XCR Forum banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
https://www.atf.gov/file/154871/download

JFYI....

This hasn't yet gone to the Federal Register....so you can't comment yet. Once it does, I believe we have 90 days to reply....and be ignored.

My guess is that much of it won't stand up in a court of law but we'll see....and in the interim, I can only hope the government doesn't start door kicking in an attempt to round these up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Someone posted a link to a 30 min video from one of the pro-2A video commenters on another forum.
The re-categorization of braced pistols into short barrel rifles will be based on an "objective" point system of subjective questions asking if the person filling out the test thinks brace is, could be, could conceivably be, or definitely could not be used as a butt stock.
Just the claim of "objective" with a system of determination that is totally subjective is insulting and totally disreputable.
And I say this as a person who is really not a fan of braces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
There is already one on the register that wants to reclassify receivers and serialize parts as well. Last I checked it had u dear 12k comments.

Unless every gun owner steps up and publishes a comment, it’s a loosing battle.


Edit: 23k comments. Still not enough.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
The rules are a done deal, once they make them and decide to publish them it is as good as done. The only post for comments because they are required by law to do that. After looking at the check list it will be nearly impossible to have a pistol with a brace that won't fit NFA registration requirements. It is how it works when anti-gunners get in charge.

bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
The rules are a done deal, once they make them and decide to publish them it is as good as done. The only post for comments because they are required by law to do that. After looking at the check list it will be nearly impossible to have a pistol with a brace that won't fit NFA registration requirements. It is how it works when anti-gunners get in charge.

bob
Not even close to true.

They tried to ban M855 but 100k comments made them remove it before 90 days.

They tried with pistol braces in December but 80k comments and they backed down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Not even close to true.

They tried to ban M855 but 100k comments made them remove it before 90 days.

They tried with pistol braces in December but 80k comments and they backed down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I will agree that public comments helped in those cases but at the time the political landscape was much different. When people say elections have consequences this is just one of them. If we could get just 30% of US gun owners to make a reply it would help immensely but with the apathy rampant in a lot of gun owners we will be lucky to get 3%. It is a shame.

A comment from the AF site: "
If braced pistols are SBRs, and braced pistols are in common use, then SBRs are in common use, thus the NFA should be found to be in violation of Heller.

Braced pistols are the definition of common. Sorry ATF. "
This is going to be an uphill fight because we are not dealing with rational people at the ATF.

My opinion is this should all be done by legislation, not rule making from a regulatory agency.

bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The rules are a done deal, once they make them and decide to publish them it is as good as done. The only post for comments because they are required by law to do that. After looking at the check list it will be nearly impossible to have a pistol with a brace that won't fit NFA registration requirements. It is how it works when anti-gunners get in charge.

bob
From what I can tell, it is impossible. The weight restrictions will get anything that's not an AR and the brace restrictions or any accessories (sights or no sights at all?...WTF?) will get the rest. Basically, if it's got a brace, it's an SBR to ATF.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
From what I can tell, it is impossible. The weight restrictions will get anything that's not an AR and the brace restrictions or any accessories (sights or no sights at all?...WTF?) will get the rest. Basically, if it's got a brace, it's an SBR to ATF.
Sean, I read it the same way. :( I’ve been researching Form 1 and trying to figure out the best way to go about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
Sean, I read it the same way. :( I’ve been researching Form 1 and trying to figure out the best way to go about it.

EDIT This was written before it dawned on me that ATF has decreed that once a pistol becomes a rifle, it cannot go back to being a pistol.***


Keep other options open.

I have a handful of registered NFA lowers, so I can still keep bbls under 16" for those platforms....I think the other stuff I'm just going to take the braces off and potentially store them somewhere else and wait for the inevitable court decisions as to the legality of this ban. I, like most here, have plenty of other guns to shoot.

This could turn out like the bumpstock ban, but I'm certain the subjective "objective" ATF 4999 Worksheet is an attempt to thwart another outcome like that.

Once you go NFA (at least until there's a possibility of repealing parts or all of NFA), there's no going back. I HATE asking "permission" to cross state lines with an SBR; it's ludicrous and offensive to basic liberty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
I will agree that public comments helped in those cases but at the time the political landscape was much different. When people say elections have consequences this is just one of them. If we could get just 30% of US gun owners to make a reply it would help immensely but with the apathy rampant in a lot of gun owners we will be lucky to get 3%. It is a shame.

A comment from the AF site: "


This is going to be an uphill fight because we are not dealing with rational people at the ATF.

My opinion is this should all be done by legislation, not rule making from a regulatory agency.

bob
Bob

The attempted M855 ban was at the end of Obama if I’m not mistaken.

Either way, under Trump we lost bump stocks, yes they are stupid but still, because people didn’t comment they were taken away. And we almost got red flag laws because of king Cheeto.

The absolute least any gun owner can do is file a comment. If you choose not to, well ... you’re one of the reasons freedoms are taken away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
Bob

The attempted M855 ban was at the end of Obama if I’m not mistaken.

Either way, under Trump we lost bump stocks, yes they are stupid but still, because people didn’t comment they were taken away. And we almost got red flag laws because of king Cheeto.

The absolute least any gun owner can do is file a comment. If you choose not to, well ... you’re one of the reasons freedoms are taken away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
But wasn't the M855 ban also when Republicans controlled one (or both) houses?

We should ALL file a comment though, regardless. But if you read the "Commenter's Checklist" (blue link on the left side of the page near the top)


....the content of your comment is actually more important than anything. Yes, I have my doubts that espousing our logic plays a role in their decisions (their own logic is for more power and control)....but it's still worth trying b/c a subsequent step should things get bad enough likely involves bloodshed and we should exhaust ALL alternatives before that time.

That said, I'm not sure I fully grasp the argument about receivers/frames. The problem is ATF has been using a definition that doesn't fit current, modular firearms. They want to amend that so they don't lose more court cases. They should instead just designate ONE part as the "firearm" (such as the part that houses the trigger assembly, as an example) rather than making an undue burden on FFLs, manufacturers and The People by requiring all sorts of serialized parts and considering multiple components as the actual firearm. Obviously, they may have to do that via a list of each firearm, but the real goal is to eliminate untraceable firearms which is in and of itself a stark violation of the ideals of the 2A. They want to be able to register/track b/c they eventually plan to confiscate. They want a state monopoly on violence and it's harder to completely enslave an armed populace (though I'd argue they're doing a damn fine job of it in spite of our weapons).

Make no mistake, they also want to make the rules as complex and cumbersome as possible so that gun owners will run afoul of their edicts and they can imprison them to serve as warnings to others of the perils of gun ownership. Same with what I myself read on the ATF's old website regarding NFA....the goal was red tape to discourage ownership of such weapons. Should have cached that page when I read it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
A thought has crossed my mind on the rule making here:

Pages 42-43 list the "options" for those with braces. Page 49-52 of the ATF document contain "scenarios" of how to deal with the evil specter of braces and pages 53-55 contain 5 "alternatives".

The long standing ATF rule is that once a pistol becomes a rifle, it can never go back to being a pistol, so "Option 1/Scenario 4" of simply removing the brace isn't viable.

See page 3 of this ATF doc regarding the Thompson Contender case (the obvious caveat to the above "rule"), last sentence of 4th paragraph: https://www.atf.gov/file/55526/download

"Such a weapon would not be a “pistol” because the weapon was not originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile by one hand."

....which is the exact verbiage ATF used to write the rules on braces, stating that weapons sold with these braces attached were not designed to be fired with one hand by virtue of the brace's design characteristics laid out in the 4999 Worksheet.

In this situation of manufacturers selling "pistols" with braces, we have ATF determining that even though these pistols with braces attached were sold legally....they've now waived a magic wand (coupled with their subjective/objective 'worksheet') and made them all illegal SBRs...the operative part of that term is RIFLEs. That is the very definition of ex post facto law.

The ONLY way to be consistent with their own rule therefore is to convert said gun to 16"+ bbl OR register it as a NFA SBR.

Their options of "just remove the brace", risk running afoul of their long standing rule.

Ah bureaucracy.....where you just make up contradictory rules as you go along to suit your agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Does anyone know how the “ten days” for fingerprints to be received are calculated? If I send by priority express on a Friday that is day 8 and it arrives Monday (due to office being closed on Sunday) would that result in a failed application?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Does anyone know how the “ten days” for fingerprints to be received are calculated? If I send by priority express on a Friday that is day 8 and it arrives Monday (due to office being closed on Sunday) would that result in a failed application?
Say what? I've done form 1s in the past....no date limit on the fingerprint submission.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
I submitted the form today and literally every place I can get printed is overbooked. I’m going to drive nearly an hour to do it next week, but mailing by the deadline will be costly.
Also the way they word it is unclear if it must be postmarked or received by the date. In my field that is considered to be a very sloppy way to express a deadline rule; and note that even the IRS does better…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
It has been published.

Here is the GOA letter website. Use theirs, use your own but use something. Also pick up the phone and call your elected officials. One phone call is worth at least ten letters.


bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
It now says ten days to send fingerprint cards from date of e-filing.
Awesome.:rolleyes: Best to find a kiosk and pay the $100 to do the fingerprints electronically IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Sean — the kiosks can no longer be used for form 1; i think that’s a relatively recent change. I tried to find out if they can just do the fingerprints and haven’t gotten an answer yet. Just doing my best to get it all done. The eForm website was like a bad flashback of 1999…

Anyhow my form 1 is for a PCC; happy to have ordered a 16” XCR.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top