• All users have been asked to change their passwords. This is just a precaution. Thanks!
  • If you are having trouble with your password change please click here for help.

UPDATE 10/3 - Injunction covers all FPC members - ATF publishes their pistol brace rule

Another gem below from this doc. This is going to be a real ****-storm for some folks so personally, if this nonsense applies to you, I wouldn't be in a rush to "comply". You have 120 days to see how this shakes out, and I'm guessing the more people that sign-up immediately, it will just allow the fatf to say in court, "look how many people are already complying so this why you shouldn't strike our ruling "not a law" down"... But of course none of the preceding is legal advice.


page 247 - 248

The Department disagrees with the commenter who suggested that there will be financial implications resulting from the removal and replacement of imported parts for owners who imported pistols and added a “stabilizing brace.” The commenter incorrectly interpreted 18 U.S.C. 922(r) as requiring the removal and replacement of imported parts to comply with section 922(r). Section922(r)generally makes it unlawful“for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle,” and 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. The criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 922(r) is for the “assembl[y]” of the semi-automatic rifle; therefore, modification of this kind of firearm through the removal of the relevant parts would not cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembl[y]” has already occurred. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the costs outlined in the standalone RIA, ATF assumes this group may use another scenario, such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy.
 
Y'all just remember the SAME government that will be waving the flag, playing the Lee Greenwood song the next time it needs you to “rally behind ’Merica” after a “National Emergency” is the SAME government that is initiating this BS.
Exactly. Here we are heading into WW3 and pistol braces and gas stoves is what they're worried about. We're F-ed.
 
Another gem below from this doc. This is going to be a real ****-storm for some folks so personally, if this nonsense applies to you, I wouldn't be in a rush to "comply". You have 120 days to see how this shakes out, and I'm guessing the more people that sign-up immediately, it will just allow the fatf to say in court, "look how many people are already complying so this why you shouldn't strike our ruling "not a law" down"... But of course none of the preceding is legal advice.


page 247 - 248

The Department disagrees with the commenter who suggested that there will be financial implications resulting from the removal and replacement of imported parts for owners who imported pistols and added a “stabilizing brace.” The commenter incorrectly interpreted 18 U.S.C. 922(r) as requiring the removal and replacement of imported parts to comply with section 922(r). Section922(r)generally makes it unlawful“for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle,” and 27 CFR 478.39 provides that a person may not assemble a semiautomatic rifle using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in the relevant paragraphs of the regulation. The criminal violation under 18 U.S.C. 922(r) is for the “assembl[y]” of the semi-automatic rifle; therefore, modification of this kind of firearm through the removal of the relevant parts would not cure the 922(r) violation because the “assembl[y]” has already occurred. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the costs outlined in the standalone RIA, ATF assumes this group may use another scenario, such as destroying the firearm or turning it in to ATF, by using the population derived from bump-stock-type devices as a proxy.

But the party is not "removing relevent parts".

They're adding a brace(or stock) - manufacturing a firearm.

Seems completely different.
 
So the ATF isn’t going to collect the $200 fee, but is it really being waived or simply not required when you submit the form? What is the chance that someone submits 5 or 6 and in 121 days gets a bill for $1200 and if you are unwilling or unable to pay, you must surrender the weapon(s).
 
So the ATF isn’t going to collect the $200 fee, but is it really being waived or simply not required when you submit the form? What is the chance that someone submits 5 or 6 and in 121 days gets a bill for $1200 and if you are unwilling or unable to pay, you must surrender the weapon(s).
And people call me Eeyore.
 
I'm sure they'll lose tons of sleep lol...
thats not the point. the point is they are trying to regulate braces, and using them to reclassify a gun. so by keeping the brace, not turning it in, not destroying it, not modifying it so it no longer functions, and still using it.....will in fact annoy the crap out of them...
it has nothing to do with safety
it is just overreach.
 
I’ve left a lot of memes in these threads……but there is always room for one more.

1F830248-6392-4F30-92BF-5A46620F0D8F.jpeg
 
Back
Top Bottom