ATF moving for Amnesty Period to register pistol braced guns as SBRs

BigWaylon said:
Wait…where’s my shocked face?

View attachment 630451
Click to expand...

RE: Office of the President

HUNTER-BIDEN-SHOWER-EXCLU.jpg
 
Anyone heard what time the House votes on the bill today?
 
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). I appreciate the benefit of your views.
The ATF is a federal agency originally created for the purpose of protecting communities from violent criminals, criminal organizations, the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, the illegal use and storage of explosives, acts of arson and bombings, acts of terrorism, and the illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products. Just as with so many other agencies, eight years of the Obama Administration brought Chicago politics to Washington and corrupted the upper echelons of much of the federal bureaucracy. Along the way, this agency, like so many others, has become quite good at regulatory overreach. (All that said, I should note there are many employees of the ATF who are very honorable, hard-working Americans trying their best to properly execute on the missions for which the agency was created.)
One such example of overreach by the ATF is their announcement of the final ruling on pistol brace attachments that would require owners to remove these braces within 120 days. This is an alarming and obvious action infringing on our Second Amendment rights. I expect this new rule to eventually be found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, but as a much more immediate recourse I am a co-sponsor of a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) terminating this new rule. This joint resolution should pass the House, but it is unclear if it will get through the Senate. Hopefully, with the help of the public and given several Democrats are up for reelection in key Republican states, the Senate will pass this legislation and President Biden will decide to sign it.
Additionally, I recently joined my friend and colleague, Congressman Richard Hudson, in sending a letter to the Biden Administration calling on them to end their attacks on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. It is time for Congress to bring the ATF back in line and focused back on their original mission set.
Congressman Matt Gaetz recently introduced H.R. 374, the Abolish the ATF Act. At the moment, and because of the other key and important work the ATF is charged with doing, I am inclined to see if we can get the upper political element of ATF back in line by attaching policy riders on the Appropriations Bill that funds the ATF. If that fails, I will be supporting the bill, for sure.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. And, as always, feel free to contact me with any other questions or concerns. You may also want to visit my website (Rouzer.house.gov) and my official government Twitter and Facebook pages. There you will find information on my work in Washington and North Carolina as well as sign up for my email newsletter.

Sincerely,​
David Rouzer Signature.
David Rouzer
Member of Congress​
Click to expand...
I meant to post this the other day...
 
H44 passed (218/210) Two Rep (NJ/PA) voted aginst it but two Dem voted for it Bipartisan bill goes to Senate now. Why the big deal even if it passes and Bobo vetos it? Its for the courts/lawsuits. If Congress has said the ATF shouldnt have the authority, and its Congress is who passes the laws for the ATF to enforce, there has to be some logic to say the ATF shouldnt have the force of law for this rule.
 
Combat Diver said:
H44 passed (218/210) Two Rep (NJ/PA) voted aginst it but two Dem voted for it Bipartisan bill goes to Senate now. Why the big deal even if it passes and Bobo vetos it? Its for the courts/lawsuits. If Congress has said the ATF shouldnt have the authority, and its Congress is who passes the laws for the ATF to enforce, there has to be some logic to say the ATF shouldnt have the force of law for this rule.
Click to expand...
The law is only for us little people.
 
blewis3 said:
Just got back the approved form 1 on the first lower I submitted. I submitted it on 5/7 got it back today. What stock do you think I should get to replace the brace? It is being used on a 9mm upper.
Click to expand...
I submitted all of mine. I think it will get thrown out but you never know, and I was going to SBR at least one of the anyway, and I can always switch it back later. So when it comes in, I will want to see what others are doing with theirs.
 
blewis3 said:
Just got back the approved form 1 on the first lower I submitted. I submitted it on 5/7 got it back today. What stock do you think I should get to replace the brace? It is being used on a 9mm upper.
Click to expand...
Wood stock.
Being you did not even say what set up it was or gun....
 
  • Love
Reactions: Me.
Yo @BigWaylon .... my google-fu sucks at the moment. Do 'freebie' Form 1 still need engraving? I thought I read somewhere they do not.
 
Tim said:
Yo @BigWaylon .... my google-fu sucks at the moment. Do 'freebie' Form 1 still need engraving? I thought I read somewhere they do not.
Click to expand...
In theory they don’t. I still don’t know if that’s right, as I don’t trust the way it’s worded.

I probably wouldn’t engrave.
 
Hell no they don't need it.
Been covered many times. There was a Q&A section on the ATF site that also covered it.
 
Mr.Gadget said:
Hell no they don't need it.
Been covered many times. There was a Q&A section on the ATF site that also covered it.
Click to expand...
trusting the ATF on how this was all supposed to go is not necessarily a wise course to take. They went back and forth a couple times on a lot of stuff.
 
Obviously they need not be engraved, but if you choose to engrave it must be done in morse code, lettering for the blind, or an ancient dead language.

It’s like you guys didn’t even read the “rule.”
 
I didn't engrave my freebie but I dont really care all that much anyway and I never carry paperwork. Its not required. I understand their reasoning why they say engraving isn't required and it gets back to their overall legal strategy with these things. Theyve ALWAYS been SBR's. Engraving it now wouldn't change that.
 
Last edited:
I'll decide if i want to engrave my freebies if they ever get approved. Kind of even odds on if they'll come before or after the paid ones i submitted in early feb
 
phideux said:
If you registered any of these pistols, can you now sell them if you want to?? If you do sell them, do the new owners have to pay the $200.00? Do you have to tell the ATF?
I did it the easy way, I just took the brace off mine.
Click to expand...
Sure you can sell them in a form 4 individual to individual. Hardly ever makes sense to do that unless it’s a factory SBR or it used to be rifle . $200 if you do. Most just sell as a pistol no paperwork needed
 
wired said:
Sure you can sell them in a form 4 individual to individual. Hardly ever makes sense to do that unless it’s a factory SBR or it used to be rifle . $200 if you do. Most just sell as a pistol no paperwork needed
Click to expand...
So even if you registered it, and it is now an SBR, you can just pull the stock off it and it's a pistol again? What if the ATF wants to see it?? Do they then get you for selling an SBR without their permission and tax??
 
phideux said:
So even if you registered it, and it is now an SBR, you can just pull the stock off it and it's a pistol again? What if the ATF wants to see it?? Do they then get you for selling an SBR without their permission and tax??
Click to expand...
Yes. So what if the atf wants to see it. That doesn’t happen btw. Once you take the stock off it’s a pistol if it started out as a pistol. You’re just selling it as a pistol at that point. They like you to notify them if you do sell it as such but that’s not really a law .
 
wired said:
if it started out as a pistol. You’re just selling it as a pistol at that point.
Click to expand...
I think the ATF stance is they were always a Rifle, SBR to be exact.
So taking a gun that was sold with a brace and they say is a SBR from the point it was created at the factory.....

Could you legally just remove the brace (stock, we all know they were a stock) and make it into a pistol?

Yep ATF said that was one optional way. Do you trust them?
They said it was OK to prevent needing to register it as a rifle,
But where did they say you can register as an SBR then return it to a pistol?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom