National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[CamoDeafie]

Why didn't they get the tax? Either they had a gun that was eligible for private ownership or they did not - FOPA was introduced in 1985 and passed in 1986. Why would a private person have a 1987 machinegun?

How does this pertain to a situation where people have done the NFA paperwork and received approval?

They had them already registered but were ineligible to keep them if they didn't qualify for the SOT tax or were not LEO/MIL.

 

[RX-79G]

They had them already registered but were ineligible to keep them if they didn't qualify for the SOT tax or were not LEO/MIL.

How is a gun made after the ban eligible to be owned by someone who isn't SOT or LEO? Please clarify. It sounds like they should never had them.

And what does this have to do with today?

 

[nwslopoke]

Free! Unless you count the $20 I spent on fingerprints and postage.

No engraving required?

 

[Flopsweat]

They had them already registered but were ineligible to keep them if they didn't qualify for the SOT tax or were not LEO/MIL.

The objective has never been to keep the public safe. They are not to be trusted.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

They had them already registered but were ineligible to keep them if they didn't qualify for the SOT tax or were not LEO/MIL.

Registered how? Any link to this? Not being argumentative (for a change ) just never heard of this

 

[RX-79G]

No engraving required?

I did pay $35 for engrave. My bad.

I don't know if it is required or not - couldn't get official clarification.

 

[bradsteen]

Look, you can't be a criminal for complying with government regulations.

You absolutely can be a criminal for complying with government regulations... when those regulations change on you. That's exactly what happened with pistol braces. First it was "OK" per the "experts" at the ATF. 10 years later it's suddenly not OK anymore, and if you don't comply you're a felon.

So it sounds like what you're saying is "if you CONTINUE to comply you won't be a criminal". So what happens when they push for nationwide AWB again? The ATF would then be sitting on a giant list of folks with "assault weapons". Would they use it to enforce a new law? Your guess is as good as mine, but I'd say there's a greater than 0% chance that they would.

You carry a gun "just in case something bad happens". Many people will not take advantage of an "amnesty registration" for the same reason. If you feel comfortable with getting a tax free NFA item, then great - I'm happy for you. Go do it, and have fun. But when other people don't feel the same way and aren't willing to play the odds that their registration won't turn into confiscation down the road, it's worth remembering that history is littered with examples of that actually happening.

 

[CamoDeafie]

ATF May Soon Reclassify Some Machine Guns as "Post Sample" and Non-Transferrable - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ When the Hughes Amendment to the National Firearms Act came out, all hell broke loose. May 19th 1986 would be the very last day that anyone could legally register a machine gun, and after that date no individual would be allowed to manufacture a new one.In response...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[RX-79G]

You absolutely can be a criminal for complying with government regulations... when those regulations change on you. That's exactly what happened with pistol braces. First it was "OK" per the "experts" at the ATF. 10 years later it's suddenly not OK anymore, and if you don't comply you're a felon.

So it sounds like what you're saying is "if you CONTINUE to comply you won't be a criminal". So what happens when they push for nationwide AWB again? The ATF would then be sitting on a giant list of folks with "assault weapons". Would they use it to enforce a new law? Your guess is as good as mine, but I'd say there's a greater than 0% chance that they would.

You carry a gun "just in case something bad happens". Many people will not take advantage of an "amnesty registration" for the same reason. If you feel comfortable with getting a tax free NFA item, then great - I'm happy for you. Go do it, and have fun. But when other people don't feel the same way and aren't willing to play the odds that their registration won't turn into confiscation down the road, it's worth remembering that history is littered with examples of that actually happening.

You are speaking nonsense. You said people who get SBRs would be turned into criminals for getting the Stamp. Now you're saying that something else will happen and they will only be criminals if they don't comply.

Stop with the double talk.

 

[RX-79G]

I did pay $35 for engrave. My bad.

I don't know if it is required or not - couldn't get official clarification.

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

 

[bradsteen]

You are speaking nonsense. You said people who get SBRs would be turned into criminals for getting the Stamp. Now you're saying that something else will happen and they will only be criminals if they don't comply.

Stop with the double talk.

That's not at all what I said. I was simply pointing out that today SBRs are all fine and dandy (in some states) if you have the stamp and did the paperwork. If at some point in the future laws are passed outlawing SBRs, you now are on a list as owning one. That's it. I'm not saying they'll go door to door and confiscate, and I'm not saying "the gov is out to get us". I AM saying such things COULD happen, because they have happened before.

 

[RX-79G]

ATF May Soon Reclassify Some Machine Guns as "Post Sample" and Non-Transferrable - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ When the Hughes Amendment to the National Firearms Act came out, all hell broke loose. May 19th 1986 would be the very last day that anyone could legally register a machine gun, and after that date no individual would be allowed to manufacture a new one.In response...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

So, that was 8 years ago. What happened?

 

[RX-79G]

That's not at all what I said. I was simply pointing out that today SBRs are all fine and dandy of you have the stamp and did the paperwork. If at some point in the future laws are passed outlawing SBRs, you now are on a list as owning one. That's it. I'm not saying they'll go door to door and confiscate, and I'm not saying "the gov is out to get us". I AM saying such things COULD happen, because they have happened before.

And if you have a gun you bought on a 4473, they know you have it as well. So what makes your future criminality more better?

If the ATF wants that one registered $60 receiver that bad, I'll give it to them.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

May 19th 1986 would be the very last day that anyone could legally register a machine gun, and after that date no individual would be allowed to manufacture a new one

Ok, that sounds clear enough

Normally a manufacturer has 48 hours to notify the ATF that they made a machine gun.

Oh, well this doesn't sound like a "normal" situation, because you know, that "May 19th" part above

The manufacturers were well within the law to manufacture them on the 19th and submit the paperwork on the 20th

Why? The cut off was the 19th, not "the 19th-ish, give or take a few hours"

 

[nwslopoke]

If something is banned, it is banned. The fact that your unregistered thing gets banned doesn't make you any less of a criminal if you keep it.


Personally, I bought the stuff to build a brace pistol solely because I wanted to get an SBR. I think braced pistols are stupid. I spent very little on it and now I have an actual stock.

I'm such a sucker, I guess.


But I would bet that the 39,000,000 read too much nonsense online, are lazy, didn't want to bother or simply haven't heard about any of if.

Does the NFA crowd know that NWFA folks think they're idiots and traitors?

Can you just be happy you got what you wanted? I wanted a pistol for the legal advantages and don't want to leave NFA hassles to those who don't know gun laws or don't have any interest in guns. So not everyone was pretending they had an SBR, just living within the rules. Which I continue to do.

The rule change hardly alters my shooting experience but it was an argument of principle. Truly, to each their own. Across the board. I still may SBR something but not likely.

 

[Knobgoblin]

NFA in one sentence

 

[CamoDeafie]

Ok, that sounds clear enough


Oh, well this doesn't sound like a "normal" situation, because you know, that "May 19th" part above


Why? The cut off was the 19th, not "the 19th-ish, give or take a few hours"

manufactured after May 19th is banned unless SOT or "samples for LEO/MIL ".

But what the ATF argued is that because they didn't notify the ATF that these "MGs" were made on May 19th until May 20th; they are now "post-sample" MGs.

Edit this was in the days of physical paperwork and not E-forms

 

[Flopsweat]

Can you just be happy you got what you wanted?

I think you just answered your own question.

 

[bradsteen]

And if you have a gun you bought on a 4473, they know you have it as well. So what makes your future criminality more better?

If the ATF wants that one registered $60 receiver that bad, I'll give it to them.

The 4473 is not always explicit about the firearm's configuration, such as if you're buying a receiver and assembling it yourself. I thought that was kinda obvious. I also highly doubt that in a hypothetical confiscation scenario a stripped receiver would be treated as "good enough" by the authorities. More like grounds for a search warrant.

 

[RX-79G]

Can you just be happy you got what you wanted? I wanted a pistol for the legal advantages and don't want to leave NFA hassles to those who don't know gun laws or don't have any interest in guns. So not everyone was pretending they had an SBR, just living within the rules. Which I continue to do.

The rule change hardly alters my shooting experience but it was an argument of principle. Truly, to each their own. Across the board. I still may SBR something but not likely.

What are you talking about? If you want a pistol, get a pistol. What are you implying I said about any of that?

It's like everyone is talking in code.