeing the 2021R-08F eForms website crashing?

Did you guys realize the braced shotguns are left out? It's only the rifles they are after.

[sigstroker]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Methinks that you're misunderstanding "Ex Post Facto"

You are quite correct that both the Constitution and the California Constitution specifically forbid "Ex Post Facto" laws. But an "Ex Post Facto" law is one that criminalizes conduct that preceded the law. If the legislature were to pass a law in 2022 that made it illegal to purchase a particular weapon in 1995, then it would be an "Ex Post Facto" law.

But the legislative folks understand this, and the laws they write are written so as not to be retroactive. If the legislature creates a law in 2022 that make it illegal to possess a particular item after 2023, that is not an "Ex Post Facto" law since the proscribed act occurs after the law is created. It makes a great difference whether the initial acquisition, or the current possession, is being punished.

What proscribed act? Doing nothing? That's not an act.

[sigstroker]

Originally Posted by beanz2

How many of you are seeing the 2021R-08F eForms website crashing?

Did you guys realize the braced shotguns are left out? It's only the rifles they are after.

If you mean the 14 inch "firearms" I'm not real sure those were ever legal. They were never pistols.

I tried to read through the rule to see where they say what needs to be registered and what doesn't. I could not find anything concrete, just gibberish about what the intent was and what it's designed for.

I also did not see anything about providing pictures. Do you have to have pics for a Form 1?

[sigstroker]

Saw this on arfcom, a tiny ray of sunshine.

Engraving has been waived. You can register them all and no engraving is required.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by sigstroker

What proscribed act? Doing nothing? That's not an act.

The proscribed act is "Possessing" the prohibited item.

[scout II]

Originally Posted by sigstroker

I also did not see anything about providing pictures. Do you have to have pics for a Form 1?

For the new form-1 for pistol braces, you have to download a picture that shows the serial number.

[sigstroker]

Originally Posted by scout II

For the new form-1 for pistol braces, you have to download a picture that shows the serial number.

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

[sigstroker]

Originally Posted by RickD427

The proscribed act is "Possessing" the prohibited item.

That sounds more like status quo than an act. TAKING possession is an act.