ATF is going to have an amnesty for braced pistols

[bamashooter]

[QUOTE=FromMyColdDeadHand;3110004
Take it to the GD for political posts. And welcome to the “Ignore List”.
[/QUOTE]
Ouch, anything but the dreaded "Ignore List". I take it all back. Give me attention. I crave attention. Does this brace make me look like a "Tier 1" operator?

[WillBrink]

Update:

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

So, if you get an approval from the ATF under the amnesty, and the form says "Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F", and then that rule gets ruled unconstitutional, what exactly do you have? An unregistered SBR?

[Screwball]

So, if you get an approval from the ATF under the amnesty, and the form says "Pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F", and then that rule gets ruled unconstitutional, what exactly do you have? An unregistered SBR?

You have an approved SBR. That is what the approved Form 1 says…

The lack of stamp/tax and engraving are what that quote allows for. I could Form 4 it tomorrow, and not going to have to add the engraving, since the Form 1 says it uses the original manufacturer’s engraving.

On the Form 4… the buyer would need to pay $200, and it would have a stamp attached after it comes back. People get hung up on the stamp, itself. The approved Form 1 is what makes the NFA item registered. The stamp just shows tax paid, and if you eFile, you don’t even get an actual stamp (it’s a watermark behind the form text). L/E agencies that Form 1 firearms don’t get stamps either, since it’s tax exempt.

If we used the “unregistered SBR” logic, what’s stopping ATF from saying… “yea, all those MGs that were done under the amnesty were illegal, so they are off the registry and all owners must turn them in to be cut up?” It is in the same realm as that. And if ATF tried to pull those 250,000 approvals… I’d think you’d have an awesome argument for overturning the NFA (parts or the entirety). But why would they? They want a registry, no?

End game… I have tax waived SBRs (everything is now running an actual stock… which is superior to running a brace). Still have some braces that are considered accessories by ATF. Rule tossed… two AR lower builds with braces, and I have non-NFA lowers to travel without a 5320.20.

[georgeib]

You have an approved SBR. That is what the approved Form 1 says…

The lack of stamp/tax and engraving are what that quote allows for. I could Form 4 it tomorrow, and not going to have to add the engraving, since the Form 1 says it uses the original manufacturer’s engraving.

On the Form 4… the buyer would need to pay $200, and it would have a stamp attached after it comes back. People get hung up on the stamp, itself. The approved Form 1 is what makes the NFA item registered. The stamp just shows tax paid, and if you eFile, you don’t even get an actual stamp (it’s a watermark behind the form text). L/E agencies that Form 1 firearms don’t get stamps either, since it’s tax exempt.

If we used the “unregistered SBR” logic, what’s stopping ATF from saying… “yea, all those MGs that were done under the amnesty were illegal, so they are off the registry and all owners must turn them in to be cut up?” It is in the same realm as that. And if ATF tried to pull those 250,000 approvals… I’d think you’d have an awesome argument for overturning the NFA (parts or the entirety). But why would they? They want a registry, no?

End game… I have tax waived SBRs (everything is now running an actual stock… which is superior to running a brace). Still have some braces that are considered accessories by ATF. Rule tossed… two AR lower builds with braces, and I have non-NFA lowers to travel without a 5320.20.

I'm almost certain this is wrong. First, you don't have, "an approved SBR." The rule claims that you already had an SBR, and it is now registered per amnesty in the rule. Second, the words "pursuant to" mean in accordance with. When the rule is struck now, and declared void, there will be nothing there to be pursuant to or in accordance with. No rule; no amnesty.

[jsbhike]

Just shameful that these conversations are even relevant as the ATF should be spending less time creating ways to criminalize "we the people" and more time on whatever actual criminals they seem to have run out of at this point.

The ATF should not exist since they came in to being to administer NFA 34 which would be analogous to .gov creating agencies to interfere with passages in The Bible they dislike, door locks they dislike, and so on.

[Diamondback]

I'm almost certain this is wrong. First, you don't have, "an approved SBR." The rule claims that you already had an SBR, and it is now registered per amnesty in the rule. Second, the words "pursuant to" mean in accordance with. When the rule is struck now, and declared void, there will be nothing there to be pursuant to or in accordance with. No rule; no amnesty.

In short, congratulations to all you suckers who got Buffalo Jumped--those irons are now registered and that bell is never un-rung. Just ask the Canadians how well the order to purge THEIR gun registry was complied with by their own Deep State...

[Bret]

I'm almost certain this is wrong. First, you don't have, "an approved SBR." The rule claims that you already had an SBR, and it is now registered per amnesty in the rule. Second, the words "pursuant to" mean in accordance with. When the rule is struck now, and declared void, there will be nothing there to be pursuant to or in accordance with. No rule; no amnesty.

This is not correct. The law specifically allows for the President to have amnesty registrations. The law doesn't require that there's a reason.

In short, congratulations to all you suckers who got Buffalo Jumped--those irons are now registered and that bell is never un-rung. Just ask the Canadians how well the order to purge THEIR gun registry was complied with by their own Deep State...

So would we be less of a sucker by paying the $200 for something we were going to eventually SBR anyway?

[Diamondback]

So would we be less of a sucker by paying the $200 for something we were going to eventually SBR anyway?

If you already own NFA or had intent to Form 1 it anyway, you're not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about the guys who didn't have NFA previously and WEREN'T thinking ahead to see where the dust settles in the courts.

Meanwhile, all the First Timers are now forevermore on the NFA list and I'm still OFF it just chillin' with my double helping of Injunctive Relief from FPC and SAF...

[georgeib]

This is not correct. The law specifically allows for the President to have amnesty registrations. The law doesn't require that there's a reason.


So would we be less of a sucker by paying the $200 for something we were going to eventually SBR anyway?

Time will tell, I suppose. From listening to a couple attorneys discuss this, that is not the impression I was given. In fact, it's questionable whether the ATF even had the right to waive the tax in the first place. One issue I do see with your reasoning is that I think you missed the words "pursuant to" in the approval language. Once the rule itself is declared unconstitutional, for any reason, anything approved "pursuant to" the now voided rule is also null.

ETA: This doesn't preclude a subsequent and separate executive amnesty, I imagine. Though I find that to be pretty unlikely.