ATF Just Released Their Brace Ruling

[JoshIronshaft]

Yes, if you convert a pistol to an SBR, the 922r imported parts count applies. That's nothing new. You should make sure your braced AK pistol or other import is in compliance before you submit your amnesty SBR registration.

A couple months ago I was chatting with an ATF agent who was attending a shooting event. I asked him if he knows of an individual who has been pinched for 922r. He looked at me and said "Ugh, what's 922r?"

[ShadeRabbit]

Yes, if you convert a pistol to an SBR, the 922r imported parts count applies. That's nothing new. You should make sure your braced AK pistol or other import is in compliance before you submit your amnesty SBR registration.

A couple months ago I was chatting with an ATF agent who was attending a shooting event. I asked him if he knows of an individual who has been pinched for 922r. He looked at me and said "Ugh, what's 922r?"

Yes. But maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but what I'm reading is all the guys who bought CZs and Sigs and what not, with the braces attached when the transfer occurred, are totally screwed.


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.

[JoshIronshaft]

You're right, if those imported guns with braces were sold in a configuration that did not comply with 922r.

If I was the manufacturer/seller of those guns I would be concerned.

As an individual, you may not be able to buy parts that comply with 922r and be in compliance to submit your form 1 with a clear conscious. There is no burden to show 922r compliance when you file your form 1. It would be interesting indeed if the ATF could look at your application to register a braced pistol CZ scorpion and know you're in violation of 922r from one external picture of it.

[HanzMcFeely]

The ATF does not write laws, only multiple contradictory legal opinions on the same subject, titled as “rule changes”. :smirk:

Repeat after me, kiddies: “you are tresspassing on private property. I do not consent to any searches, i have the right to remain silent. come back with a warrant and speak with my attorney. Have a nice day.”

[esh21167]

Yes. But maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but what I'm reading is all the guys who bought CZs and Sigs and what not, with the braces attached when the transfer occurred, are totally screwed.


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.

Yeah, that's a different scenario. BATFE is saying replacing the imported parts with US made parts does NOT make it 922r compliant.

So what if one removes a brace, then adds the US parts NOT need for compliance of a pistol, then install a brace to assemble the newly defined SBR...

Kidding. Maybe.

[ExFlyinguy]

Yes. But maybe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but what I'm reading is all the guys who bought CZs and Sigs and what not, with the braces attached when the transfer occurred, are totally screwed.


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.

This 922r stuff is WAY over my head & I've never dealt with it

[ShadeRabbit]

MAC is reporting this as true now. If you think MAC is a fearmonger, ignore.

MAC.JPG

https://twitter.com/MAC_Arms/status/...2257%2Fpage-51

[GOYABEAN]

[IMG=CONFIG]163650[/IMG]

[JoshIronshaft]

Yeah, that's a different scenario. BATFE is saying replacing the imported parts with US made parts does NOT make it 922r compliant.

So what if one removes a brace, then adds the US parts NOT need for compliance of a pistol, then install a brace to assemble the newly defined SBR...

Kidding. Maybe.

It's semantics, but replacing the parts does make it 922r compliant, it just doesn't go back in time and erase the 922r violation (crime) that occurred. I have no idea what that means for your ability to own the gun.

[John_Wick]

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...

Fighting to change laws, abolishing the ATF and complying with existing laws/rules are all different topics. I may think the Stop sign at the corner of my street is stupid and pointless. Consequently, I may try to get the township to remove it. Until that happens though, I continue to Stop. That doesn't mean I suddenly approve of the Stop sign. The vast majority of us are totally on board with abolishing the NFA and the ATF as well, but we still have to deal with the reality of the current situation.

(r) It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection shall not apply to*
(1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or any department or agency thereof or to any State or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General.

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.

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.