If you're ALREADY on the NFA radar...

fieldgrade said:
But unless you are putting a can on it, what’s the point of having an SBR you have to openly display (and register). I’d just asoon put a 16” AR in the front seat that I don’t have to register.
Click to expand...
Because I already have a (or 3) SBR’d rifles.
 
Okay I apologize about taking it further off topic. Not here to bash SBRs.

As you were.
 
Bigdave0924 said:
not really. I don't understand why you'd rather have a 16" rifle when it comes to shooting out of a vehicle but different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...
I shoot pistols out of vehicles. Not interested in long guns out of vehicles. As you say, different strokes.
 
Fred said:
2. The ATF can change their minds about the amnesty and revoke it at any time. Filing the Form 1 does not legally protect you.
3. The ATF can also change their minds about dropping the 200$ tax.
Click to expand...
These are incorrect.
 
1. Taxes can't be waived by a regulatory rule, only by Congress. $200 was set by Congress in 1934, as it was a small fortune back then.

2. The BG check for NFA items isn't done by FBI, it's done by the ATF themselves, and based on recent times for the "quickie" E-form 1, yeah it's gonna take a LONG time for that 'free' lunch to be completed by the 5 or so pencil pushers in West Virginia's ATF E form office.
3. Meanwhile, you have documented yourself in possession of an illegal SBR until the FREE soup shows up, if it ever does.


Basically, BATFECES or GayTF as you prefer, can suck the snotty end of my dirty weiner as well
 
Ikarus1 said:
1. Taxes can't be waived by a regulatory rule, only by Congress. $200 was set by Congress in 1934, as it was a small fortune back then.

2. The BG check for NFA items isn't done by FBI, it's done by the ATF themselves, and based on recent times for the "quickie" E-form 1, yeah it's gonna take a LONG time for that 'free' lunch to be completed by the 5 or so pencil pushers in West Virginia's ATF E form office.
3. Meanwhile, you have documented yourself in possession of an illegal SBR until the FREE soup shows up, if it ever does.


Basically, BATFECES or GayTF as you prefer, can suck the snotty end of my dirty weiner as well
Click to expand...

It's a NICS check...same one you go through when purchasing a firearm from a FFL and the FBI performs it.

From the Bureau's website:

1675128603032.png
 
Fred said:
The ATF is "choosing not to prosecute" some people. For now. They say. They are not granting pardons, nor do they have the power to do so.
Click to expand...
Nope. They are choosing not to enforce and it is within agency discretion to so so. Having put this into a rule, assuming of course that the6 publish the rule, then no court would allow them to selectively enforce contrary to their rule. It would be arbitrary.

Ikarus1 said:
1. Taxes can't be waived by a regulatory rule, only by Congress. $200 was set by Congress in 1934, as it was a small fortune back then.
Click to expand...
I could say that you’re wrong, that agencies have discretion, but you probably won’t believe me. Maybe I should ask you provide a link to some statute saying that ATF can’t elect not to collect this tax. You pick whichever path makes you comfortable, they’ll each get to the same place.
 
Tim said:
Taking my own thread off topic…somebody show me the actual NC Statute that says a long gun or SBR needs to be inaccessible and unloaded in a vehicle. PROVIDED IT’S VISIBLE.
Click to expand...
Nope, there isn’t one. The reason I don’t want the “free tax stamp” is because I carry an AR pistol in a backpack a lot. It is covered by my CCW. I have SBRs and love them, I just cannot stand them telling me I have to change pistols into them now. It is a huge step back for gun rules/laws. For me they are shoveling horse poop and giving a spoonful of sugar so it goes down better. For all of those that are getting their tax stamp this way, good for you I support you. I am honestly glad. In the end we all have different opinions about it.
 
Tim said:
If you're ALREADY on the NFA radar, what's the argument AGAINST getting the 'free' pistol brace Tax Stamp?

I have several NFA stamps now, and 2 pistols that would qualify for the freebie. Why not go ahead and get them done?
Click to expand...

Well, if you already had one registered SBR on an AR platform, then having spare parts for that RR that might have come off of a braced pistol at one time, would likely just now be spare parts for the RR, rather than constructive intent for your now-legal buffer tubed pistol.

If the legal situation changes in the future or if the SHTF, well, you'd have the spare parts......
 
Last edited:
Dale Gribble said:
It's a NICS check...same one you go through when purchasing a firearm from a FFL and the FBI performs it.

From the Bureau's website:

View attachment 578868
Click to expand...
Except for NFA they have MUCH longer than 3 days to approve or deny.....a right delayed is a right denied and in this case, you will be well past the 120 day "grace"
 
Ikarus1 said:
Except for NFA they have MUCH longer than 3 days to approve or deny.....a right delayed is a right denied and in this case, you will be well past the 120 day "grace"
Click to expand...
MadMardigan said:
taking 250+ already for most
Click to expand...
Yeah, but.

Very little of that time has anything to do with the approval/denial process. It’s just sitting in a box, or an electronic queue, for >95% of that wait.
 
Fred said:
Can agencies create "rules" in areas where they have "agency discretion" and then never be able to change them in the future? Do you have a law or source for that? If a conservative head of the ATF was appointed, could he make a rule that ATF would not prosecute any firearms crimes, at all, and all future ATF actions would be forever limited by that rule? Or would that somehow not be within agency discretion, yet unilaterally ignoring a tax in actual law is within discretion?

If courts hold agencies to previously created rules, then the ATF couldn't ban pistol braces to begin with, based on previous decisions allowing pistol braces- right? Or was that not a "rule"? What defines a rule? I'm trying to understand your position.
Click to expand...
Rules must conform to statute, this is how they are often challenged. Moreover, rules can’t be arbitrary. When a rule changes a prior interpretation, as here, the agency risks court review and a court that finds the argument for the change arbitrary. But also remember that what you’re calling rules about braces was really just a collection of letter opinions, and that the new rule makes a credible argument both for the new rule and for it contradicting those opinion letters. In short, the agency has pretty good lawyers and doesn’t appear to have made any obvious blunders.

There is no case law or statute that says an agency that creates a rule can’t later review and change that rule. There are limits, and in some regards an agency can’t review it’s own rule without a third party petition that it do so, but for the most part the agency is the accepted expert on interpreting statute, and the court will defer. The legislature and courts depend upon the agency to keep up with changes to technology, the other branches can not and they know it.

I can’t provide an argument for waiving the tax being within the agencies discretion, but it’s been done before without explicit statutory authority so I assume there is a legal basis for it.

Your question about the head of ATF doesn’t work. A new conservative would still have to enforce the law, but he could for example review forced reset triggers and find that they are not machine guns, or fuel filters are not suppressors, or 80% lowers not firearms. But nothing is forever and the next liberal could try to flip it again. At that point the court gets brought in because there are too many conflicting interpretations.
 
This is one of those questions that is all about comfort zone. IMO this is not a government/ATF trap to get people to admit to the possession of illegal SBRs and then prosecute them. They would have a very hard time in court after all the very public promises not to prosecute people, there is case law that prohibits them from using information obtained from the form in prosecutions (except prosecutions for lying on the form), and the Feds and ATF do not have a history of actually trying to prosecute "regular criminals." About a decade ago NC had to pass a law making it a felony to lie on the 4473 because ATF was not interested in going after actual prohibited persons trying to buy firearms. They are unlikely to make an exception to prosecute Joe Scmuckatelli of Statesville, NC because he tried to register three braced pistols that we legal without any registration up until February 2023.

On the other hand, this is absolutely an effort to reduce sales of SBR type firearms and to create a database of where the ones that are out there are located. It is a big deal, I'm not saying it isn't. I just don't think it is a trap to prosecute people now. But make no mistake, someone (state or feds), will eventually be prosecuting people caught with unregistered braced pistols.

I totally understand the lack of trust of the government and the desire to not comply. However, non-compliance for most people means hiding the gun(s) away and never getting to use them because being caught with them is a felony. That might be non-compliance on its face but it is still taking the guns out of circulation (which is exactly what ATF/DOJ wants).

I'm already on the list, I own many NFA guns, and I don't use any of the "rifle caliber pistols" for vehicle carry so I'm registering a few guns for "free." YMMV.
 
Tim said:
If you're ALREADY on the NFA radar, what's the argument AGAINST getting the 'free' pistol brace Tax Stamp?
Click to expand...
So my understanding of the argument against it is this.

The way it is written you have 120 days to comply, if you do then they only have 88days to complete the back ground check. If it isn’t finished it is considered open/denied. The issue/rub is when the atf was asked at shot show what would happen if your background check stayed open past the 88, they responded with you would be found in violation of the law. This you just gave them all the info they need to prosecute you, and the person that answered with “you would be found in violation of the law” also responded with something along the lines of they would have to then take action.
 
Cluck Norris said:
So my understanding of the argument against it is this.

The way it is written you have 120 days to comply, if you do then they only have 88days to complete the back ground check. If it isn’t finished it is considered open/denied. The issue/rub is when the atf was asked at shot show what would happen if your background check stayed open past the 88, they responded with you would be found in violation of the law. This you just gave them all the info they need to prosecute you, and the person that answered with “you would be found in violation of the law” also responded with something along the lines of they would have to then take action.
Click to expand...

This is basically a non-issue. For the vast majority of people the background check is a process that lasts minutes. The wait time for NFA paperwork is primarily waiting in line. For a very small group of people who either have issues in their background that might be prohibiting (but the information isn't clear or complete) or people with common names there can be a delay. If that delay lasts longer than 88 days the background check is incomplete and the form is denied.

There has been a lot of inaccurate information about this on the internet. Mostly that was fueled by a fundraising video by GOA disguised as a trap in the rule change "news."

In short, the form doesn't have to be completed in 120 days. It just has to be submitted to be in compliance and the background check issue is really overblown. If you have passed a NICS check to buy a gun, get a CHP, etc. you will pass the NFA background without issue.
 
Last edited:
charliedeltajuliet said:
I have heard they will let you re-file. The investigator didn’t know if it would be for free or not. He specifically said that was just hearsay from higher ups. So don’t quote me on that.
Click to expand...
I can come up with at least one scenario (if filing as an entity) where you potentially couldn’t refile without lying…and they’d know you were lying.

All tied to the fact that the firearm was supposed to be owned by the entity prior to the rule being published.

That could get you in a pickle. 😳
 
Landric said:
There has been a lot of inaccurate information about this on the internet. Mostly that was fueled by a fundraising video by GOA disguised as a trap in the rule change "news."
Click to expand...
I would trust the GOA which is the organization that the legislature, especially the RINOs fear more so than the NRA over the “fast and furious” BATF which has demonstrated its hostility towards gun owners, hands down, any day.
 
noway2 said:
I would trust the GOA which is the organization that the legislature, especially the RINOs fear more so than the NRA over the “fast and furious” BATF which has demonstrated its hostility towards gun owners, hands down, any day.
Click to expand...
That GOA fear mongering fundraising video was utter nonsense. They are playing to a certain, apparently large, base of citizens that are paranoid and ignorant. It’s long been an effective tactic where gun owners are involved.
 
Landric said:
This is one of those questions that is all about comfort zone. IMO this is not a government/ATF trap to get people to admit to the possession of illegal SBRs and then prosecute them. They would have a very hard time in court after all the very public promises not to prosecute people, there is case law that prohibits them from using information obtained from the form in prosecutions (except prosecutions for lying on the form), and the Feds and ATF do not have a history of actually trying to prosecute "regular criminals." About a decade ago NC had to pass a law making it a felony to lie on the 4473 because ATF was not interested in going after actual prohibited persons trying to buy firearms. They are unlikely to make an exception to prosecute Joe Scmuckatelli of Statesville, NC because he tried to register three braced pistols that we legal without any registration up until February 2023.

On the other hand, this is absolutely an effort to reduce sales of SBR type firearms and to create a database of where the ones that are out there are located. It is a big deal, I'm not saying it isn't. I just don't think it is a trap to prosecute people now. But make no mistake, someone (state or feds), will eventually be prosecuting people caught with unregistered braced pistols.

I totally understand the lack of trust of the government and the desire to not comply. However, non-compliance for most people means hiding the gun(s) away and never getting to use them because being caught with them is a felony. That might be non-compliance on its face but it is still taking the guns out of circulation (which is exactly what ATF/DOJ wants).

I'm already on the list, I own many NFA guns, and I don't use any of the "rifle caliber pistols" for vehicle carry so I'm registering a few guns for "free." YMMV.
Click to expand...
Sure because the gaytf totally hasnt entrappes regular people, or used mentally handicapped people for straw purchases, or stated that airsoft toys can be made into MGs, etc in the past decade. Did I mention the attempted banning of green tips, selling to cartel members, or lying in generally about all manner of things?

Nah those dudes are here for us
 
Something else to keep in mind the "free" stamp will be as an individual unless the pistol was already in a trust . So it does affect who can possess it. If you want it in a trust then it will cost the $200
 
jjwestbrook said:
Something else to keep in mind the "free" stamp will be as an individual unless the pistol was already in a trust . So it does affect who can possess it. If you want it in a trust then it will cost the $200
Click to expand...
…but you’ve had two weeks to legally rectify that situation.
 
BigWaylon said:
…but you’ve had two weeks to legally rectify that situation.
Click to expand...
From what I saw it had to already be in the trust before all this crap started . I'm not worried mine are SBRd. I'm just mad because this is probably gonna delay suppressors even more due to the sheer volume of applicants
 
jjwestbrook said:
From what I saw it had to already be in the trust before all this crap started . I'm not worried mine are SBRd. I'm just mad because this is probably gonna delay suppressors even more due to the sheer volume of applicants
Click to expand...
Had to be on there before it was published.
 
Of course, since my current trust doesn’t have a spot for a witness or notary on the Assignment of Property sheets, I have all kinds of time to make it happen. 😁
 
BigWaylon said:
…but you’ve had two weeks to legally rectify that situation.
Click to expand...
yup. all my AR pistols are on my trust now. as of some day a little while ago. I'd have to check to be sure. But I know I just submitted 2 new stamp requests for suppressors, so the pistols went on after that and before today.
 
Ikarus1 said:
Sure because the gaytf totally hasnt entrappes regular people, or used mentally handicapped people for straw purchases, or stated that airsoft toys can be made into MGs, etc in the past decade. Did I mention the attempted banning of green tips, selling to cartel members, or lying in generally about all manner of things?

Nah those dudes are here for us
Click to expand...
All of that has occurred. Please point out where I said the ATF was “here for us.” IMO this is not an effort to trick people into admitting to committing felonies. It is definitely an effort to further restrict gun rights. If you believe something different then act accordingly.
 
Because braces are dumb. I'm not doing extra paperwork, I'd rather toss it in the trash and still have an unregistered pistol.
 
Bocephus said:
I would go the traditional route vs the freebie. To me, the traditional route says you are making an SBR vs trying to make an illegal one legal via the amnesty. At least, that is my train of thought for the two I’m thinking about submitting.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!

File a regular eForm 1 and pay the stamp. NOTHING FREE FROM THE GOVERNMENT IS EVER WORTH IT!!! If you go the free route and it gets tied up in court or having to go through their process, it may take a while. Why let them know you have something that they deem as illegal. If you are going to comply, file the normal way and pay for your $200 stamp.
 
Catfish said:
Because braces are dumb. I'm not doing extra paperwork, I'd rather toss it in the trash and still have an unregistered pistol.
Click to expand...
Is that even an option now? I figured they were all going to become “SBRs”, registered or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Bigdave0924 said:
not really. I don't understand why you'd rather have a 16" rifle when it comes to shooting out of a vehicle but different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...
If I’m in a situation to shoot OUT OF A VEHICLE, I’m not grabbing a rifle, SBR or a braced pistol. I’m grabbing my pistol(currently an Sig P365XL) or my Springfield XDM which ever one I have on me. If I exit the vehicle THEN I will grab whatever else is readily available.
 
Ikarus1 said:
1. Taxes can't be waived by a regulatory rule, only by Congress. $200 was set by Congress in 1934, as it was a small fortune back then.
Click to expand...
To add to this- If they try to waive something that only congress is able to waive it could create a situation in which they later say, "whoops we need to go collect that tax" in which case they have a reason to come looking and since you provided all the most important information to them they know exactly where to look. It is not unreasonable to think they could use non-payment of tax or failure to pay back taxes as a precurser for "hey lets take a peek in that there safe.. this warrant says we can"

regardless of anyone's take on whether or not it is worth it for the "free stamp" i think betting on the federal government to smoothly roll out said free stamps is beyond the pale.
 
Crankbait said:
If I’m in a situation to shoot OUT OF A VEHICLE, I’m not grabbing a rifle, SBR or a braced pistol. I’m grabbing my pistol(currently an Sig P365XL) or my Springfield XDM which ever one I have on me. If I exit the vehicle THEN I will grab whatever else is readily available.
Click to expand...
Right there with you. Short barreled, rifle caliber guns are loud. They are especially loud inside an enclosed space, like the inside of a vehicle. They are also still significantly larger and harder to use in enclosed space.

If I am in a position inside my truck where I need a gun “right now” that gun will be a traditional handgun. They are easily accessible and easy to use in enclosed spaces. On the other hand, if I’m say loading groceries into my truck in the Food Lion parking lot and some nut starts shooting people I might be in a position to grab a rifle out from behind the seat. In that case I don’t need it to be a SBR. YMMV.
 
Crankbait said:
If I’m in a situation to shoot OUT OF A VEHICLE, I’m not grabbing a rifle, SBR or a braced pistol. I’m grabbing my pistol(currently an Sig P365XL) or my Springfield XDM which ever one I have on me. If I exit the vehicle THEN I will grab whatever else is readily available.
Click to expand...
If I’m in a situation where I have shoot defensively anywhere and I have a rifle and a pistol within reach I’m using the rifle every single time.
 
Fred said:
1. Documenting yourself committing a felony and sending the evidence to the government is not a good idea, especially when you are in a persecuted conservative, gun owning minority.
2. The ATF can change their minds about the amnesty and revoke it at any time. Filing the Form 1 does not legally protect you.
3. The ATF can also change their minds about dropping the 200$ tax.
4. Registering guns is bad.
5. Using the free tax stamps looks like you are complying with yet another unconstitutional gun regulation. If these are added, and it works, people change or register guns, what will be defined as illegal next? The best thing gun owners can do is to ignore it. This is the main reason why I will not be SBRing anything even though I already have NFA.
6. You do lose the ability to sell the lower[EDIT: lower can be sold without even being removed from the registry, thanks @BigWaylon], take it across state lines without permission, conceal carry them in NC, move without informing the ATF, resale value goes to zero, etc.
7. If the courts strike this down on either 2A or Bruen grounds, or the NFA down, which is not impossible, you will have licked the boots and registered your guns with the federal government for no benefit at all. That is not what patriots do.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure saying you have amnesty then saying you don’t after you file is called entrapment and would never hold up in court
 
11B CIB said:
Pretty sure saying you have amnesty then saying you don’t after you file is called entrapment and would never hold up in court
Click to expand...
You're not wrong, but winning a court order to return the contents of my safe doesn't feel like much of a win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom