If you submit a form 1 for an NFA firearm you have already manufactured / are in possession of, you have in fact provided evidence that you have committed a crime. Just because they claim that they won't prosecute you today doesn't mean that they will not contrive some reason to do so sometime in the future. After all, the ATF is a trustworthy organization, right?

Just my observation / opinion. Your mileage may vary.

They can't get you with anything you file on the Form 1. But if you subsequently give the ANYTHING, they can use that.
https://youtu.be/-fwjy0zx_gE

For all I know, these imported braced pistols are 922 compliant and it's impossible for the ATF to prove otherwise. When I called to get a form 4 stamp copy reissued, the lady told me that the wording is changing a bit more because they want to fix what seems like traps....the again ATF logic prevails.

I at least have it notorized that my trust took possession of most of my firearms as I will most likely bring them into my Trust. Can always look at the final wording before eforming.

Here is the real problem.

BATF will RUIN and utterly DESTROY the average person trying to prove the unprovable. The get what they want, a ruined human being, either way. If they get a conviction? Great. If not? Mission accomplished anyway. Unless you have deep pockets, they took EVERYTHING from you.

That being said, I cannot for the life of me understand anyone who wants to invite the BATF into their personal life for a free form 1 application, if they do not already possess NFA items.

I repeat... never volunteer

This is a critical point.

And it's exactly why I'm doing absolutely nothing, just sitting back to see where the chips will fall.

This. I’ll see what’s what in 100 days.

Do we know of any pistols that were imported with a brace already installed?

I'd hazard a guess that all of the braces that come on new guns are made in the US (SB Tactical and Shockwave Technologies are both in FL). I doubt that they are exporting the braces to where the gun is manufactured to have them installed. Also doubt they are making braces for other non-US markets. We seem to be the only place dealing with this AFT asshattery

That's kind of how I feel, but now I'm worried form 1s won't get approved if semi-autos are banned here, and then I'm stuck between both state and feds for non-compliance.

So I kind of want to get my F1s out asap. I already have a half dozen stamps so adding a few more wont change my way of doing things or what I take when I travel.

The final rule starts at the bottom of page 268. The rest is window dressing, back peddling on previous rules and rationale.

Provisions and some examination of the wording with my own references to a couple of Zastava firearms for elucidation of the purported principles and how insufficient the wording for anything other than entrapment follows:

Page 269:
"This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed,
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes 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, ..."

Already we've arrived at the first vague and wholly insufficient definition and guidance. WTF is the threshold for "surface area"? And while addressed in section five below, the term as introduced is vague and remains so in the ensuing sections.

"...provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other
factors are:

(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;"

...similarly designed rifles, hmmmm

How much deviation is allowed to be "consistent" with its peer firearms and how does one divine which firearms are similarly designed? A Zastava ZPAP-M92 weighs a scant 1.3 lbs less than a full sized ZPAP-M70 before you add the brace, tube and adapter...so that probably disqualifies the M92.


"(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;"

Again with the "consistent" qualifier. What is the threshold? An inch? Five? A quarter of an inch?
And the use of the word "including" indicates (to me) that the full extension measurement will be used to determine potential L.O.P. measurement. But what of set-screw fixed braces?

"(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;"

Back to the M92 example and AR15's with A-2 front sight posts, will those need to be shorn off? And how about the rear sight on the M92? I assume RDS's with sufficient eye relief will pass their "discretion"?

"(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"

So here we have conclusive evidence that NO brace will be allowed - ever - since any time anyone attempted to shoulder a brace and photographed or described its use in that fashion, such an act (by others) henceforward excludes the use of any brace, by anyone. This is akin to saying that since an automobile could be used, or has been used in the commission of a crime, NO automobiles can be used.

This and the language that requires braces removed from firearms need to be destroyed or modified to prevent reinstallation negates the claim in the beginning of the document that braces are not being banned. What? So you can use them as door-stops?

And if braces aren't banned, but previously used braces must be altered or destroyed, how is it determined which is used and which is new? Does mere possession equate to constructive intent? Maybe I'm constructively intending to build a Final Rule compliant pistol? Is that a sufficient defense?

A final thought (as if I'll ever stop railing) It is obvious that the Federal government and members of Congress are determined to circumvent the intent of the Second Amendment and have chosen to negate through precedential violation the notion of the preservation and guaranteed protection of the Peoples' right to alter and, or abolish their government by retaining the means of defense against a tyrannical usurpation of the Peoples' authority.

"Congress chose to regulate these items (SBR's) more stringently, finding them to
be especially dangerous to the community if not regulated since they are used for
violence and criminal activity. See Gonzalez, 2011 WL 5288727, at *5 (“Congress
specifically found that ‘short-barreled rifles are primarily weapons of war and have no
appropriate sporting use or use for personal protection.” (quoting S. Rep. No. 90-1501, at
28).

...As if the 2A has no bearing on self or popular defense against a tryannical government. Voluntary compliance only lends legitimacy to the usurpation of popular authority.

This BATF pistol brace rule is going to be the gift that keeps on giving to us in the pro gun movement for years to come. Not even the lawyers can agree on what it means.

Are you actually admitting anything in the form you send them? If you include a photo of an SBR, sure, but can't you take a photo of the lower with the brace but with no upper attached?

Or does the form somewhere have you outright say you have assembled it?

Maybe my pistol brace lower has a 16"upper. How would they know?

Yes you are admitting it, but another law says they can't use it. But they CAN use it to initiate another investigation and use deceptive tactics to get you to admit the violation some other way, because you told them you have it.

And Amnesty registration is only for complete braced pistols. If you build one now they require you to pay the tax.

So if you are going to do the form one, do it and shut up, go totally dark until you have the stamp.

AFT: "This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies...(e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, ..."
jukk0u: Already we've arrived at the first vague and wholly insufficient definition and guidance. WTF is the threshold for "surface area"? And while addressed in section five below, the term as introduced is vague and remains so in the ensuing sections.
Rocket: Can it be shouldered? That's the threshhold. But being able to be shouldered isn't the only criteria...
*
"AFT:...provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other factors are:
(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;"
jukk0u:...similarly designed rifles, hmmmm
How much deviation is allowed to be "consistent" with its peer firearms and how does one divine which firearms are similarly designed? A Zastava ZPAP-M92 weighs a scant 1.3 lbs less than a full sized ZPAP-M70 before you add the brace, tube and adapter...so that probably disqualifies the M92.
Rocket: The weight of the brace would count, even with that it would weigh close to a pound lighter than the rifle, around 13% lighter. That seems significant to me. 7.5 lbs was the magic number from the 4999 worksheet and the ZPAP-M92 would be under that
*
"AFT:(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;"
jukk0u:Again with the "consistent" qualifier. What is the threshold? An inch? Five? A quarter of an inch? And the use of the word "including" indicates (to me) that the full extension measurement will be used to determine potential L.O.P. measurement. But what of set-screw fixed braces?
Rocket: LOP is measured with the stock or the brace fully extended. If there's a set screw it's measured where the brace is fixed. Anybody's guess how much difference is enough. An SBA 3 brace is only an inch shorter than a regular carbine stock (with both fully extended). That seemed to be enough for the AFT to approve it. A gear head works tailhook on a scorpion is nearly identical in LOP to a stocked scorpion (I don't have a stock to compare, just looking at pictures)
*
"AFT:(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;"
jukk0u:Back to the M92 example and AR15's with A-2 front sight posts, will those need to be shorn off? And how about the rear sight on the M92? I assume RDS's with sufficient eye relief will pass their "discretion"?
Rocket: FSP wouldn't need to be shaved. AR sights work on a pistol. Scorpion pistols came with the same sights as the carbines. They work for both. Using a magnifier or scope with 3" of eye relief would cross the line
*
"AFT:(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"
jukk0u:So here we have conclusive evidence that NO brace will be allowed - ever - since any time anyone attempted to shoulder a brace and photographed or described its use in that fashion, such an act (by others) henceforward excludes the use of any brace, by anyone. This is akin to saying that since an automobile could be used, or has been used in the commission of a crime, NO automobiles can be used.
Rocket: Pretty much this. How well that would hold up in court I don't know
*
jukk0u:This and the language that requires braces removed from firearms need to be destroyed or modified to prevent reinstallation negates the claim in the beginning of the document that braces are not being banned. What? So you can use them as door-stops? And if braces aren't banned, but previously used braces must be altered or destroyed, how is it determined which is used and which is new? Does mere possession equate to constructive intent? Maybe I'm constructively intending to build a Final Rule compliant pistol? Is that a sufficient defense?
Rocket: They don't have to be destroyed or modified, you can sell them or find a legitimate use for them
*
jukk0u:A final thought (as if I'll ever stop railing) It is obvious that the Federal government and members of Congress are determined to circumvent the intent of the Second Amendment and have chosen to negate through precedential violation the notion of the preservation and guaranteed protection of the Peoples' right to alter and, or abolish their government by retaining the means of defense against a tyrannical usurpation of the Peoples' authority.

"Congress chose to regulate these items (SBR's) more stringently, finding them to be especially dangerous to the community if not regulated since they are used for violence and criminal activity. See Gonzalez, 2011 WL 5288727, at *5 (“Congress specifically found that ‘short-barreled rifles are primarily weapons of war and have no appropriate sporting use or use for personal protection.” (quoting S. Rep. No. 90-1501, at 28).

jukk0u:...As if the 2A has no bearing on self or popular defense against a tryannical government. Voluntary compliance only lends legitimacy to the usurpation of popular authority.

Rocket: Truth, altough I disagree about the compliance part. If any of this does end up as entrapment, as so many have claimed, then it will just be more proof that the AFT needs to be disbanded

The rule hasn't been published yet, so you could build one now if you wanted

This is what you are admitting to:



Submitting photos, other than passport photos of yourself and/or RPs on your trust, are not required