JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
One somewhat interesting thing. They keep using the term forbearance. Why? It made no sense until I read this snippet from their rule. The use of the term "forbearance" is an intentional legal slight of hand. The use of that word has led a lot of people to think that you're going to have to pay the $200 back later which is totally contradicted by the form itself on which you are filing for a tax exempt stamp. After seeing this I see what theyre doing. Its completely intentional and there to justify their legal argument. Their position is that the braced pistols have always been SBRs and they retroactively let you forbear the tax stamp cost and Form 1 until now. Now they are allowing for an exemption of the excise tax. Its all an accounting trick but the use of the term forbearance made little sense. They aren't getting the money later. Theyre getting it now without actually getting it. This is government at work.

327324961_476827771325140_8614566481089988817_n.jpg
 
It doesn't matter if braces were a work around or what the user's thoughts were. The ATF sent letters saying they were approved. For a decade or so theses were openly and legally being used.

Now, politics to, "do something 🙄 " overrides something legally decided (with receipts). It's messy because it's wrong. Making something legal (with receipts) illegal should be hard. This is what we're seeing.
yes hence my "flip flop" comments and case LAW "citations"
 
I bought my braces with the full assurance of the ATF that they were 100% legal for use on ar pistols. Now if the ATF would like to buy them back, they are welcome to go ahead and let me know, otherwise it's none of their business
Live your life. No judgement here.
 
It doesn't matter if braces were a work around or what the user's thoughts were. The ATF sent letters saying they were approved. For a decade or so theses were openly and legally being used.

Now, politics to, "do something 🙄 " overrides something legally decided (with receipts). It's messy because it's wrong. Making something legal (with receipts) illegal should be hard. This is what we're seeing.
That's kind of the crux of the issue. It really doesn't matter. If they had used chevron deference to classify them as stocks and, therefore, SBR's back at their introduction, that would be one thing. They did the opposite, they are now in "common use" and attempting to cram the genie back in the bottle now is well beyond their authority to do so. That ship has long since sailed.

Supporters saying, "well, they are just correcting a mistake and that makes it allowable" is all kinds of BS. You can't roll back and erase the consequences of history.

Even if it did matter those supportive of the idea that braces should have always been "stocks" and SBR's are basically building on the acceptance of previous infringments as facts that SBR's are somehow more dangerous and require gooberment oversight. That's really no different than saying... "well, we have accepted/normalized that 10rd mag limits are valid so 5rd restrictions are just fine too."

SBR's being dangerous to the point of requiring gooberment controls is entirely bogus right out of the gate and mystifiying how so many seem so willing to buy into that falsehood because the gooberment told us so. The SBR portion of the NFA was a mistake, no longer applicable for the intent it was meant and is completely inaccurate in it's determination.

The same caliber bullet fired in the same manner is no more "dangerous/lethal" than being fired from it's counterparts based solely on the length of the barrel.

I get it. It's still in the law now, but how does compounding another infringment on top of the old one make the new infringment oh so valid and acceptable to some that supposedly support the 2A? "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear.

I kind of remember back when braces first started coming into their own some folks were suggeting things like, "well, maybe the gooberment is recognizing that the current SBR rule is, at heart, not duly founded and choosing to back off of it a bit in a way that isn't overt." I dunno if that was at all valid, but it was a theory at the time.
 
That's kind of the crux of the issue. It really doesn't matter. If they had used chevron deference to classify them as stocks and, therefore, SBR's back at their introduction, that would be one thing. They did the opposite, they are now in "common use" and attempting to cram the genie back in the bottle now is well beyond their authority to do so. That ship has long since sailed.

Supporters saying, "well, they are just correcting a mistake and that makes it allowable" is all kinds of BS. You can't roll back and erase the consequences of history.

Even if it did matter those supportive of the idea that braces should have always been "stocks" and SBR's are basically building on the acceptance of previous infringments as facts that SBR's are somehow more dangerous and require gooberment oversight. That's really no different than saying... "well, we have accepted/normalized that 10rd mag limits are valid so 5rd restrictions are just fine too."

SBR's being dangerous to the point of requiring gooberment controls is entirely bogus right out of the gate and mystifiying how so many seem so willing to buy into that falsehood because the gooberment told us so. The SBR portion of the NFA was a mistake, no longer applicable for the intent it was meant and is completely inaccurate in it's determination.

The same caliber bullet fired in the same manner is no more "dangerous/lethal" than being fired from it's counterparts based solely on the length of the barrel.

I get it. It's still in the law now, but how does compounding another infringment on top of the old one make the new infringment oh so valid and acceptable to some that supposedly support the 2A? "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear.

I kind of remember back when braces first started coming into their own some folks were suggeting things like, "well, maybe the gooberment is recognizing that the current SBR rule is, at heart, not duly founded and choosing to back off of it a bit in a way that isn't overt." I dunno if that was at all valid, but it was a theory at the time.
SBRs shouldn't be regulated. Period.

With that being said if one wants one bad enough to complete a form 1 or form 4 so that way they remain within the confines of the "law" I'm not going to judge them for it.

I saw this coming. But I do think it's f-cked that something that was bought legally is now all of a sudden going to be illegal unless paper work is done. But that's what the American government has evolved into.

Left or right it's all about power, control and money.

F-ck politicians. All of them.
 
they are now in "common use"
Problem.

2.1 million silencers registered

530,000-641,000 registered SBRs

630,000+ registered Machine Guns (of those, under 130,000 are transferable)

Over 67,000 registered Any Other Weapons


Supposedly a maximum of 7 million "unregistered SBR" pistol braced firearms..


Grand total?

10,438,000 or 10.4 million "Dangerous and unusual" firearms

If Caetano is used here, and says that 200,000+ stun guns are "common use arms" then the whole of NFA should have been binned and completely repealed :rolleyes:
 
Has this been published in the Federal Register yet ?
Doesn't GOA have a lawsuit put on pause for this very thing?

I assume that once published, that lawsuit can move forward. I imagine that they would seek an immediate injunction. Should be interesting…I just wish the ATF would get a move on and publish the rule officially so that those lawsuits ~can~ move forward.
 
Best explanation of the crazy 88 day thing I have seen. 5 min video. Basically it only happens to 2.2% of people to go beyond the 88 days, and, like I've said many times before if you ask a regulatory will they respond in a regulatory way on some specific circumstance (ie paint them into a corner) they will say yes. That is what the GOA lawyer did on the first video about this. It's the only thing the regulatory can can say (this is true for any level of regulatory agency including state and local, so don't paint them in a corner if you don't want to hear an answer you won't like).

 
Last Edited:
Best explanation of the crazy 88 day thing I have seen. 5 min video. Basically it only happens to 2.2% of people to go beyond the 88 days, and, like I've said many times before if you ask a regulatory will they respond in a regulatory way on some specific circumstance (ie paint them into a corner) they will say yes. It's the only thing they can say (this is true for any level of regulatory agency including state and local, so don't paint them in a corner if you don't want to hear an answer you won't like).

With the mass number of people submitting the forms, will they be overloaded like OSP in Oregon with so many of them expiring and having to be resubmitted....

Perhaps a few hundred or even thousand get their approval, the system crashes, and then 88 days later, automatic denial, and then the ATF has your personal information with the firearm in question and can take action against you???
 
Perhaps a few hundred or even thousand get their approval, the system crashes, and then 88 days later, automatic denial, and then the ATF has your personal information with the firearm in question and can take action against you???
If you're one of the apparently "few" whose BG checks usually takes forever.. but you are not a prohibited person, and you were being honest as far as you know; then 26 USC 5848 should give you protection in a criminal court or even civil court, and the burden is on them to prove that you didn't plan to comply anyways and that you didn't keep proof of submission (those submitting for free SBRs, print out their pdfs of proof of submission); and not on you. Also from my understanding of 26 USC 5848; you may not have to worry much as you lawfully took possession of a handgun, from whose manufacturer, distributor, FFL it has always been a handgun/pistol and not a rifle; or those who built on stripped lowers; it was always "Other" on 4473s and again the burden of proof rests with the DOJ to prove whatever it is...
 
It's not just some paperwork, It is also giving up personal information and disallowing certain accessories that can be mounted, like certain sights, flashlights and scopes.

If you register it as a SBR for $200, you can mount anything that you want (up to a point).
If you don't register it as a SBR… it's still an SBR
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top