National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[billdeserthills]

No ones taking your braces. You can use them as stocks and get free SBR NFA registration..

Thanks but Ive aready had more than enough govt intrusion in my life

 

[billdeserthills]

This is been coming for months. I doubt that it came as a surprise to anybody except maybe some Fudds and anybody else living under a rock.

So that makes it alright?

 

[Member 53328]

So that makes it alright?

No. It doesn't. But just because it's unconstitutional or wrong doesn't mean it won't land you in hot water.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

You can not transfer a firearm leagally to another owner without a 4473 in Oregon

Sure you can, there is a list in SB0941 and yes it's mostly immediate family, but just to be pedantic saying "You can not transfer a firearm leagally to another owner without a 4473 in Oregon" is factually incorrect

 

[billdeserthills]

No. It doesn't. But just because it's unconstitutional or wrong doesn't mean it won't land you in hot water.

I'm just glad that I live in a State with a Second Amendment Sanctuary law

 

[Member 53328]

Sure you can, there is a list in SB0941 and yes it's mostly immediate family, but just to be pedantic saying "You can not transfer a firearm leagally to another owner without a 4473 in Oregon" is factually incorrect

Yup. Sold plenty to family members without going through a FFL.

 

[Member 53328]

I'm just glad that I live in a State with a Second Amendment Sanctuary law

That means nothing to the federal government. That's the equivalent to being a "sovereign citizen."

 

[Gbirk]

Sure you can, there is a list in SB0941 and yes it's mostly immediate family, but just to be pedantic saying "You can not transfer a firearm leagally to another owner without a 4473 in Oregon" is factually incorrect

Sure you are technically correct (granted, the best kind of correct). Now do it to a trust, like I was discussing.

 

[Member 5605]

I'm just glad that I live in a State with a Second Amendment Sanctuary law

Build a masheengun and go shoot it at the range.

See how that sanctuary holds up.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Has this been Posted yet...?

 

[Reperio]

Then with your thought process the American people don't have free choice/free will at all. We are being forced to follow and live in the confines of every law put in place. Old and new. Whether it be traffic codes, tax laws, criminal laws, civil laws, etc.

We are being forced to live the life we live in America through your eyes. I understand what you're saying. It's simply not my outlook on life. I don't live in a world of doom and gloom. Which is exactly how the government wants you to live.

I believe I have free choice. But some choices I make may be followed with consequences. You're not gunna find a more "free" place to live than America.

Operational risk management.

We're free to play semantical whack-a-mole, too. Good job.

 

[BluesReds]

Washington Gun Law just did a video on this. The sort of it is that you can't transfer your non NFA guns to a trust because the 4473 does not have an option for "trust" as the owner. You can not transfer a firearm leagally to another owner without a 4473 in Oregon, and since the 4473 does not have an option for "trust" the trust can now "own" them.

Seems like it does not matter when you "transferred" the gun to your Trust, it it is not an NFA item the trust in not capable of owning it.

If that is true, why is there an option on the form 1 for firearms owned by a trust?

I think the argument that its not a valid transfer is wrong, 4473s are required for when possession of a firearm changes as related to commerce by a licensed federal dealer, manufacturer, or importer. Thats why the form was originally created. Transfer from myself to a trust does not involve commerce or imply a change in ownership provided I am the sole grantor and trustee of the trust. Not sure how that works out when other trustees are involved in relation to non-federal state transfer requirements, but given that form 1s are a federal matter I'm not sure it matters.

 

[wired]

If that is true, why is there an option on the form 1 for firearms owned by a trust?

I think the argument that its not a valid transfer is wrong, 4473s are required for when possession of a firearm changes as related to commerce by a licensed federal dealer, manufacturer, or importer. Thats why the form was originally created. Transfer from myself to a trust does not involve commerce or imply a change in ownership provided I am the sole grantor and trustee of the trust. Not sure how that works out when other trustees are involved in relation to non-federal state transfer requirements, but given that form 1s are a federal matter I'm not sure it matters.

The feds have to follow state law for legality and transfers in state. In states with UBCs the argument they will not allow transfers to a trust is valid

 

[Gbirk]

If that is true, why is there an option on the form 1 for firearms owned by a trust?

I think the argument that its not a valid transfer is wrong, 4473s are required for when possession of a firearm changes as related to commerce by a licensed federal dealer, manufacturer, or importer. Thats why the form was originally created. Transfer from myself to a trust does not involve commerce or imply a change in ownership provided I am the sole grantor and trustee of the trust. Not sure how that works out when other trustees are involved in relation to non-federal state transfer requirements, but given that form 1s are a federal matter I'm not sure it matters.

Legally, the trust is an entity just like any person or business, so in Oregon at least, to transfer the firearm to the trust (a legal entity) it has to transfer on a 4470 if it is not an NFA item, and there is no option for "trust" like there is on the form 1 or 4.

When I set up my trust several years ago I asked if I could transfer some of my non-NFA guns into it because it seemed like a good idea to make sure my kids could have easy access to them in the future. I was told by several lawyers that it was not possible unless I transferred them as an NFA item (at $200 each). At the time it did not make sense to me why I could not just assign them like I did the $1 bill I used to start the trust, but I accepted it because of who told me and I did not push the idea. Now with the new pistol brace ruling it became more important and time sensitive because it had to be done before the rule was entered into the registry, and I was looking into it again. The video did a very good job of explaining why it would not work, and I thought others may be in the same boat and find the information useful.

Right now, in Oregon you can not use the amnesty "free" form 1 to put a braced pistol into your trust. Disappointing, but true.

 

[billdeserthills]

That means nothing to the federal government. That's the equivalent to being a "sovereign citizen."

How many Sanctuary Cities have lost their Federal funds?

 

[billdeserthills]

Build a masheengun and go shoot it at the range.

See how that sanctuary holds up.

Who shoots at a range? If I want some know it all a-hole to tell me what to do, then I'll go to the range

 

[Member 53328]

How many Sanctuary Cities have lost their Federal funds?

We're not discussing federal funds…. Haha

 

[billdeserthills]

We're not discussing federal funds…. Haha

The Second Amendment Sanctuary law is built upon the Sanctuary Cities law, which seems to work very well

 

[bradsteen]

Has this been Posted yet...?

For those that didn't watch the video, he's saying 26 USC 5848 prevents ATF from using applications for SBRs and such against the applicant as evidence of a crime, so long as the applicant has not lied to the ATF in their application.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section5848&num=0&edition=prelim

26 USC 5848: Restrictive use of information
Text contains those laws in effect on January 22, 2023
From Title 26-INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle E-Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 53-MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS
Subchapter B-General Provisions and Exemptions
PART I-GENERAL PROVISIONS

§5848. Restrictive use of information
(a) General rule
No information or evidence obtained from an application, registration, or records required to be submitted or retained by a natural person in order to comply with any provision of this chapter or regulations issued thereunder, shall, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, be used, directly or indirectly, as evidence against that person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration, or the compiling of the records containing the information or evidence.

(b) Furnishing false information
Subsection (a) of this section shall not preclude the use of any such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action under any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.

(Added Pub. L. 90–618, title II, §201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1232 .)

 

[wired]

For those that didn't watch the video, he's saying 26 USC 5848 prevents ATF from using applications for SBRs and such against the applicant as evidence of a crime, so long as the applicant has not lied to the ATF in their application.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section5848&num=0&edition=prelim

Only one of these videos Ive seen with useful info.