Who will ask to see the Form 1 or Form 4?

[HoustonHipster6.5]

-Happy2Shoot

Ha Ha! No tattoos for me, but thanks!

[Ryno785]

Lots of passion on that one. There are two main basis for those who advise against:
1) It's a trap. Personally, I don't think it is, as the ATF has done this before without issue. I think motivation is they simply weren't enforcing NFA as written, and they are doing this to get back to doing so.
2) Solidarity. Sort of a Scabs at the Strike take, on doing anything the ATF wants. Which I kind of get, but not everybody is at a place in life where this is the hill they will die upon, nor in a setting so understanding. To OP's question, if you are going to public ranges - then yes, it's not unusual at all for some busybody to feel important and harrass or a range officer to over-fixate on percieved range liablities, and ask to see your license. If you refuse, you don't get to shoot.

If you do register, then sure, no reason not to just register as much as you can, since it can go into and out of NFA classification at your discretion. So even if it's registered as an SBR, if you put a 16" upper on it, it no longer is, and you can cross state lines, sell it, etc, just like a regular AR (unlike machine guns). You can even ask it to be officically stricken from NFA list by a letter, at any time as well.

HOWEVER, research and have care before piling your AR rifles in on this. The Amnesty is for Arm Braces applied to "handgun" pistols with BBL<16". And only that. If your lower started life as a RIFLE, rather than as a Pistol or Other, then when ATF runs your application serial number - you will now have a signed legal document basically saying you converted a Rifle into an SBR, which is not protected by this amnesty. They might grant it, they might just deny and forget about, or they might chose to give you grief; I really don't know. My guess is they'lll just deny it with instruction to turn that one back into a >16" rifle, but I don't know - not worth it to save $200 for a pile-on SBR stamp.

Do you really trust that the ATF will remove your gun from their database at your request? The Feds haven't proven to be overly trustworthy and this seems like another power grab. It certainly has nothing to do with preventing violent crime or helping law abiding citizens in any way.

[lazyengineer]

Do you really trust that the ATF will remove your gun from their database at your request? The Feds haven't proven to be overly trustworthy and this seems like another power grab. It certainly has nothing to do with preventing violent crime or helping law abiding citizens in any way.

To the level of it not coming up as an active NFA reciever in the NFA database, sure. To the level of the ATF now knowing I have that particular lower - certainly not. Considering they have my fingerprints on file from my 20's getting ODCMP rifles, CHL, and more - I'm pretty sure my own days of slipping below the radar are far gone.

I also remember reading Unintended Consequences long ago. In that book, when a wide 1968 amnesty was offered, our protagonist hit the machine shop and mass produced everything he could, to get in. I remember the 1986 ban too. Those who weren't already in, got hosed.

I don't know where this is going. Quite possibly it will be tossed - in which case people will be running real stocks they got to do for easy and free.

[grayfox]

Will be interesting to be sure, especially in these days of Bruen and WV vs. EPA. The gist of the latter is that an administrative bureau cannot make a new Reg not specifically authorized by Congress if it is a major action -- Congress must give explicit authority. Definition of "major action" is if it costs over $100 million. And the ATF has acknowledged this will cost over that, probably IIRC over $250 M. So unconstitutional, plus Bruen Heller etc say Biden (make no mistake it is on his watch) cannot forbid or criminalize a weapon in common use... which all of these are.
But none of this deters the leftists: notice that Illinois just passed a bunch of unconstitutional (US constitution) state laws as reaction to SCOTUS' Bruen... they will keep at it until someone, in Schwartzkopf-lingo, "breaks their nose" - and I'm talking about the leftists behind all of this, not just the bureaucrats... altho they need it too.
Finally, it fails because of the legal doctrine you cannot make something illegal that was purchased when it was legal -- Leniety or some such term. This is the same issue that Tumka ran into last week when he floated the idea of banning gas stoves "for health reasons" -- which CPSC also does not have authority to rule on anyway.

[Jake TN]

It will be interesting for sure. This case is not as simple as the EPA case or trump bum stock ban. Technically speaking the ATF did not have the authority to say whether braces would be legal or not. It was based upon their interpretation of the law. Instead of seeking clarification for the legislature, they approved the first brace, however, none of the preceding braces. Since they have taken so long to take action they are going to find themselves in a pickle. A crafty attorney would argue that they did not have the authority to approve the first brace and therefore everything is technically not legal (would open up lawsuits). On the flip side the Supreme Court could use that so many are in population that it is now common. This is a difficult case and will be interesting to see how it plays out. I am glad the Supreme Court is finally putting the different branches of government in their correct places. Personally I do not agree that SBRs or suppressor's should be NFA items, but that was passed by our legislative branch. Not sure much much weight Ex Post Facto . They are not charging purchase after the fact, but possession of an item.

This is likely more of a political decision to appeal to some of the more woke base and try to get the current classified material out of the news cycle. Personally, I think it will be overturned. Good time to go the courts to set the precedence for all other cases.

[lazyengineer]

Will be interesting to be sure, especially in these days of Bruen and WV vs. EPA. The gist of the latter is that an administrative bureau cannot make a new Reg not specifically authorized by Congress if it is a major action -- Congress must give explicit authority. Definition of "major action" is if it costs over $100 million. And the ATF has acknowledged this will cost over that, probably IIRC over $250 M. So unconstitutional, plus Bruen Heller etc say Biden (make no mistake it is on his watch) cannot forbid or criminalize a weapon in common use... which all of these are.
But none of this deters the leftists: notice that Illinois just passed a bunch of unconstitutional (US constitution) state laws as reaction to SCOTUS' Bruen... they will keep at it until someone, in Schwartzkopf-lingo, "breaks their nose" - and I'm talking about the leftists behind all of this, not just the bureaucrats... altho they need it too.
Finally, it fails because of the legal doctrine you cannot make something illegal that was purchased when it was legal -- Leniety or some such term. This is the same issue that Tumka ran into last week when he floated the idea of banning gas stoves "for health reasons" -- which CPSC also does not have authority to rule on anyway.

People keep quoting that. That doesn't really apply. The ATF is not making legislation. The ATF stopped enforcing codified law, and are now resuming enforcing codified law. That's a big difference to the EPA precedence. It's even codified into the law for them to do Amnesty. As to "allowing braces", not so much as everyone says. If you read those famous "letters" (which aren't worth much, as it's just a guys opinion - at the time), they didn't actually say the whole GAME ON BOYS like everybody selectively interpreted them to say. Basically, ATF did defacto OK the topic, by continuing to look the other way. So maybe a case can be made there. But "your honor, he didn't pull over us speeding last week", generally isn't the worlds best defense.

In the meantime, you have a pile of obvious intent and usage of the armbrace to be a stock. Just calling a DIAS a can-opener, ain't going to work when they pull that Drop In AutoSear out of your AR15, and you say no no, let me open this coke here, and show you!

Look, I look forward to the legal challenges and the ATF is at real risk of having NFA on SBR overturned, based on Thomas' instructions to the courts on how to interpret gun cases. I hope they do!

Banking on that is a dangerous game. You do you, I certainly will continue to support those who chose that path. But I'm not going to expect anyone to do so.

[biodsl]

Living in a time where Roe v. Wade was overturned, anything is possible. I pray for the elimination of the NFA. In the meantime, I'm not dying on a hill for a 12" barrel rather than a 14.5. Others should let reason be their guide.

[LRRPF52]

People keep quoting that. That doesn't really apply. The ATF is not making legislation. The ATF stopped enforcing codified law, and are now resuming enforcing codified law. That's a big difference to the EPA precedence. It's even codified into the law for them to do Amnesty. As to "allowing braces", not so much as everyone says. If you read those famous "letters" (which aren't worth much, as it's just a guys opinion - at the time), they didn't actually say the whole GAME ON BOYS like everybody selectively interpreted them to say. Basically, ATF did defacto OK the topic, by continuing to look the other way. So maybe a case can be made there. But "your honor, he didn't pull over us speeding last week", generally isn't the worlds best defense.

In the meantime, you have a pile of obvious intent and usage of the armbrace to be a stock. Just calling a DIAS a can-opener, ain't going to work when they pull that Drop In AutoSear out of your AR15, and you say no no, let me open this coke here, and show you!

Look, I look forward to the legal challenges and the ATF is at real risk of having NFA on SBR overturned, based on Thomas' instructions to the courts on how to interpret gun cases. I hope they do!

Banking on that is a dangerous game. You do you, I certainly will continue to support those who chose that path. But I'm not going to expect anyone to do so.

[LRRPF52]

Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it; but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to com ply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.MR. McCLINTIC: I would like to ask just one question. I am very much interested in this subject. What in your opinion would be the constitutionality of a provision added to this bill which would require registration, on the part of those who now own the type or class of weapons that are included in this bill?

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: We were afraid of that, sir.

MR. McCLINTIC: Afraid it would conflict with State laws?

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: I am afraid it would be unconstitutional.

[lazyengineer]

Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it; but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to com ply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.MR. McCLINTIC: I would like to ask just one question. I am very much interested in this subject. What in your opinion would be the constitutionality of a provision added to this bill which would require registration, on the part of those who now own the type or class of weapons that are included in this bill?

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: We were afraid of that, sir.

MR. McCLINTIC: Afraid it would conflict with State laws?

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUMMINGS: I am afraid it would be unconstitutional.

This is the way.

The fight on this one isn't Common Use, and it's not Arbitrary and Capricious. The fight on this one, and the part that is profoundly new in our lives, in our fathers lives, and even in our Grandfathers lives, is we have a a brief window of the USSC actually recognizing and instructing the courts to uphold the Constitution, as written, in philosophical consistency of the time it was written - specifically when it comes to the 2nd Amendment (Bruen). That has never happened before. The actuary table for Clarence Thomas isn't great - we have maybe 10 years. And in this particular case, there is no legitimate reason to ban SBR's, since such arms did exist in military usage, even then.

Now is the time to strike. That said, in this moment of the path, people have individual decisions to make, and the outcome is not certain. The cases will come before the courts regardless of what people individual do, and if folks have a discomfort to run a 12" Armbraced Grendel in their theater; well - do what you think is right for you.

[Jake TN]

Here is a question for the masses. Would a majority of gun owners support SBRs and suppressors being removed as NFA items on the condition they could only be purchased or transfer ownership through FFLs. Would have to figure out a way to deal with individually manufactured suppressors, but that could be fairly simple. Enough to move the ball in the right direction and both sides of the aisle are not 100% happy.

[LRRPF52]

Here is a question for the masses. Would a majority of gun owners support SBRs and suppressors being removed as NFA items on the condition they could only be purchased or transfer ownership through FFLs. Would have to figure out a way to deal with individually manufactured suppressors, but that could be fairly simple. Enough to move the ball in the right direction and both sides of the aisle are not 100% happy.

[biodsl]

Here is a question for the masses. Would a majority of gun owners support SBRs and suppressors being removed as NFA items on the condition they could only be purchased or transfer ownership through FFLs. Would have to figure out a way to deal with individually manufactured suppressors, but that could be fairly simple. Enough to move the ball in the right direction and both sides of the aisle are not 100% happy.

Yes. I would own multiple suppressors today if not for the NFA. It's ludicrous that PPE requires a tax and permission to own.

[lazyengineer]

Yes. I would own multiple suppressors today if not for the NFA. It's ludicrous that PPE requires a tax and permission to own.

Which was about to happen, with Congress getting ready to remove from the NFA registry. And then, someone of completely unknown and mysterious philosophical leanings that no one will ever know (after the scrub), machine-gunned down a bunch of conservative country music fans that were predominantly MAGA; and that ended that.

[LRRPF52]

NFA Hearings, May 15, 1934, page 136

(Several hours of discussions about bank robbers, gang murders, kidnappers, hardened gangsters, interstate transport of weapons, and taxation preface this discussion.)

Assistant AG Keenan: Really, what we are after is the crook who has not registered, and we do not believe he is going to register.

Mr. Hill: The law-abiding citizen probably might not register; what are you going to do if he does not register?

Asst AG Keenan: If the law-abiding citizen does not register, and does not get into any kind of difficulty that would cause him to come to the notice of the police, and there are not going to be snooping squads going around from house to house to see who does and who does not possess arms; this is a practical piece of legislation.

Mr. Vinson: You get the benefit under Section 5, paragraph (b), in regard to the presumption.

Mr. Keenan: The presumption is applied to the gangster.

Mr. Vinson: That presumption is there, but that does not touch the question of whether it is a good thing or a bad thing; that does not touch the constitutional power.