Ding ding ding we have a winner!

I didn’t volunteer in basic or AIT but when I got to my permanent duty station I would volunteer to go down range with the grunts.
I was a mechanic in a mechanized unit and I got to shoot automatic weapons as much as I ever wanted.

If this scheise is not challenged in court and is not halted or void, I simply get rid of braces and install smooth tubes on both my AR pistols to keep them pistols.

This is the guy (one of the guys) who pointed out that if for some reason your Form 1 drags out past 88 days you are wide open for prosecution.

In this vid, with a GOA lawyer, he makes the case that "immunities" granted in the language of the bill offer protection against prosecution for possessing an unregistered SBR for the time previous to the rule and up until the time you submit your application. But the language offers no protections for the period of time past submission of the form.

Another thing to note is the AFT is promising they won't come charging after you during the 'grace' period, but that there is no guarantee that State or local, i.e. the chief, LEO, prosecution won't occur and you've just submitted evidence of your "crime".

This guy breaks down the issues and dispelled a lot of my concerns about these issues. He is a lawyer (for whatever that's worth) and has a popular podcast (again, for what its worth) that discusses gun/industry news. The AFT still sucks and are evil incarnate, but maybe, just maybe these particular concerns aren't valid.

TLDR:
The 922(r) issue has no legal ramifications (there are no penalties for a violation) and the "must destroy" was taken out of context.
The 88 day thing is only in play if your background check is delayed due to possible adverse info and there is Supreme Court case law prohibiting LE from prosecuting with info from an NFA application (you don't submit CLEO notice until you get your form approved)

https://youtu.be/iGdjQ4Iylzo

The whole Q&A change on it being illegal for anyone but the responsible person on the tax stamp to touch or even be left in the same room as the item, assembled or not, is worrying. They're making lots of rule changes that are putting people in an impossible situation all around. A government alphabet agency shouldn't be in charge of limiting our constitutional rights. Wheres the ministry of truth for the 1st ammendment? Oh, right, that's big tech... in any case, its worrying all around.

Also, so we're supposed to go through a 4473 for assigning property to our trusts now too?

Bout ready to just unplug, ignore it all, and hope I don't cross paths with the law any more than I have so far in life.

And have a tall cold one.

No one rules if no one obeys.

His shit is really getting tiresome, and that the GOA is going along with it is concerning. I would have expected better from them

The 88 day rule has been pretty well explained now. 88 days only applies to the background check portion of the process, not the entire Form 1 process. He's completely wrong about that

The 922r issue is not as clear cut, but the one thing to keep in mind is that the violation occurs with assembly, not possesion. So an importer who put braces on pistols without regard to 922r compliance would be in violation, not the owner of said pistol after it's transfered. My WAG about what the AFT said in the FAQ is that they were thinking about importers and distributers that are sitting on inventory. It's not for certain, but I seriously doubt they are going to show up at your door and ask to count parts. They may just flat deny an application for something that they know is in violation of 922r though. I guess time will tell. Don't be the first to go would be my advice

As far as state or local prosecussion occuring: The only thing that has changed is the ATF rule (or will change when the rule is published). Federal law didn't change, state law didn't change, local law didn't change. Yet somehow all the Barney Fifes are going to go after illegal SBRs? My guess would be no. According to the RCW my braced scorpion was a pistol before the rule change, after the rule change it's still going to be a pistol. As far as local/state cops are concerned, the AFT rule change does nothing for them

Not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, just some guy on the internet, objects in mirror are larger than they appear, this advice is known to cause cancer in California, see a physician if your erection lasts longer than 4 hours...

Looks like they updated the FAQ to address the 922r issue...

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/faqfinalrule2021r-08f-updated12523pdf/download

Which in their vague definition does not clearly state whether a Zastava MPAP, or Krink etc., with no brace, satisfies their criteria for remaining a pistol.

Because the sights, because the weight...?

The clue is in the title:

FACTORING CRITERIA FOR FIREARMS WITH ATTACHED “STABILIZING BRACES”