Potential short term fix for owners of a pistol with a pistol brace deemed an SBR

Self | Feb 1, 2023 | Myrddin

[Myrddin]

The new ATF pistol brace ruling has been published in the Federal Register starting the 120 day countdown to apply for the ATF tax stamp, surrender the "SBR" to the ATF or destroy the firearm. Anyone who has applied for an ATF tax stamp for an SBR knows this usually takes 6 months to a year for approval. If you apply now, you will be in possession of an SBR without the ATF tax stamp in 120 days. Instant felony.

The purpose of this post is to offer another option. Find an FFL licensed to sell NFA firearms. Arrange for the FFL to store your new "SBR". Call it a "repair". Pay your FFL for the storage service. That solves the problem of being in possession of the NFA SBR without the ATF tax stamp.

This approach provides a means to side-step the possession issue for those who opt to apply for the ATF tax stamp. There are pending bills from Jim Risch (SHORT) that may alleviate the problem. There are pending lawsuits that may provide a judicial resolution. The ATF may rescind the stupid decision. However it works out, having the SBR in the safekeeping of an FFL should alleviate the felony exposure.

[Secret Agent Man]

I see the sarcasm.

[Varmint Al]

WTHIASBR?

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

[faithhopecharity]

This illegal regulation doesn’t impact this household. It is the principle of the governmental lawlessness and how it destroys the Republic …

[SkyDancer]

It was Dillinger’s pistol.

[Myrddin]

I think that's part of the reason why the ATF created a special eForm 1 for this braced pistol campaign, so that those applications could be treated differently than a regular eForm 1 for a suppressor or 'normal' SBR application. In any case, the ATF in its rule said that as long as you filed under the deadline, you're not in jeopardy even if it takes 10 years to clear the backlog. What you cannot do until you receive your stamp is to transfer the braced pistol to anyone else, including a face-to-face transfer. Only the person who submitted the eForm 1 can possess it. Once the stamp is approved, the buyer must have an approved eForm in their hands before they can possess it.

Does that include having an FFL store your firearm for the duration of the period between special e-form 1 and issuance of the tax stamp? If so, then that isn't a viable alternative to resolving being in possession of the newly designated SBR without the tax stamp.

If you already own SBRs, then you missed a once in a lifetime opportunity to get another one free of charge. Pity.

I already have the NFA trust and all parties have current photo/responsible person information filed. I don't really want another SBR, but another suppressor that handles 30 caliber is on my "want" list for the 300BLK SBR. I built it with a 10.5" barrel as optimum for 300BLK and just right with a suppressor attached. In recent weeks there has been discussion of feral hog problems in Montana and Wyoming. The 300BLK is ideal for hogs.

[Myrddin]

So, by the ATF’s reasoning, if you own an AR pistol and an AR rifle of the same caliber, you could be guilty of “constructive possession”? You could, after all, swap a sort barreled pistol upper onto a rifle lower with a stock.

It's the same problem with T/C Contender and T/C Encore. If you own rifle and pistol barrels, you always have the ability to assemble an SBR from a lower with a rifle stock and a pistol barrel.

[Myrddin]

My first Form 1 / Form 4 submissions were in August 2015. Approvals came Dec 31, 2015.

[muir_redwoods]

Why can one simply remove the brace and store it separately?

[Highest Authority]

Although I am not affected by this “ruling/law”, it would seem that achems razor would indicate the answer is just to abolish the atf.
All those in favor, just say aye!

[rockrr]

Option C: Remove anyone attempting to rob you of your property.

[Yo-Yo]

Does that include having an FFL store your firearm for the duration of the period between special e-form 1 and issuance of the tax stamp? If so, then that isn't a viable alternative to resolving being in possession of the newly designated SBR without the tax stamp.

After the rule posted, I don't think any FFL will accept an unregistered SBR into his inventory. FFLs must also register all braced pistols in their inventory just like individuals do.

So no, I don't think your hack would work.

[Yo-Yo]

So, by the ATF’s reasoning, if you own an AR pistol and an AR rifle of the same caliber, you could be guilty of “constructive possession”? You could, after all, swap a sort barreled pistol upper onto a rifle lower with a stock.

No. If you won a pistol lower with a buffer tube that won't accept a buttstock, you have a pistol. If you own a pistol with a carbine or rifle buffer tube, and you own a brace or buttstock that isn't already attached to another rifle, yes you have constructive possession of an SBR.

As long as you have a rifle upper to go with the rifle lower, you are not in constructive possession just because you 'could' put the pistol upper on the rifle lower.

If, however, all you owned were pistol uppers and rifle lowers, then yes. It's not supposed to make sense...

[Myrddin]

Why can one simply remove the brace and store it separately?

Many of the affected pistols have the "brace" as a permanent fixture. You might have to engage the services of a gunsmith to remove it to ATF's satisfaction.

Honey Badger

An AR lower with a standard buffer tube can be easily modified with a plain "tube" buffer tube that can't mount a brace. Swap the tube, discard the brace. It's not that simple with the customer lower/brace on the Honey Badger.

[Myrddin]

FFLs must also register all braced pistols in their inventory just like individuals do.

My local FFL was anxious to sell the two he had in his inventory at a very favorable price prior to the posting of the rule. He sells NFA items on a regular basis. I think he just wanted the two black sheep off the inventory ASAP.

[ETCM]

You purists out there can carp and whine all you want but I doubt any of you would use that ‘brace’ to brace a ‘pistol’ against your forearm instead of your shoulder, especially when many of the ‘braces’ can be extended to fit your shoulder. Flame away.

The pistol brace was a way to get around laws and regulations for 99% of those who purchased them, period. First, it was an SBR for folks who live in one of the 21 states where SBRs are banned, or just don't want the hassle of a tax stamp. Second, it allows cheating hunters to hunt with a rifle during pistol season in states that have such a season.

I 100% think short barreled rifles and suppressors should be unregulated, and I should be able to walk out of a store with either as long as I am not a restricted person. Unfortunately we have ridiculous regulation on both.

[Myrddin]

I 100% think short barreled rifles and suppressors should be unregulated, and I should be able to walk out of a store with either as long as I am not a restricted person. Unfortunately we have ridiculous regulation on both.

I agree. Suppressors should be as unregulated a muzzle brakes and flash hiders. Likewise, SBRs should be no different than any pistol or rifle.

[Who is John Galt?]

IMO, the ‘brace’ thing was doomed from the start because it was a way to get something that acts like a shoulder stock to go on a short barrel ‘pistol’ making it a short barreled rifle without a stamp.
You purists out there can carp and whine all you want but I doubt any of you would use that ‘brace’ to brace a ‘pistol’ against your forearm instead of your shoulder, especially when many of the ‘braces’ can be extended to fit your shoulder. Flame away.

I don't think it's a matter of "purists", 'carping', 'whining', or 'flaming', unless we're supposed to believe gun owners are easy to categorize (or maybe that somebody has ESP and can tell why every AR pistol owner bought one).

I built a couple of AR pistols a few years back, just because I got the parts cheap, and I enjoy building firearms. Wanting an SBR never factored into it; I think short rifle barrels are a waste (which is why I ended up selling them to a local FFL a few years later, without even shooting them). I've met people who put braces on AR pistols just because they liked the look; apparently they thought the naked buffer tube was "ugly". And IIRC, someone posted here on FR that they purchased an AR pistol because it was legal to carry or have in their vehicle under their State's CCW laws/regs, but a rifle was not. There are obviously any number of reasons various people decided to acquire AR pistols, with or without braces.

Bottom line, a lot of folks are making assumptions, in some cases based solely on their own motivations, and applying those assumptions to others in completely arbitrary fashion. In particular, I've seen folks who jumped through all of the hoops and paid their $200 tax to get a 100% "bonafide" SBR (for whatever their own reasons were), who seem especially prone to that approach...

;>)

[zeugma]

Personally, i would like to see ATF agents die by the dozens trying to enforce this lunacy. I would stand up and applaud.

[Myrddin]

Thanks for enlightening the thread with good info on the special e-form 1 for the braced pistol to SBR change. I was looking for a solution for people panicked over the insane rules change. Assuming ATF honors the e-form 1 registrations, it's just going to be a LONG wait for all the stamps to get issued.

[Big Red Badger]

Thanks Yo!
Bizarre times.