ATF Explains Imported Braced Pistols
BY Herschel Smith
1 year, 11 months ago
Via reddit/Firearms, the ATF has updated their guidelines on imported pistols with braces here.
The ATF is watching comments, remarks, complaints and questions on their upcoming rule making. This is the result. They probably saw that it was unworkable. That’s why the final rule hasn’t been published yet.
Nonetheless, I don’t trust them. They have changed their opinion so many times that nothing they say can be relied on tomorrow. And this answer doesn’t seem to comport with the proposed rule.
I’d also have to review the proposed rule again, along with (and in light of) this answer. I don’t have time to do that, and I have neither braced pistols nor imported braced pistols (a subset of braced pistols subject to 922r).
If you do, it behooves you to step carefully.
On January 27, 2023 at 2:34 am, Miles said:
“I have neither braced pistols nor imported braced pistols”
I do. Both kinds. Well before I added a brace to the imported one, I had already changed out the parts I didn’t like, to parts – that happened to be made in the U.S. – that I did like.
It’s up to the goobermint to prove I didn’t, not me to prove I did.
On January 27, 2023 at 8:15 am, Bill Buppert said:
Again, Occam’s Razor, the root case or reason for all of this is the fiction that modern humans fire their pistols one-handed exclusively; an idiotic conclusion that bears no resemblance to reality in usage planet-wide.
On January 27, 2023 at 8:25 am, Wes said:
A very good friend reminds me of something I’d pondered awhile back. I think folks are going to learn more about the previous West Virginia v. EPA decision and the benefits accruing thereto.
On January 27, 2023 at 9:25 am, Don't mind me said:
“That’s why the final rule hasn’t been published yet.”
It never will be and that’s the point. They’ll change their story so many times that a definitve law will never materialize, but in the meantime everyone will run around like headless chickens worrying whether they’re in compliance or not.
Until we simply stop complying and say “NO”, this stupidity will continue and become more ridiculous by the day.
On January 27, 2023 at 11:01 am, Paul B said:
Never bought one. Do not need one, but that being said I do not see what the big deal is about them.
On January 27, 2023 at 4:55 pm, Orwell's Ghost said:
The “big deal” Paul B is that there are 10-40 MILLION braced pistols that have been sold in the US. The ATF is saying “you need to register your braced pistol as an SBRs or your felon, even though we said it was good for 10+ years, we changed our mind and your all felons unless you self report”. It should matter to you because the ATF is criminalizing something that they themselves said was A-Okay. At what point do you say “no more”? When it actually effects you? When? It is not okay to let an administrative agency start to make their own law?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
—Martin Niemöller
Seriously, if you have the attitude that “it’s not effecting me, so why should I care?”, just you wait because one day, you just might care and no one will be left to defend you.
On January 27, 2023 at 6:37 pm, Steve R said:
BATF Ruling on pistol braces
PG.246/247
Since ATF says replacing import with US made parts can’t cure a 922r issue because “assembly” had already occurred on these import pistols, and by inference, registering them as SBR’s as is, is no issue, why wouldn’t applying that methodology to ban era rifles, where assembly had “already occurred” on all those evil rifles before they were ever restored by individuals to pre or post ban configurations during or after the 10 year AWB period?
Logic implies that if changing parts to US made cannot “cure” an 922r compliance issues, they cannot cause one either.
If assembly “already occurred” on those pistols, then the same applies on 922r rehab rifles, and those rifles should be no less compliant restored to a pre ban or post ban configuration than an imported pistol with a brace (however and whenever it was put on the pistol) and registered as a short barreled rifle using the same logic.
The same logic also implies you would not even have to ensure the less than 10 imported parts requirement was met.
Given the language, only one of two things can be true:
1. 922r rehab rifles (rifles restored to original configuration from the imported configuration) are illegal. OR…
2. They are legal regardless of foreign content once imported and transferred, and then reconfigured to their original design (I.E pistol grip vs thumb-hole stock) by the end user, and everyone that spent all that money wasted a lot of it trying to ensure a compliant parts count only the manufacturers/importers were required to meet, and the they entire cottage industry of “compliance parts” was a load of BS. And that modifying a rifle to an otherwise legal, non NFA configuration is not “Manufacturing” or “Assembling”, and never was a violation of 922r.
Note that neither 18 USC 922r, NOR 27 CFR 178.39 Uses nothing but the word “assemble” and does not use the common catch all “A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade” from the NFA.
Thus it would appear that ATF has defined the word “assemble” as occurring only when the firearm is originally made, and does not include fitting of parts, new or used, that do not result in the making of an NFA weapon.
So if you remove the brace you must destroy it to be legal, but if you replace your 10″ upper with a 16″ upper and KEEP the 10″ upper, you are just fine right? There is no logic like BATFE logic.
IF you have a friction fit, non adjustable brace, or a KAK blade that uses a set screw, if you replace your plain buffer tube with a carbine buffer tube designed for adjustable stocks, it would be impossible to “reinstall” the brace. I’m sure BATFE would accept that right?
Take your pick everyone. BATF is going to rule against you no matter what you do.
On January 28, 2023 at 12:42 am, Steve R said:
Hardly a day has gone by since the rule was announced that we don’t learn something new.
The gist of this lawyer’s opinion is that IF you choose to register the firearm as an NFA weapon, once you submit the paperwork keep your mouth shut. Have no communications with the feds. NONE. Or you could be handing them info outside the scope of the statutes that prevent the from prosecuting you when you submit the form 1, allowing them to build a case or start an investigation against you.
All of these firearms attorneys really need to have a summit and not only get on the same page, but share the info instead of constantly scooping each other. We have enough problems as it is.
https://youtu.be/YlKido0S1-k
On January 28, 2023 at 9:29 am, Nosmo said:
“So if you remove the brace you must destroy it to be legal, but if you replace your 10″ upper with a 16″ upper and KEEP the 10″ upper, you are just fine right?”
Natzofast.
BATFE has this thing they call “constructive possession;” IF you are in possession of a “prohibited part” (most often this is where “auto sears” are mentioned, but it applies to anything that BATFE doesn’t like, or decides it doesn’t like tomorrow, or three weeks from next Thursday), and that newly prohibited part is stored in a locked safe your late great-grandfather bequeathed to you 25 years ago, and to which you do not have the combination, in a nuclear-safe underground vault, guarded by Navy Seals, 3,000 miles away on the other side of the country and accessible only by descending 500 feet by rope, and access is allowed only on August 12th of even-numbered years between 1:00 and 1:10 PM, you are a felon because “you possess a prohibited part that could be installed without documented BATFE approval” and there’s a credit card receipt, or a statement from the town drunk, to prove it.
Any guesses as to how they’ll treat you when they discover you bought that 10″ upper, or, for that matter, even just a <16" barrel, from Fast Eddies Gun Emporium 18 years ago? Or that "suddenly illegal" brace you removed and stored in your attic waiting for the inevitable SCOTUS review of this particular cluster?
On January 28, 2023 at 1:48 pm, Latigo Morgan said:
If you own a firearm, the ATF is interested in you. It may not be today. It may not be tomorrow, but it will come a day they take an active interest in what you own, even if it is a single shot shotgun.