selling the SBR you didn't know you owned
- Thread starter YNOTAZ
- Start date
Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!
Join today!
Do you know if you have to send your 2 pictures and 2 print cards for every effort 1? Or would one set cover multiple braced pistols? I tried calling ATF today and never got an answer.XJThrottle said:
Thanks
Thom
Azgunlover69
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2018
- Messages
- 767
YNOTAZ said:
He's going to send it to the moon in a rocket ship.
2 photos for each form..if you send all your forms together (or reasonably close together) one set of fingerprints should do. In the past, anything under 5-6 months would pass on the FD 258 cards. Also if you do paper cards, you need to use "their" marked cards. I did not see anything in their presentation or written that would let one use other marked FD258 fingerprint cards.thom said:
delta6 said:
I did all mine pretty close together. Only recall sending in one pic and one print card though.
Since I was doing a bunch at a time I went to CVS and hand them crop a ton of pics to the "passport size". Saved me a TON. I had my prints done digitally at a place not too far from my office. So, I had them run off a hand full of cards. I kinda stock piled both of them. I did 10+ NFA items a year.
I emailed the Washingtongunlaw.com this morning asking if anyone could sell pistols with braces. The answer i got back was " as long as the sale is otherwise legal yes you may. However the new owner will be required to undergo the amnesty registration or make changes to the firearm before the 120 day expires"
This was from William Kirk.
This was from William Kirk.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2018
- Messages
- 766
thom said:
thom said:
Pistol braces are legal, maybe.
During the hour+ ATF webinar the ATF spokesperson said to be legal the brace has to be removed from the pistol. Another ATF spokesperson chimed in saying the attaching device on the pistol must be removed. All the while these people were "instructing". they had a slide showing of what to do with your "braced pistol", remove it and destroy it or alter it so it cannot be attached. Possession of a working brace and an AR pistol??
.
.
The only thing they knew for sure, was you damn well better not have one of these things. So, like almost all ATF decisions it's dependent on, the phase of the moon, who's in office, and who's up for promotion.
Tenring
Member
As we continue wade through the muck of all this tranical BS, here is another video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLSl1foXlDM&t=136s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLSl1foXlDM&t=136s
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2018
- Messages
- 766
YNOTAZ said:
The title of the rule is “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces” not “Pistol Brace Ban.” There’s nothing illegal about pistol braces themselves. Some firearms that have pistol braces (or are equipped to readily accept a pistol brace) may be viewed as an SBR. A different firearm with that same brace may be viewed as a pistol. That determination is made based on the firearm itself and is the whole purpose of the rule.
I don’t agree with it, but the concept isn’t difficult to understand if you just read the rule.
Tenring
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ1KXcB_yug&t=219s
Tenring
Member
TheAccountant said:
The purpose of the "rule" is tyranny plain and simple, it is subjective at best even after reading the 'rule".
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2018
- Messages
- 766
Tenring said:
Are you not capable of analyzing things from a different point of view, especially one you don’t agree with? Or was this just an opportunity to meet your “tyranny” quota to prove how 2A you are?
I agree the application of the rule is subjective and parts are not clearly defined, but it is crystal clear that it’s not a “pistol brace ban” and pistol braces in and of themselves are not illegal. The ones struggling to understand the rule are generally the ones that haven’t quite grasped that concept.
Tenring
Member
TheAccountant said:
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2018
- Messages
- 766
If someone is calling it a pistol brace ban or saying braces are illegal then it’s pretty obvious they don’t understand the rule. Do you need a YouTube video to tell you everything?
TheAccountant said:
Nobody cares about the title of the rule, they care about the content. Titles of items in Washington usually mean exactly the opposite of the content i.e. "Affordable Care Act", "inflation reduction act".
I never said pistol braces are illegal. I just pointed out EXACTLY what the ATF wrote v. what they said.
Perhaps you should read the entire rule in its latest iteration. Factoring depends on unquantifiable items such as Manufacturer advertising and the use of the "brace". So if ganbangers in Chiraq are using SBA3s as shoulder stocks it is a shoulder stock, so any brace attached to a firearm with less than a 16" barrel makes it an SBR and illegal.
Feel free to argue with the ATF on what they wrote and what they said. Everyone knows this is to address braces mounted on AR pistols.
If you have an example of one of those that "may be viewed as a pistol" please post a description and how it qualifies as a pistol with a brace instead of an SBR.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2018
- Messages
- 766
YNOTAZ said:
“Pistol braces are legal, maybe.” So if they’re not legal, then what are they? Or does your use of “maybe” have some deranged meaning outside of the English language?
If you don’t like the title then you can read the summary of the rule or the rule itself and come to the same conclusion - it’s not a ban. Braces in and of themselves are not illegal.
It’s the advertised or common use of the WEAPON, not BRACE. There’s a big difference there. Like I said in my earlier post, the ones that conflate the two are the ones that can’t seem to grasp the rule. Also, gangsters in Chicago aren’t the “general community” so they have no influence on anything here, much less being the sole factor in determining what is or isn’t an SBR.
I don’t have a need to argue with the ATF about anything. I’ve read the rule. I’ve read their supplementary publications. Based on your poor interpretation of what they wrote, I have no doubt that your interpretation of what they said is also incorrect.
An AR with a long eye relief handgun scope, unmodified cuff-style brace, mounted on a standard pistol buffer is one simple example of a pistol.
TheAccountant said:
I'm not going to argue with a person who doesn't know crap. ATF said that ANYTHING that increases the surface area of the buffer tube of an AR with a barrel length of less than 16" makes it an SBR, so your "cuff-style brace" makes it an SBR. Long eye relief scope, another of your red herrings, nobody cares.
Go argue with the ATF, I'm done with you.
ILEGAL:
.
.
.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2018
- Messages
- 766
YNOTAZ said:
The best part of this is that the slides you posted contradict what you’re saying, but you’re too lazy to actually read the words on the slide:
“When a weapon provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, the following factors shall also be considered in determining whether the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder”
The slides that follow:
Weight/length
Length of pull
Sights or scope
Rearward attachment
Marketing and Intended use
Actual use
If you read the slide you posted for rearward attachment, it’s clear that a firearm can be a pistol even if the surface area allows for the weapon to be shoulder fired:
An AR-type pistol with a standard 6 to 6-1/2 inch buffer tube may not be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder even if the buffer tube provides surface area that allows the firearm to be shoulder fired because it is required for the cycle of operations of the weapon.
To repeat myself for the third time - it’s a wholistic analysis of the firearm. I know you’ve never read anything besides picture books before, but you might actually be able to comprehend something if you read the words.
The definition:
For purposes of this definition, the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” shall include a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as described in paragraph (2), indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.
The other factors:
2) When a weapon provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, the following factors shall also be considered in determining whether the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder:
(i) whethertheweaponhasaweightorlengthconsistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;
(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method) that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;
(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;
(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;
(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.
We do agree on one thing: you should definitely tuck your tail and hide. You’ve been wrong enough for the week.
Similar threads
