selling the SBR you didn't know you owned

[TheAccountant]

This morning when I read The Accountant's post shortly after 10am, I said to myself, "Oh fun, that idiot posted something...I wonder how many posts until this goes off the rails?".

It was 2 posts. Sadly, not the record.

Coward.

 

[xmalcomx]

Wait a minute I thought sbr's are not allowed in az unless under a trust

 

[QuietM4]

Wait a minute I thought sbr's are not allowed in az unless under a trust

Wrong. All NFA items are legal in AZ, registered to an individual or a trust, llc, corp, etc.

 

[xmalcomx]

The shockwave isnt affected since its not a shot gun its a aow I dont know am I wrong

 

[xmalcomx]

so this jackass is wrong then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPPXMvFHi1c

 

[QuietM4]

The shockwave isnt affected since its not a shot gun its a aow I dont know am I wrong

The Shockwave is not a "shotgun" or an "AOW"....it is a "firearm". And no, it is not affected by this new rule. You cannot put a brace onto a "firearm", but the shockwave grip is not a brace.

 

[admin]

so this jackass is wrong then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPPXMvFHi1c

No, he's not wrong. He's saying that AZ (and the other states he mentions) has a law that says that SBR's are legal as long as they are properly registered/approved by the ATF - eg, you have a tax stamp for it. He's suggesting that while the Fed/ATF has provided amnesty for 120 days from enactment of the brace rule, that amnesty is NOT provided by the states mentioned in his video. So in theory, the state (AZ) could go after you.

Thus, if you file a Form 1 for a braced pistol you already possess, you're acknowledging that it's an SBR and you ALREADY POSSESS IT without having an approved stamp. In AZ, that's not legal and the state could go after you for possessing an illegal SBR. That's what he's saying. Is that likely to occur? No - but it's legally possible.

 

[TheAccountant]

so this jackass is wrong then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPPXMvFHi1c

No, he's not wrong. He's saying that AZ (and the other states he mentions) has a law that says that SBR's are legal as long as they are properly registered/approved by the ATF - eg, you have a tax stamp for it. He's suggesting that while the Fed/ATF has provided amnesty for 120 days from enactment of the brace rule, that amnesty is NOT provided by the states mentioned in his video. So in theory, the state (AZ) could go after you.

Thus, if you file a Form 1 for a braced pistol you already possess, you're acknowledging that it's an SBR and you ALREADY POSSESS IT without having an approved stamp. In AZ, that's not legal and the state could go after you for possessing an illegal SBR. That's what he's saying. Is that likely to occur? No - but it's legally possible.

AZ statute:
The items set forth in subsection A, paragraph 8, subdivision (a), items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this section do not include any firearms or devices that are possessed, manufactured or transferred in compliance with federal law.

There’s no reference to registration. If it’s legal federally, then it’s legal under AZ law.

Of course the purpose of that video wasn’t to inform, but rather to be click bait shared across gun forums and other sites to generate revenue. Mission accomplished.

 

[admin]

so this jackass is wrong then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPPXMvFHi1c

No, he's not wrong. He's saying that AZ (and the other states he mentions) has a law that says that SBR's are legal as long as they are properly registered/approved by the ATF - eg, you have a tax stamp for it. He's suggesting that while the Fed/ATF has provided amnesty for 120 days from enactment of the brace rule, that amnesty is NOT provided by the states mentioned in his video. So in theory, the state (AZ) could go after you.

Thus, if you file a Form 1 for a braced pistol you already possess, you're acknowledging that it's an SBR and you ALREADY POSSESS IT without having an approved stamp. In AZ, that's not legal and the state could go after you for possessing an illegal SBR. That's what he's saying. Is that likely to occur? No - but it's legally possible.

AZ statute:
The items set forth in subsection A, paragraph 8, subdivision (a), items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this section do not include any firearms or devices that are possessed, manufactured or transferred in compliance with federal law.

There’s no reference to registration. If it’s legal federally, then it’s legal under AZ law.

Of course the purpose of that video wasn’t to inform, but rather to be click bait shared across gun forums and other sites to generate revenue. Mission accomplished.

The part is red is EXACTLY the case. And that's what he's pointed out in the video. Per ATF's new rule and interpretation, a braced pistol is NOT legal unless you have an approved tax stamp for it. They are simply giving you a 120-day grace period to register it and bring your braced pistol into compliance, but it's still not "legal" until you have an approved Form 1. Thus, he's pointing that out - these states have laws written that could result in state-level charges for having an unregistered SBR.

As to his purpose... I'd venture to say that there are very few things that are on YouTube that have the sole purpose of educating without some hope of financial renumeration. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive, nor are then antithetical to each other.

 

[TheAccountant]

No, he's not wrong. He's saying that AZ (and the other states he mentions) has a law that says that SBR's are legal as long as they are properly registered/approved by the ATF - eg, you have a tax stamp for it. He's suggesting that while the Fed/ATF has provided amnesty for 120 days from enactment of the brace rule, that amnesty is NOT provided by the states mentioned in his video. So in theory, the state (AZ) could go after you.

Thus, if you file a Form 1 for a braced pistol you already possess, you're acknowledging that it's an SBR and you ALREADY POSSESS IT without having an approved stamp. In AZ, that's not legal and the state could go after you for possessing an illegal SBR. That's what he's saying. Is that likely to occur? No - but it's legally possible.

AZ statute:
The items set forth in subsection A, paragraph 8, subdivision (a), items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this section do not include any firearms or devices that are possessed, manufactured or transferred in compliance with federal law.

There’s no reference to registration. If it’s legal federally, then it’s legal under AZ law.

Of course the purpose of that video wasn’t to inform, but rather to be click bait shared across gun forums and other sites to generate revenue. Mission accomplished.

The part is red is EXACTLY the case. And that's what he's pointed out in the video. Per ATF's new rule and interpretation, a braced pistol is NOT legal unless you have an approved tax stamp for it. They are simply giving you a 120-day grace period to register it and bring your braced pistol into compliance, but it's still not "legal" until you have an approved Form 1. Thus, he's pointing that out - these states have laws written that could result in state-level charges for having an unregistered SBR.

As to his purpose... I'd venture to say that there are very few things that are on YouTube that have the sole purpose of educating without some hope of financial renumeration. Those two goals are not mutually exclusive, nor are then antithetical to each other.

Do you think federal law includes only statute, or do you think it also includes the regulations and rulings promulgated thereunder?

 

[admin]

lol

 

[TheAccountant]

lol

I’ll take that as you recognizing your blunder.

 

[admin]

Do tell... what's "my" blunder?

I was simply trying to re-articulate the point that the attorney in the video was pointing out and drawing attention to. You know... the one guy that is only making the videos to generate revenue.

 

[TheAccountant]

Let’s try this a different way… Of the states that have filed suit that have state law conforming to federal law, how many have published exemptions of their own?

 

[admin]

Not sure if yours is a legitimate question or a rhetorical one. Either way, my response would be the same: I don't know. I don't track state laws or exemptions in states where I do not reside. Why not just affirmatively state why you think the attorney in the video is right or wrong instead of playing games with questions, dancing around it?

However, I will reiterate that I was simply re-articulating the point that the attorney appeared to be making in his video. If you feel the attorney's legal opinion is wrong, then specifically state your legal opinion for others here to gauge. Perhaps include your bonafides, just in case someone decides to use your conclusion(s).

I am not a lawyer, I don't have a law degree and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn. To that end, I will leave it to those who do have law degrees to debate the legalities and potential dangers of submitting a tax free eForm 1 application for their braced pistols.

 

[TheAccountant]

Conformity is conformity unless there’s explicit decoupling or modifications. You don’t pick one paragraph and say, “well here, the definition of SBR has been changed for state purposes” and then go two paragraphs down and say, “you skip all of this because it makes good YouTube content.”

Setting that aside, let’s just apply some common sense and logic: If any of the AGs that took the time to file suit and write a bunch of letters to anyone that would listen (i.e., TX) thought there was even a hint of an issue, don’t you think it would be addressed (at least in a press release)? What about the Sheriffs that often come out and claim they won’t enforce laws? They haven’t said a peep. County attorneys? Nada. What does the GOA that has joined these states in suits have to say about it? Nothing. State associations? Nothing. Pistol brace manufacturers? Also silent. So either Mr. YouTube has stumbled upon a massive cover up that every AG and gun lobby lawyer is in on, or it’s a complete non-issue and he’s just looking for clicks and views. You can decide.

Just a little more information about him in case you think he’s some gun law mastermind:

He also has a website washingtonfelonytraffic where he touts his DUI defense. On the website for his actual firm, Cowan Kirk, he only speaks of his DUI experience. On other sites he says his practice is dedicated solely to DUI. The “perfect 10” rating on Avvo he’s so proud of while pretending to be a gun lawyer? Oh, yeah, 90% DUI and 10% cannabis defense. Not a single gun case.

https://www.cowanlawfirm.com/william-kirk
https://www.washingtonfelonytraffic.com/
https://www.avvo.com/amp/attorneys/28785.html

 

[Azgunlover69]

[mention]admin[/mention] I'd ban him just cuz
There's no point arguing with accountants who minored in law, or people who think they are better than everyone else.

However, I thought no name calling was listed in the ToS..?

Coward.

Either way, as fun as it is to read from time to time, it is also annoying as hell. I know I'll be verbally attacked here from 1, maybe 2, and Yada Yada but idc, keyboard warriors don't hurt.

 

[TheAccountant]

@admin I'd ban him just cuz
There's no point arguing with accountants who minored in law, or people who think they are better than everyone else.

However, I thought no name calling was listed in the ToS..?

Coward.

Either way, as fun as it is to read from time to time, it is also annoying as hell. I know I'll be verbally attacked here from 1, maybe 2, and Yada Yada but idc, keyboard warriors don't hurt.

If we’re going to make ASSumptions based on usernames, you must really enjoy licking the magwell while you’re shoving your tiny pecker in the barrel of your guns?

 

[deadshot556]

This morning when I read The Accountant's post shortly after 10am, I said to myself, "Oh fun, that idiot posted something...I wonder how many posts until this goes off the rails?".

It was 2 posts. Sadly, not the record.

Coward.

Meh, reality is hard to accept. Now I've been meaning to ask. How does leather taste?

 

[Tenring]

@admin I'd ban him just cuz


Looks like someone listened to you :clap: