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

Catfish said:
You're not wrong, but winning a court order to return the contents of my safe doesn't feel like much of a win.
Click to expand...
100% And how many people have the extra loot to even appear in court?
 
Also true. But we're having this conversation because ATF went back on their word. I have no felonies in my safe, but I just don't trust them and I plan to interact as little as possible.
 
Slacker said:
They are paying for the engraving?
Click to expand...
What engraving?

In some cases it’ll need engraving, but for a factory-built braced pistol it seems clear to me that the applicant can adopt the markings of the manufacturer. Some disagree, but I’m still right.
 
Bigdave0924 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it boils down to what kind of scenario we’re talking about.

If it’s full on Mad Max/Mogadishu and we’re kicking out the windshield to start blasting, then yes.

But in the scenarios outside the big city where I might be surprised that someone is trying to jack my vehicle at the gas pumps while I’m in it, or some other close quarters encounter, I can promise you I can accurately deploy a pistol from my belt faster and more effectively than I could deploy any rifle, even AR Pistol/SBR, even if it is “cocked and locked” in the front seat waiting for me to grab it, which I expect is not how most of us travel. Perhaps you do, and are better at it.

If we had a live ammo jousting match with two vehicles side by side, 10 yards apart, one with a rifle/SBR in the front seat, and the other with a pistol on the belt, I can tell you who I’d wager would present his gun first and win that shoot out.
 
Last edited:
Dang it. You edited before I could quote and make my wager. 🤣🤣

Hint…it would’ve been the guy that pulled his firearm 10 years before the second guy.
 
BigWaylon said:
Dang it. You edited before I could quote and make my wager. 🤣🤣

Hint…it would’ve been the guy that pulled his firearm 10 years before the second guy.
Click to expand...
LOL. I saw that and thought, “yea, that would get sideways fast”.
 
JimB said:
What engraving?

In some cases it’ll need engraving, but for a factory-built braced pistol it seems clear to me that the applicant can adopt the markings of the manufacturer. Some disagree, but I’m still right.
Click to expand...
Manufacturing a rifle from a pistol is manufacturing. Hell, manufacturing a SBR from a rifle is manufacturing.
 
maven said:
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.
Click to expand...
They can waive it, they have waived it, they can’t successfully go back on that, and they don’t want to go back on it. Folks think ATF gives a crap about the money, they do not. It doesn’t go into their budget, they don’t get bonuses based on it, they don’t care.

Could they get a warrant, probably. Could they get one today based on something else, probably.
 
Slacker said:
Manufacturing a rifle from a pistol is manufacturing. Hell, manufacturing a SBR from a rifle is manufacturing.
Click to expand...
Manufacturing is an act by a licensee, making is an act by a non licensee.
On a form 1 sbr the maker must engrave, but on an amnesty form 1 they say that the maker can adopt the factory markings. I’m not sure if marking is required if someone “maked” a braced pistol and then converts to an sbr under amnesty, but my guess is that it would need to be marked.
 
I had no idea an amnesty F1 was a thing!
I want to buy 20 braced pistols now, all free stamps! They may be collectors items someday! (Pre 2023 samples?)
 
Last edited:
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...
Except its not just braces, its almost every imported "pistol" like the Stribog, Draco, etc and bans many US made pistols by name like the 10.5" Ruger AR556. There's more to it than just removing a brace.
 
JimB said:
Manufacturing is an act by a licensee, making is an act by a non licensee.
On a form 1 sbr the maker must engrave, but on an amnesty form 1 they say that the maker can adopt the factory markings. I’m not sure if marking is required if someone “maked” a braced pistol and then converts to an sbr under amnesty, but my guess is that it would need to be marked.
Click to expand...

I have 80% lower pistols I manu^H^H^H^H made. They have no engraving. I'm guessing they would need engraving to go that route.
 
AR10ShooterinNC said:
If you have time to get a rifle out, you have time to leave the area in said vehicle.
Click to expand...
In theory, I agree. However, one may be blocked in by other vehicles or objects and cannot leave the area or leave the area fast enough.
 
AR10ShooterinNC said:
Yes, homebuilds will need to be engraved
Click to expand...
Agreed.
What I’m not 100% sure about is braced pistols made from a stripped lower. My belief is that you can adopt existing markings, all they want is to be able to identify the thing. Please, nobody ask for clarification!
 
JimB said:
Agreed.
What I’m not 100% sure about is braced pistols made from a stripped lower. My belief is that you can adopt existing markings, all they want is to be able to identify the thing. Please, nobody ask for clarification!
Click to expand...
You don’t need to ask for clarification, us FFLs did already at SHOT show where we had the ATF and various law firms there to provide it.

If you started with a traditional stripped lower or otherwise commercially manufactured that has markings on it may be adopted by the person filing the form 1. If you started with an 80% then it will need to be marked by an FFL with their first 3/last 5 and then a sequence number.

Note - that marking requirement for FFL on 80% already existed if it came into our possession.
 
carybrassguy said:
You don’t need to ask for clarification, us FFLs did already at SHOT show where we had the ATF and various law firms there to provide it.

If you started with a traditional stripped lower or otherwise commercially manufactured that has markings on it may be adopted by the person filing the form 1. If you started with an 80% then it will need to be marked by an FFL with their first 3/last 5 and then a sequence number.

Note - that marking requirement for FFL on 80% already existed if it came into our possession.
Click to expand...
You’ve always been able to adopt existing manufacturer markings. For example, you don’t create a 2nd serial number or re-engrave the caliber if it’s already there.

The disagreement @JimB is referring to is whether or not you have to add the maker’s info like 27 CFR 479.102 says you have to. (No, I haven’t decided which side of the argument I’m on yet…although I wouldn’t plan on engraving anything related to a freebie stamp submission at this point)
 
BigWaylon said:
You’ve always been able to adopt existing manufacturer markings. For example, you don’t create a 2nd serial number or re-engrave the caliber if it’s already there.

The disagreement @JimB is referring to is whether or not you have to add the maker’s info like 27 CFR 479.102 says you have to. (No, I haven’t decided which side of the argument I’m on yet…although I wouldn’t plan on engraving anything related to a freebie stamp submission at this point)
Click to expand...
The explicitly stated that if it already had markings you didn’t need to do any engraving. Only those with unmarked PMFs would need to add the markings. It seems odd that they are exempting this, but hey I won’t complain.
 
carybrassguy said:
You don’t need to ask for clarification, us FFLs did already at SHOT show where we had the ATF and various law firms there to provide it.

If you started with a traditional stripped lower or otherwise commercially manufactured that has markings on it may be adopted by the person filing the form 1. If you started with an 80% then it will need to be marked by an FFL with their first 3/last 5 and then a sequence number.

Note - that marking requirement for FFL on 80% already existed if it came into our possession.
Click to expand...
I think there is a little mixup somewhere, and it could be me. That sounds like the marking requirements for an 80% receiver held by an FFL, could be the same for an unmarked (ie not marked in compliance with yada yada) braced pistol in possessionnof an FFL. For an non-licensee the marking requirement is the same as what we’ve always done, name, city, state and serial number if it’s necessary, it need not be transferred to an FFl or marked with their info.
 
Last edited:
JimB said:
I’m not sure if marking is required if someone “maked” a braced pistol and then converts to an sbr under amnesty, but my guess is that it would need to be marked.
Click to expand...
There is no longer any such thing as a braced pistol (legally). Braces _are_ stocks now. They are already _all_ SBRs, whether braced or stocked, registered or not. And if not, after 120 days it’s all the same felony.

* Subject to change due to many pending court cases of course.
 
Last edited:
JimP42 said:
There is no longer any such thing as a braced pistol (legally). Braces _are_ stocks now. They are already _all_ SBRs, whether braced or stocked, registered or not. And if not, after 120 days it’s all the same felony.

* Subject to change due to many pending court cases of course.
Click to expand...
True. And the reason it makes sense that engraving isn’t required for amnesty guns is that ATF’s position is that said braced guns have always been SBRs. So, if one owns a Scorpion that one purchased with a brace installed by the factory then the maker is CZ, not the current owner.
 
JimP42 said:
There is no longer any such thing as a braced pistol (legally). Braces _are_ stocks now. They are already _all_ SBRs, whether braced or stocked, registered or not. And if not, after 120 days it’s all the same felony.

* Subject to change due to many pending court cases of course.
Click to expand...
Untrue, you can still have a braced pistol, they are not all SBRs.
 
Dec' 22 we thought we had it figured out. Jan '23 we don't know what's a pistol or a rifle. If nothing else comes from this the AFT has succeeded at making legal gun ownership even more confusing, so... mission complete I suppose.
 
fieldgrade said:
Please delineate,
for the slower witted amongst us.
Namely me.
Click to expand...
JimP42 said:
Where did you see this? First I’ve heard of it and I’ve heard a lot about this, and paid attention.
Click to expand...
They have said that a braced firearm with a rifled barrel less than 16“ designed to be shouldered is an SBR, that is all. You’ll have to decide which combination of elements combined do not create an SBR. They of course reserve the right to disagree with you, but I do believe that you, or someone, will begin submitting braced pistols for review shortly. They moved the goalposts, they didn’t end the game.
 
JimB said:
They have said that a braced firearm with a rifled barrel less than 16“ designed to be shouldered is an SBR, that is all. You’ll have to decide which combination of elements combined do not create an SBR. They of course reserve the right to disagree with you, but I do believe that you, or someone, will begin submitting braced pistols for review shortly. They moved the goalposts, they didn’t end the game.
Click to expand...

And retroactively decided that braces were intended and designed to be used as stocks, and therefore are stocks (which is hard to argue with since it is obviously true - there aren’t 25 million one armed gun owners in the US using braces as supposedly intended).

Unrifled isn’t an out since they’ve said the same thing about braces on shotguns. And 9 or 223 out of an unrifled barrel stinks.

Maybe someone will come up with a clever workaround. But that’s what the braces are, and apparently they think they can just squash it when they decide it’s time.

I actually tried using a brace strapped to my forearm - other than feeling like some kind of robot or cyborg soldier it was entirely useless. Very hard to get any sort of sight picture. Maybe it would work in the dark with NV and an IR laser instead of sights. I don’t think that would reassure the ATF or the gun controllers :)

So, to your point, we can use a 16”+ barrel which kind of defeats the whole purpose, or take off the braces, and to be safe probably revert to a plain pistol tube (on ARs that need a buffer to function only - all the others are out of luck). While the ATF may have hinted that they will leave some room for using braces on pistols legally, I seriously doubt it, but if they do I expect a) it will be only for someone that really has a disability, and b) even that will be so they can use it as a defense in court about “allowing them for the advertised purpose so we didn’t really change our policy at all”.

What is clear is that carrying a concealed AR pistol in my car is no longer as useful without the brace, and of course concealing an SBR is not legal in NC. That, and fun at the range, are the main use cases IMO.

I believed them when they said this was coming and expected some sort of amnesty so I paid the $200 to get ahead of the rush and ensure that my short uppers have a legally defensible purpose. Cheap insurance. Turns out they dropped the point system (so far anyway), so a simple pistol upper might have been sufficient, but I like LVPOs and other “features” so I didn’t want to take that chance.
 
They did not say that braces are stocks.

I agree that it is difficult to imagine how to create a braced pistol at this moment, but the preamble to the rule provides some ideas. Of course the bigger issue might be that there isn’t much market for such a brace if indeed most people bought earlier designs intending to shoulder them.
 
Info posted from a user on another site.

- form 1 "brace" approval was received (x3)
- was submitted on 1/13 - approval rcvd 2/3
- EFT prints
- form marked "APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS" and the conditions listed were "Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F".
- On page 1, box "C" (tax exempt) was checked, but no tax stamp (physical or electronic) was issued.
 
I filed a paid Form1 this week. I’ll let y’all know how it shakes out.
 
Washington Gun law has some good explainer videos where he goes through the new ATF "rule" and attempts to interpret what it says.

Here is his video on the lawsuit by the FPC:


Also, mini hijack: Is there a gun law sub forum for SC/NC I can browse/comment in? I'm a member of Northeastshooters and they have subforums for discussing gun laws in the various states in New England. Does this forum have anything similar for NC/SC? If not where should one ask/browse questions and discussions of NC/SC firearms laws?
 
Dale Gribble said:
Info posted from a user on another site.

- form 1 "brace" approval was received (x3)
- was submitted on 1/13 - approval rcvd 2/3
- EFT prints
- form marked "APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS" and the conditions listed were "Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F".
- On page 1, box "C" (tax exempt) was checked, but no tax stamp (physical or electronic) was issued.
Click to expand...
I hadn’t thought about not getting a stamp, but it makes sense.
 
Today I used this link to ask my reps... er leave messages on machines for 3, and leave a message with a reception clerk for the other... to ask them what they planned to do about the ATF going beyond its powers and making insane rules as they go that are going to make millions of us felons within the next 120 days.a
I don't pretend to believe i'll get an answer from any of them, but they all have me on record as being grumpy.ax
 
Pistols should be pistols 🤷

I am personally waiting to see what comes of this before making any changes, despite already being on the "NFA radar."
 
I'm reconsidering my stance on this. Because I found sonething I want to keep.

If I already own a Glock pistol and a Micro Roni braced Chassis would I be eligible for that free tax stamp?
 
Catfish said:
I'm reconsidering my stance on this. Because I found sonething I want to keep.

If I already own a Glock pistol and a Micro Roni braced Chassis would I be eligible for that free tax stamp?
Click to expand...
Yes, you would seem to be.
 
We gon find out. I just ignored my own advice and clicked the button. If ya'll don't hear from me for a while now you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom