National Pistol Brace Rule Compliance - How to

[CamoDeafie]

re photos, just listened to todays 2nd training thing and they said no photos at all are required.

Came up in 2 questions. First one said you can submit photo of whole firearm, it's optional. 2nd one said if you submit a photo it's recommended that it be of the markings. So it looks to me they are relying on the "under penalties of perjury" that the application is true and not on submitted proof. That's I guess where they can't prosecute you on submitted info if you don't lie thing comes into play I suppose. So basically don't make up stuff.

Yup, 26 USC 5848 is in play

 

[wired]

re photos, just listened to todays 2nd training thing and they said no photos at all are required.

Came up in 2 questions. First one said you can submit photo of whole firearm, it's optional. 2nd one said if you submit a photo it's recommended that it be of the markings. So it looks to me they are relying on the "under penalties of perjury" that the application is true and not on submitted proof. That's I guess where they can't prosecute you on submitted info if you don't lie thing comes into play I suppose. So basically don't make up stuff.

Haynes v US removed the threat of prosecution aspect . As long as you haven't lied on the form they aren't prosecuting you for filing the form they told you to file pics or not.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

The few standalone federal convictions over SBR's that I know of , and there aren't many , are from people selling MP5 pistols and such with a stock in the box in a private party sale. Braces are stocks now like it or not. Those are federal convictions. Sates make up the majority of SBR convictions.

I have a hard time seeing how it would be worth it. Take the stock off and sell the gun. Sell the stock to someone else. As a dealer I wouldn't ever involve myself in that sort of transaction.

That sounds similar to other firearms (not nfa related) I'm aware of where the firearm and a part cannot be in the same transaction and must be shipped separately to meet the law.

 

[wired]

I am very educated on guns and gun laws! I was asked a question by a friend and didn't know the answer. He is not expecting to get an approval for an SBR in 120 days, just trying to get the application in during the grace period. I don't really care how you personally feel about the brace situation. People have been asking for permission to build SBR's for years from the ATF. The rules have changed now. This is an imported 22lr mp5 and not enough USA parts to be 922r compliant under normal SBR rules. This waiver is really the only chance to do this.

922r doesn't matter. They basically crafted the rule around it.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

922r doesn't matter. They basically crafted the rule around it.

I think what he is saying though is if he tried to submit the walther/umarex mp5 under the normal sbr process and pay the $200 it wouldn't meet the 922r requirement.

I'm not sure that is the case though. I need to go back and read that 922r faq again. IF it is the case then any glock, evo, stribog etc would be in the same boat.

 

[wired]

I think what he is saying though is if he tried to submit the walther/umarex mp5 under the normal sbr process and pay the $200 it wouldn't meet the 922r requirement.

I'm not sure that is the case though. I need to go back and read that 922r faq again. IF it is the case then any glock, evo, stribog etc etc would be in the same boat.

None of those came with a brace from the manufacturer and because they didn't theyre saying well, the manufacturer didn't do it so screw it..No foul. The ATF's argument is that basically "we dont care about 922r and heres a reason we just made up to justify that". Unbelievably enough, theyre admitting they dont care about it and are going to shove everything through the process as fast as they can.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

None of those came with a brace from the manufacturer and because they didn't theyre saying well, the manufacturer didn't do it so screw it..No foul. The ATF's argument is that basically "we dont care about 922r and heres a reason we just made up to justify that". Unbelievably enough, theyre admitting they dont care about it and are going to shoving everything through the process as fast as they can.

Agree, but does this also apply outside of this rule, like for the normal $200 sbr? To me it looks like the answer is yes (I think). From the 3 sources below I understand them to mean "assembly" as what happened in the past when it was imported (think of importer swapping zastava parts f.e.). And the current possessor has all the same options as any other firearm, whether for this rule or for regular sbr. A simple test would be has anyone ever sbr'd a glock, evo, stribog, etc. without having to swap parts to meet 992R (I would guess yes? but have no clue)? If so then whether its regular $200 sbr or this new rule would be the same.

A. From the training today, "if you have a firearms you think is not 922r compliant, the possession is not unlawful, it was the making itself. You are allowed to register it, allowed to do any of the options..."

B. From the FAQ on the website for the rule:

9. I POSSESS A PISTOL, WHICH WAS IMPORTED AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY EQUIPPED WITH A STABILIZING BRACE. DOES 18 U.S.C. § 922(R) APPLY TO MY FIREARM?

A • No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the GCA at 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. As discussed in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is for the "assembly" of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm would cure the 922(r) violation because the "assembly" has already occurred. Accordingly, a person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a "stabilizing brace" will have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.

C. From the fed register (this part is confusing and seems contradictory depending on how you read it)


But if they are saying "assembly" is not assembly as in manufacture, but "assembly" means attaching the brace then that's different I guess. murky waters...

FWIW i do remember one of the answers from today he said, those came into the country as pstiols, so 922R does not apply. They made the distinciton between "possessors" vs original importation. Seems to me if you are not an importer then 922r doesn't apply (i think for this rule and also sbr).

So the bottom line from all of the above is that to me it doesn't look like this brace rule is the only way to use a brace or stock on an imported mp5 22, it could also be done under regular sbr. From what I can tell anyway.

 

[wired]

Agree, but does this also apply outside of this rule, like for the normal $200 sbr? To me it looks like the answer is yes (I think). From the 3 sources below I understand them to mean "assembly" as what happened in the past when it was imported. And the current possessor has all the same options as any other firearm, whether for this rule or for regular sbr. A simple test would be has anyone ever sbr'd a glock, evo, stribog, etc. without having to swap parts to meet 992R (I would guess yes? but have no clue)? If so then whether its regular $200 sbr or this new rule would be the same.

A. From the training today, "if you have a firearms you think is not 922r compliant, the possession is not unlawful, it was the making itself. You are allowed to register it, allowed to do any of the options..."

B. From the FAQ on the website for the rule:

9. I POSSESS A PISTOL, WHICH WAS IMPORTED AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY EQUIPPED WITH A STABILIZING BRACE. DOES 18 U.S.C. § 922(R) APPLY TO MY FIREARM?

A • No. Section 922(r), in relevant part, makes it unlawful to assemble from imported parts a semiautomatic rifle that is otherwise not importable. The implementing regulations of the GCA at 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. As discussed in section IV.B.8.e of the final rule, the criminal violation under section 922(r) is for the "assembly" of the semiautomatic rifle; therefore, no modification of such firearm would cure the 922(r) violation because the "assembly" has already occurred. Accordingly, a person with an imported pistol that was subsequently equipped with a "stabilizing brace" will have the same options as anyone else under the final rule. Should that person choose to register the firearm, no further modification of the firearm with domestic parts is required.

C. From the fed register (this part is confusing and seems contradictory depending on how you read it)
View attachment 1357338

But if they are saying "assembly" is not assembly as in manufacture, but "assembly" means attaching the brace then that's different I guess. murky waters...

FWIW i do remember one of the answers form today he said, those came into the country as postols, so 922R does not apply.

Heres what I see going on and Im sure "someone" will disagree with me on this for the sake of disagreeing. Quoting line items is a waste of time. They have 5+ million forms to process. Justice told the ATF to find ANY legal justification to let whatever gets submitted a free stamp . The ATF comes back with but thats not how we do things wer'e the ATF . Then they got bubblegum slapped by the Justice Dept who basically told them to shut up and make it legal . 922r? Out the window which is a good thing so we have precedence now. Tax stamp relief? Another good precedent. Engraving? Gone. Theyre making bubblegum up as they go and the doors are being opened that may never get closed.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Theyre making bubblegum up as they go and the doors are being opened that may never get closed.

Trying to legislate in the 21st Century using 20th Century procedures

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Heres what I see going on and Im sure "someone" will disagree with me on this for the sake of disagreeing. Quoting line items is a waste of time. They have 5+ million forms to process. Justice told the ATF to find ANY legal justification to let whatever gets submitted a free stamp . The ATF comes back with but thats not how we do things wer'e the ATF . Then they got bubblegum slapped by the Justice Dept who basically told them to shut up and make it legal . 922r? Out the window which is a good thing so we have precedence now. Tax stamp relief? Another good precedent. Engraving? Gone. Theyre making bubblegum up as they go and the doors are being opened that may never get closed.

Have you ever heard of an evo, glock, band t pistol, stribog, hk pistol, or other get sbr'd without having to retroactively meet 922R via swapping parts? If so, then it's pretty straightforward that it can be done via regular $200 sbr. I have no clue myself as I don't follow it at all. I'm just trying to determine if the brace rule is the only way you can put a stock on an imported pistol that probably didn't meet 922R when it was imported and sold as a pistol.

 

[wired]

Have you ever heard of an evo, glock, band t pistol, stribog, hk pistol, or other get sbr'd without having to retroactively meet 922R via swapping parts? If so, then it's pretty straightforward that it can be done via regular $200 sbr. I have no clue myself as I don't follow it at all. I'm just trying to determine if the brace rule is the only way you can put a stock on an imported pistol that probably didn't meet 922R when it was imported and sold as a pistol.

I have a few Stribog SBR's. I didn't start out to make them 922r but oddly enough they became that way. . Mags, stocks, etc. Glocks are simple enough too. The ATF truly doesn't care about 922r so that makes it even easier.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I have a few Stribog SBR's. I didn't start out to make them 922r but oddly enough they became that way. . Mags, stocks, etc. Glocks are simple enough too. The ATF truly doesn't care about 922r so that makes it even easier.

Yea it seems to me based on everything I've seen is that 922R is for importers and that's it. Just what I've seen fwiw. The comment from today about "those came into the country as pistols" was telling I think.

Also I just found this atf letter on an attorney website fm ro1994 where they were saying the same thing, does not apply to nfa weapons. So based on everything I'm going to assume 922R does not apply to this brace rule nor regular $200 sbr (unless you were an importer). Somebody else may feel differently but that's how I see it.

 

[eem228]

Thanks for the advice and new info. Friend actually purchased the brace before the gun (couldn't find at the time) and now is in a weird situation. I am going to tell him to wait out the lawsuits. Buying now might get him in trouble for making an SBR without a stamp at this point. That is what I gathered from the conversation.

 

[Yarome]

Thanks for the advice and new info. Friend actually purchased the brace before the gun (couldn't find at the time) and now is in a weird situation. I am going to tell him to wait out the lawsuits. Buying now might get him in trouble for making an SBR without a stamp at this point. That is what I gathered from the conversation.

.... but... if it doesn't have the brace on it... it's not in a weird situation at all. By any definition it's simply a pistol. Don't let the compliance nazi's scare you. That's their whole intent. Fearmongering to push the compliance agenda.

Everyone is free to make their own decisions, though. The safest route is, obviously, to not own any firearm that is not "clearly" a full length rifle or traditional handgun.

 

[eem228]

.... but... if it doesn't have the brace on it... it's not in a weird situation at all. By any definition it's simply a pistol. Don't let the compliance nazi's scare you. That's their whole intent. Fearmongering to push the compliance agenda.

Everyone is free to make their own decisions, though. The safest route is, obviously, to not own any firearm that is not "clearly" a full length rifle or traditional handgun.

Tell him the facts and let him make his own big boy decisions.

 

[wired]

.... but... if it doesn't have the brace on it... it's not in a weird situation at all. By any definition it's simply a pistol. Don't let the compliance nazi's scare you. That's their whole intent. Fearmongering to push the compliance agenda.

Everyone is free to make their own decisions, though. The safest route is, obviously, to not own any firearm that is not "clearly" a full length rifle or traditional handgun.

You should preface that "suggestion" with "none of what I am about to suggest is legal so if you want to commit federal felonies this is what you do"...

You cannot be in control of the brace/stock if you own a pistol capable of accepting it after the 120 day period. Makes no difference if it is on the gun or not. The same statement was as true 20 years ago as it is today. Its constructive possession and its the same penalty set as having an unregistered contraband SBR or machinegun.

 

[Yarome]

You should preface that "suggestion" with "none of what I am about to suggest is legal so if you want to commit federal felonies this is what you do"...

You cannot be in control of the brace/stock if you own a pistol capable of accepting it after the 120 day period. Makes no difference if it is on the gun or not. The same statement was as true 20 years ago as it is today. Its constructive possession and its the same as having an unregistered contraband SBR or machinegun.

ABSOLUTE, flat out lie. For someone that seems to claim omnipotent knowledge of all firearm related laws, rules and regulations.... WTF are you spewing about now?

I posted that purchasing a lower/receiver or complete pistol is absolutely legal. It IS, and it will remain legal even after another 119 days when the amnesty period ends. It's not an SBR and the "rule" has no applicable value.

I also posted that purchasing a brace is also absolutely legal. It IS. After 119 days... it may become more questionable to posses one, depending on how you plan to use it. It is not categorically "Illegal" to own one after 119 days either! If used in a manner allowed by law... it's perfectly fine! IE., you can put a brace on any rifle you want....

I never once said anything to suggest anything about the legal status of a brace after another 119 days. The purchaser has options (exactly the same as anyone that currently owns a brace of any kind), but the questions and discussion wasn't about "what happens after 119 days??"... now was it!

The question and responses where about the rules and laws as they apply "today" for a possible pending purchase.

Constantly twisting things out of context to try and make some point... for what reason I fail to understand what you get out it... but the BS is getting wilder and wilder.

Babble on if you like, but I believe anyone with a little common sense will recognize BS when they smell it. Carry on!

 

[wired]

ABSOLUTE, flat out lie. For someone that seems to claim omnipotent knowledge of all firearm related laws, rules and regulations.... WTF are you spewing about now?

I posted that purchasing a lower/receiver or complete pistol is absolutely legal. It IS, and it will remain legal even after another 119 days when the amnesty period ends.

I also posted that purchasing a brace is also absolutely legal. It IS. After 119 days... it may become more questionable to posses one, depending on how you plan to use it. It is not categorically "Illegal" to own one after 119 days either! If used in a manner allowed by law... it's perfectly fine! IE., you can put a brace on any rifle you want....

I never once said anything to suggest anything about the legal status of a brace after another 119 days. The purchaser has options (exactly the same as anyone that currently owns a brace of any kind), but the questions and discussion wasn't about "what happens after 119 days??"... now was it!

The question and responses where about the rules and laws as they apply "today" for a possible pending purchase.

Constantly twisting things out of context to try and make some point... for what reason I fail to understand what you get out it... but the BS is getting wilder and wilder.

They are giving you 119 more days to register preexisting braced pistols . As of right now though a brace is a stock. Constructive possession occurs when you have control of a stock and a pistol that will accept it . If you did not have a brace prior to the 31st or you did not have a pistol to put it and and you went out and acquired one or both right now ( TO HAVE A PISTOL AND A BRACE ) it would be constructive possession of a SBR even if they were not joined together. You are not allowed to go out and buy new stuff to register in the free SBR melee.

Never give anyone less than legal advice that will put them in legal jeopardy unless you are willing to pay their legal bills.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Never give anyone less than advice that will put them in legal jeopardy unless you are willing to pay their legal bills.

By the same token, be very leery of anyone that is happy for you to become a matter to their cause

 

[Yarome]

I guess that means your also forbidden from filling out a non-exempt tax stamp application, paying your $200 and waiting to assemble your SBR once your tax stamp is approved... (for SBR parts aquired after 01/31), right?

So they not only made pistol braces into SBR's but also made construction of any new SBR after Jan. 31st illegal.

That makes sense.