ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

[JoshIronshaft]

At the end of the day, the imported firearm needs to comply with 922r unless it is a pistol, unless the atf does something logical like exempt amnesty registered braced pistols from 922r, but that's probably too much to ask.

[ExFlyinguy]

Reading the actual law and the ATF's response to the commenter, I would interpret this to mean that if your gun came from the manufacturer with the brace you are ok. However, if you added the brace yourself, then the ATF is claiming that you already violated 922(r) in doing so. Thus, removing it now doesn't undo the fact that you already - according to them - committed a crime.

Now if it came with the brace, you remove it and now you're putting a stock on it with the intent to SBR it, are you assembling it and thus violating 922(r)? I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like it.

I'm no lawyer either, but my interpretation after watching the MAC video is just the opposite much akin to the fuel filter/silencer(already silencers prior to form approval) issue whereas they are claiming that imported pistols sold with braces already attached were already(in their opinion) SBRs and thus in violation of 922r.

[JoshIronshaft]

That is my conclusion as well, and the million dollar question is, what will they do about it?

[ShadeRabbit]

At the end of the day, the imported firearm needs to comply with 922r unless it is a pistol, unless the atf does something logical like exempt amnesty registered braced pistols from 922r, but that's probably too much to ask.

That would be mighty white of them, issuing a second "amnesty" for something that wasn't a crime when it happened.

That is my conclusion as well, and the million dollar question is, what will they do about it?

Issue a final "final rule"?


Not picking on you personally, Josh. But this is fucking Orwellian horseshit from the ATF.

"Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia"

[JoshIronshaft]

No malice perceived. I think this is all quite ridiculous.

At a gun show today I saw a lot of sellers with braced pistols. I imagine they have no idea what is going on.

[John_Wick]

I'm no lawyer either, but my interpretation after watching the MAC video is just the opposite much akin to the fuel filter/silencer(already silencers prior to form approval) issue whereas they are claiming that imported pistols sold with braces already attached were already(in their opinion) SBRs and thus in violation of 922r.

922(r) specifically pertains to assembly and importation, not possession. Additionally, the ATF comment explicitly refers to "owners who imported pistols and added a 'stabilizing brace.'" (assembly) If you purchased it as a pistol and never added a brace, then it's still a pistol. If you added the brace, then you violated 922(r) and removing it doesn't change that, which is what the ATF is saying in that comment.

[Woodwanderer]

No malice perceived. I think this is all quite ridiculous.

At a gun show today I saw a lot of sellers with braced pistols. I imagine they have no idea what is going on.

I saw a lot selling bare tubed pistols…m

[JoshIronshaft]

922(r) specifically pertains to assembly and importation, not possession. Additionally, the ATF comment explicitly refers to "owners who imported pistols and added a 'stabilizing brace.'" (assembly) If you purchased it as a pistol and never added a brace, then it's still a pistol. If you added the brace, then you violated 922(r) and removing it doesn't change that, which is what the ATF is saying in that comment.

I think the part about 922r not applying to possession is moot, since possession of a non-compliant firearm is evidence of the assembly/importation violation. Unless I'm missing something.

[chewsAside]

Time to put your money where your mouth is keyboard warriors
If it's been said before I'm saying it Again
JOIN GOA
https://www.gunowners.org/
THEN TAKE ACTION
https://www.gunowners.org/na01162023/

Now back to your regular banter

[John_Wick]

I think the part about 922r not applying to possession is moot, since possession of a non-compliant firearm is evidence of the assembly/importation violation. Unless I'm missing something.

Again, not a lawyer, so I am just giving my interpretation ... If Joe assembles a gun that is in violation of 922(r) and sells it to Tom, Joe has broken the law but Tom has not. That said, it puts Tom in a potentially precarious position if the feds ever come knocking as he may need to prove he didn't assemble it (the onus should be on the feds to prove he did, but we know how that often goes). If, however, the gun in question is bone stock as it comes from Sig and Tom had a receipt from PSA for said gun, it would be easy for Tom to prove he did not import or construct the weapon.

Taking this sub-topic a step further, I would likely just sell said gun while I could. I can't just replace the barrel else I violate 922(r). If I put a scope on it or do any one of a dozen other things, now it's a rifle. That mean's it's an SBR. Wait, I can't make it an SBR until I replace half the parts with US parts else I violate 922(r). At that point I might as well just buy another rifle. The ATF absolutely f'd all of these people.