Registering an already "registered" sbr

[sigstroker]

Supposing I did the "tax-free" sbr registration last year under the AFT's brace-banning scheme. I have one I don't really want to wait 3 years for the courts to figure it out, and my guess is the brace rule would be thrown out, thus nullifying all the registrations. I think the AFT does too, because they told me to make a correction on a couple applications, which I did, and I haven't heard a peep since.

At any rate, since I plan to register a couple anyway, what's the opinion of NFA experts here? Can I go ahead and Form 1 an sbr that's theoretically already registered?

On a related note, I ran across this silencer youtube that looked interesting:

[beanz2]

Interesting question, Sig. my guess is that the ATF will just decline the second paid application since the freebie application is still ongoing. On the other hand that might prompt them to look into your initial applications and hopefully approve them.

I cannot see them nullifying the approvals since many successful applicants have since many have attached actual stocks on their braced pistols. At least the approvals that have been granted under the rule makes for a very good defense.

[sigstroker]

Sounds good, but they also say "conditional" approval.

[ar15robert]

If anything i think the registered ones will be allowed to remain as is or there will be an option to either return to brace or just pay up the tax.

[CamW]

One lawyer's opinion

https://johnpierceesq.com/recent-arm-brace-ruling-may-impact-those-who-received-a-tax-free-amnesty-form-1-approval/

[sigstroker]

Well that opinion stinks!

Wonder why he didn't give his reason.

[SVT-40]

Well that opinion stinks!

Wonder why he didn't give his reason.

He's a lawyer. He wants to get paid. Remember opinions have no legal standing.

[highpower]

Well that opinion stinks!

Wonder why he didn't give his reason.

I think he did give his reason. As I understand what he said; because the approvals are conditional, if the ATF ruling is permanently struck down, then the approvals are, in his opinion, going to be null and void. Therefore if you used these form 1's to install an actual stock, then you have created an illegal SBR. He did say that if you left the brace on, you are legally covered.

This is one of the reasons I removed the brace from my MP5 when their anti brace ruling first came down and went back to it's pistol configuration. I just don't feel like playing the ATF's game of "what if?" and I already was going to pay the $200 and apply for a normal tax stamp after the election.

As a side note, I have been practicing using a strap around my shoulder and extending the gun forward until it is tight. While it is not as steady as a stock would be, it is surprisingly accurate with the red dot.

[sigstroker]

That's not what he said though. He said to take any stocks off just because of the injunction. Unless I misread it. I believe the injunction said nothing about that, just that the rule was enjoined from being "enforced". To me that means no arresting people for having a brace. But IANAL (thank God).

It would still suck though. You do something legal, e.g. do a tax-free Form 1 sbr reg. Then, maybe 3 years later, AFT loses a lawsuit. Poof, yer sh*t is now illegal? You're supposed to keep glued to the legal firearms news? What about ex post facto? AFT sucks double because they put "Pursuant to the final Rule..." under the approval conditions. They knew there was a good chance it would be invalidated in court.

So "approval" is a living animal? Approved today, unapproved tomorrow? To me, "approval" is a one-time verb. If something gets approved, it stays that way forever.

[highpower]

Yeah, I get your point. But as we have all come to see "approval" has become a moving target for the ATF and Beijing Biden administration.

As I understand what the lawyer was getting at, if you got a conditional Form 1 approved and you then put an actual stock on it, it would be in your best interest to remove it in case the original rule banning them gets thrown out, because that would mean that you created an illegal SBR.

However, if you were smart and didn't post any pictures it with a stock installed online and/or there is no hard evidence that you ever did turn your perfectly legal and safe braced pistol into an evil SBR, I see no way they could prove it one way or the other regardless of what happens.

Another scenario I see happening if the ruling gets thrown out, is that the ATF might then give you the option of paying them $200 and your conditional approval becomes a "real" SBR approval.

I must admit that I had an odd feeling about the whole thing from the get-go and while I would have loved to get a free SBR approval, I decided to wait and just go through the regular process.

[sigstroker]

I would say about half of the ones I tried to reg would be ones I would eventually reg anyway. But as long as I jumped through the hoops I want to go ahead and use them the way it should be, until the case is settled 3 years from now. I might not even be alive by then.

[ar15robert]

That's not what he said though. He said to take any stocks off just because of the injunction. Unless I misread it. I believe the injunction said nothing about that, just that the rule was enjoined from being "enforced". To me that means no arresting people for having a brace. But IANAL (thank God).

It would still suck though. You do something legal, e.g. do a tax-free Form 1 sbr reg. Then, maybe 3 years later, AFT loses a lawsuit. Poof, yer sh*t is now illegal? You're supposed to keep glued to the legal firearms news? What about ex post facto? AFT sucks double because they put "Pursuant to the final Rule..." under the approval conditions. They knew there was a good chance it would be invalidated in court.

So "approval" is a living animal? Approved today, unapproved tomorrow? To me, "approval" is a one-time verb. If something gets approved, it stays that way forever.

agree here I think ones who went and registered and got approval are going to be ok like I said earlier might get hit with option to pay tax or remove stock though.

Seen lot of you tube lawyer experts talking about the drawbacks of registering etc but if anyone actually read what was on atf website you could see that the so called lawyers or experts were saying a completely opposite thing than what was actually posted. IMO more of a scare tactic.

Those that say put the brace back on well that was considered a stock by atf I know court ruling changed that though. I planned to do mine as an sbr anyways just trying to save 200 bucks lol. But if I have to pay later I will.

[BAJ475]

agree here I think ones who went and registered and got approval are going to be ok like I said earlier might get hit with option to pay tax or remove stock though.

Seen lot of you tube lawyer experts talking about the drawbacks of registering etc but if anyone actually read what was on atf website you could see that the so called lawyers or experts were saying a completely opposite thing than what was actually posted. IMO more of a scare tactic.

Those that say put the brace back on well that was considered a stock by atf I know court ruling changed that though. I planned to do mine as an sbr anyways just trying to save 200 bucks lol. But if I have to pay later I will.

I am not giving legal advice. But there is a simple solution. The court in a final opinion could expressly exempt all those who received a free tax stamp. The attorneys challenging the rule should ask for nothing less. There is also the argument that any prosecution of those who got the free tax stamp could raise the defense of entrapment, in that, the government specifically and expressly said that they could attach standard stocks.

[sigstroker]

The injunction enjoins the AFT from enforcing the final rule anyway.