ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

[EFK]

Yes but in terms of my recent post, that's the point: you filed a Form 4. The poster to whom I responded postulated that one could simply say "hey, I sold it to xyz, go find him" but since the poster had theoretically already filed for registration of a braced pistol/SBR, it no longer qualifies (to my knowledge) for simple face to face transaction with no FFL or ATF forms involved. So I think the old "hey I sold it to xyz and I wasn't required to keep any record' is not going to fly here.

I genuinely think abject confusion here was the INTENTION, not the side-effect.

[Sgt.K]

Y'all,

We're nearly 500 posts into this thread about how to deal with a bad rule from AFT that deals with NFA items. Where's the discussion about abolishing the NFA, which would make all of this moot? Or at least taking SBR and SBS language out? With Bruen on the books, and referencing Miller, shouldn't there be some traction in that direction?

My 2¢
IANAL
etc...

[buckengr]

It*s 88 days once the background check is performed. If it doesn*t come back approved they deny.

Yes, it's not from submission of application, but regardless, if for whatever reason ATF takes longer than 88 days from when they eventually do start processing the NICS check to complete, or for any other arbitrary reason (including typos or other clerical errors in the application) it will be denied (since eForms don't allow for the issuance of "correction letters" like paper forms used to) and any theoretical amnesty would evaporate instantly.

[JoshIronshaft]

ATF sets up a booth a SHOT show? Just to rub people’s noses in it, or what?

I thought their routine was to cruise the parking lot, snapping photos of license plates.

They also set up a booth at the Knob Creek Machinegun shoot a couple of the years I went. The agents working the booth never looked excited to be there.

[QueechoFeecho]

Did some direct searching within the Federal Register, and the most recent items I could find (based solely on containing the term "brace") that were from the BATFE were from June 2021 and December 2020. Nothing more recent than that, at least not BATFE-related. There was some goofy stuff from CDC and others, but not germane to this topic.

So, in case anyone cares, and since part of this BATFE brace rule is based on 'when it gets published in the Federal Register' for the 120 day window, I last checked the Federal Register five days ago, on Jan 16th. I did the same check again today, and got the same result. I'll be explicit here:

Did some direct searching within the Federal Register, and the most recent items I could find (based solely on containing the term "brace") that were from the BATFE were from June 2021 and December 2020. Nothing more recent than that, at least not BATFE-related. There was some goofy stuff from CDC and others, but not germane to this topic.

[edmundfitz1975]

...............

[QueechoFeecho]

Seems all the dealers are pulling braces, that should tell you something.

Dealers are more visible** and also have more to lose** if they get tangled up in something that goes south for them, legally speaking. Their visibility, which they rely on, via marketing and such, is a necessary aspect of running their business, so they have to maintain visibility. So pulling braces in the interim is a pragmatic survival tactic.

**meaning relative to the average gun owner who is not a dealer that might be affected by this BATFE rule

[esh21167]

I don't believe anyone was lying, but rather the information was simply misunderstood. That incorrect information then spread from the initial source and is now plastered all over. It is no more true after 10,000 post it than it is after 1 person posted it though. If there was any truth to the original information, absolutely no one would have a suppressor since I don't think one of those applications has ever been processed in 88 days. I have posted the correct info in the post you partially quoted - along with a quote directly from the FBI's website - and it's there if you want it.

Maybe a couple factors.

For previous NFA filings, you are not already in possession of the NFA item when filing, but acquiring or building the item after approval. Further, per an earlier comment, the 88 day count starts from when the BGC is done. The wait times are waiting for the reviewers to get to the filings, so the 88 days could start a year after the application is filed.

In the brace situation, it appears that after the 'amnesty' period of 120 days, you're in possession of an unregistered NFA item, regardless of whether the BGC is completed. Maybe the only way BATFE can make this fly is to make the 'amnesty' period last until approval/denial, and demand proof of ownership within the 120 days of the publication to the federal register.

Now a denial for any reason could also prove highly problematic, and denials can happen for dumb reasons, like filling out a SN with the letter 'O' instead of the number '0'.

[EFK]

I think pretty much anything ATF-related at this point falls under the category of "dumb reasons." Sad.

[ShadeRabbit]

Just saw this on another forum, figured I'd pass it along for anyone who has a foreign-made pistol with a brace on it

Page 246 & 247 of the "Final Rule"


The Department disagrees with the commenter who suggested that there will be
financial implications resulting from the removal and replacement of imported parts for
owners who imported pistols and added a 'stabilizing brace.' The commenter incorrectly
interpreted 18 U.S.C. 922(r) as requiring the removal and replacement of imported parts
to comply with section 922(r). Section 922(r) generally makes it unlawful "for any
person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle," and 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. The criminal violation
under 18 U.S.C. 922(r) is for the 'assembl[y]' of the semi-automatic rifle; therefore,
modification of this kind of firearm through the removal of the relevant parts would not
cure the 922(r) violation because the 'assembl[y]' has already occurred. Nevertheless,
for the purposes of the costs outlined in the standalone RIA, ATF assumes this group may
use another scenario, such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the
population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy.