National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[Gypsyman]

Technically you are "making" an SBR but from an existing manufacturers lower. If I'm reading everything correctly. The exempt Form 1 only seems to require engraving if you are using a completely unmarked lower like an 80%.

 

[wired]

Technically you are "making" an SBR but from an existing manufacturers lower. If I'm reading everything correctly. The exempt Form 1 only seems to require engraving if you are using a completely unmarked lower like an 80%.

The instructions dont say that. They do say quite a bit by omission. All theyre saying is you can adopt makers markings for the SBR's existing lower/upper, whatever. Says right on the form instructions that you have to mark your information too. Black and white.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

It says you can adopt the existing markings for serial numbers etc. You can. Like usual. It doesn't say you dont have to mark the receiver with your makers markings. It does say you have to mark the makers marks on the actual form 1. Like usual.

That's not how I read it.

 

[Gypsyman]

Deleted. Redundant.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Once again atf makes a confusing mess of things and we are left to try to sort it out. Until the next time they change their minds I mean.

 

[wired]

That's not how I read it.

View attachment 1352642

They are. They can use those markings. Thanks ATF for the clarity.

What does this say to you? #7 specifically? Says to me you can use the other markings but you still have to use your markings as the maker.

 

[Member 53328]

That's not how I read it.

View attachment 1352642

I don't think the ATF gives a f-ck how you decipher something……

What's the big push against engraving? Or is it strictly a monetary issue?

 

[CamoDeafie]

I don't think the ATF gives a f-ck how you decipher something……

What's the big push against engraving? Or is it strictly a monetary issue?

It's more to do with what it one wants to strip the lower and sell it as "other"; but it has NFA markings on it and the argument can be construed that eventually LE or Range officers says the person is firing a NFA Marked firearm... or on the transfer forms like OR requires; whose markings will the FFL have to use to transfer it as a "other" firearm if it's stripped and removed from NFA registry?

 

[Wombat of Doom]

That's not how I read it.

View attachment 1352642

The ATF has a long history of screwing over gun owners and failure to adhere to their own rulings. So, wouldn't you rather be covered than spend time in club fed over a damn engraving? Besides, I can engrave, I like chocolate milk on my gun if I like. It doesn't matter if it has my name and a location on it if it is not in NFA configuration and removed from the registry.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

If they are still requiring you to engrave the firearm, why do they have so much discussion about how they did not including the cost for engraving the firearm, because only a small percentage of people will need to do that (the ones who have privately made firearms such as 80% that have no markings).

 

[wired]

If they are still requiring you to engrave the firearm, why do they have so much discussion about how they did not including the cost for engraving the firearm, because only a small percentage of people will need to do that (the ones who have privately made firearms such as 80% that have no markings).

View attachment 1352664
View attachment 1352665

The actual form1 instructions just aren't tugging at your heart strings are they?

They just aren't accounting for the cost. Yeah, no bubblegum.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

If they are still requiring you to engrave the firearm, why do they have so much discussion about how they did not including the cost for engraving the firearm, because only a small percentage of people will need to do that (the ones who have privately made firearms such as 80% that have no markings).

View attachment 1352664
View attachment 1352665

Since when does the ATF tell the truth? If they did, this brace thing would be a non issue.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

The actual form1 instructions just aren't tugging at your heart strings are they?

I thinks it's a similar issue that when you do efile as a trust it says must be owned by trust by jan 13. That's a hard and fast date.

Then the rule says in multiple locations that it must be owned by the date published in federal register. That's a hard and fast date.

They are both cut and dry. And they both directly contradict each other. Looks like a similar issue here.

Just a guess but perhaps the form 1 instructions are the same as before and have not been updated like they should be to account for the brace rule applications.

 

[wired]

I thinks it's a similar issue that when you do efile as a trust it says must be owned by trust by jan 13. That's a hard and fast date.

Then the rule says in multiple locations that it must be owned by the date published in federal register. That's a hard and fast date.

They are both cut and dry. And they both contradict each other.

The instructions on the form itself aren't so wishy washy. As an Engineer I like to say " When in doubt, read the instructions. "

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Another very likely possibility is that poor internal communications lead to them issuing rules, guidelines, whatever in the announcement, but they failed to follow up with the website people to get the website updated beyond adding the checkbox for tax exempt

 

[wired]

Another very likely possibility is that poor internal communications lead to them issuing rules, guidelines, whatever in the announcement, but they failed to follow up with the website people to get the website updated beyond adding the checkbox for tax exempt

Wow, how like them.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Another very likely possibility is that poor internal communications lead to them issuing rules, guidelines, whatever in the announcement, but they failed to follow up with the website people to get the website updated beyond adding the checkbox for tax exempt

That's my guess. If they went through all the trouble of trying to figure out the cost per applicant, and specifically excluded engraving costs (except for 80% lowers which do need to be engraved) then a lot of time went into that. Also because it's mentioned so many times in the rule and also mentioned in the faq. I think the computer people/person? are wrong on at least the owned by date and instructions issues, if not more. Their computer people need to listen to yoda:

 

[Member 53328]

It's more to do with what it one wants to strip the lower and sell it as "other"; but it has NFA markings on it and the argument can be construed that eventually LE or Range officers says the person is firing a NFA Marked firearm... or on the transfer forms like OR requires; whose markings will the FFL have to use to transfer it as a "other" firearm if it's stripped and removed from NFA registry?

I don't know what ranges everyone goes to…..

I've never once been asked about NFA items.

LE doesn't know their head from their a$$ when it comes to NFA items.

And if you're really worried all LE has to do is run the SN…..

I understand people are frustrated over what MAY happen in regards to braces. But the panic and false information is astonishing.

Option 1 - Register the "pistol" with ATF and receive a tax stamp.

1a - After receiving stamp get the receiver engraved. Leave on your brace or even better remove it and put on a REAL stock.

Option 2 - Remove brace and leave as a pistol (may have to remove optics/lights/etc). NO STAMP

Option 3 - Be super duper safe and put a 16" length barrel on it and add a stock. NO STAMP

Option 4 - Keep the brace on. Don't file the paperwork. Shut your mouth and continue on with your life. Also risk the chance of federal prosecution.

As far as resale (if it's a standard AR lower which most are) they don't hold their value anyway unless it's a KAC or "high end" brand. Especially if in the future we have to buy a permit, BGC, and transfer fee……

I guess time will tell. In the meantime I'm just gunna kick back and continue to watch people freak out.

 

[Member 53328]

That's my guess. If they went through all the trouble of trying to figure out the cost per applicant, and specifically excluded engraving costs (except fo 80% lowers) then a lot of time went into that. Also because it's mentioned so many times in the rule and also mentioned in the faq.

It's like 40-50 bucks to have it engraved……

 

[Rkangel]

It is interesting that some don't have faith in the courts, but have faith in an alphabet agency.

Can't say I put much faith in either one.