ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

[arjohnson]

Anyone that jumped right on this is a fool. I would have at least waited to see if anything is going to happen.

[akley88]

It states 6-6.6" pistol tube , most are about 7.4" or longer and there aren't many options 6" or less to begin with. But imo removing the tube for the time being should be compliant. No it won't be functional but someone will set in to fill the need.

is that measurement from the end of the threads to the end of tube or the whole length including the threads? i would assume, but this is the ATF, that it should be everything behind the castle nut.

[EFK]

True. The House pirate has already introduced something in the House with a Senate sponsor, although I'm not clear the moment if the attempt is to retroactively stop this "rule" or to create more oversight going forward.

Even without congressional involvement, this is very definitely going to take up some time in the courts.

[Walleye Hunter]

Anyone that jumped right on this is a fool. I would have at least waited to see if anything is going to happen.

I'm not so sure about that. Doesn't everyone want an SBR? And if you could get one without etching your fine machine or paying $200 for a stamp, wouldn't that be even better?

[DMG]

Maybe it's in a requirement in the range's insurance to check that NFA items being used are in compliance with the NFA.

Are you using a wild hypothetical to justify a range trying to be the ATF? Whose side are you on?

[HKusp 45]

As far as I know the clock hasn't even started, why submit one so soon? The quicker you do it the more incentive you give for them to encroach on our rights. I'm still pretty certain that this whole thing will end up getting shot down.

no thanks I'm in disagreement with this whole thing , most likely what will happen is you will not be gotten to within the time frame allotted then you are now in possession of what in their opinion is an SBR and they state they will take enforcement action. This is a confiscation trap / registration plain and simple.

[HKusp 45]

True. The House pirate has already introduced something in the House with a Senate sponsor, although I'm not clear the moment if the attempt is to retroactively stop this "rule" or to create more oversight going forward.

Even without congressional involvement, this is very definitely going to take up some time in the courts.

My hope is an injunction will be put in place for multiple reasons one of them being they can't process a suppressor for 6-12 + months you think they are going to get to the millions of braced pistols within the "amnesty" period? doubtful.

[eyecanshoot]

It states 6-6.6" pistol tube , most are about 7.4" or longer and there aren't many options 6" or less to begin with. But imo removing the tube for the time being should be compliant. No it won't be functional but someone will set in to fill the need.

I did order a "pistol tube" and it should be arriving sometime today. It didn't state how long it was, it had no reviews, and I never heard of the place that I ordered it from. I've read reviews on similar looking tubes from different sellers stating that they were too short and wouldn't allow the bolt to go back far enough to function. It didn't cost much so I figured that I would give it a try.

[HKusp 45]

It states 6-6.6" pistol tube , most are about 7.4" or longer and there aren't many options 6" or less to begin with. But imo removing the tube for the time being should be compliant. No it won't be functional but someone will set in to fill the need.

it later states unless said part is required for the function of the firearm so they turned around and essentially contradicted themselves. A buffer tube length regardless and there are several that were legally sold with tubes that are longer and necc. for the function of the firearm. So the question then becomes which is it?

[eyecanshoot]

no thanks I'm in disagreement with this whole thing , most likely what will happen is you will not be gotten to within the time frame allotted then you are now in possession of what in their opinion is an SBR and they state they will take enforcement action. This is a confiscation trap / registration plain and simple.

Couldn't they decide that applicants should have to prove that they have a disability? I expect denials for everyone not on some sort of government list of persons with disabilities. I expect them to test their limits here.