#@rocketscott:

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

I disagree that it is so clearly determined.

Under "Options" for compliance on page 270 it "clearly" states:

"Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be
reattached..."

Not the firearm... the brace.

As for the weight of the M92 example, while the weight of the brace is almost insignificant, adding a tube and adapter contributes to the weight and length, so be careful.

That only applies to braces that are on SBRs. If the brace is on a pistol it wouldn't apply. If it were installed on a rifle with a barrel over 16" it also wouldn't apply



Which brace? Put up a specific example

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts...

You're the one who said:

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..."

So which brace? Candy or nutz?

I was working from your arbitrary brace weight approxim-a-guess.

An SB-47 weighs 21.75 oz. That would bring the M92 about a half a pound heavier than an M70.

In contrast, a Shockwave Blade brace weighs only 5 ounces. Adding it would bring the M92 up to 6.9lbs. That's 1 lb lighter than an M70, but you have to add a buffer tube and adapter to the M92 to use it.

3.5 - 5 oz for the tube and one oz? for the lightest adapter (non-folding)?

From 6.9 pounds, the M92 is up to +- 7.3 pounds? Alright. We're a little over 8% lighter... is that "consistent with a similar rifle?" (also saying "similar rifle indicates they already consider the firearm to be a rifle?)

Looking for the weight of the SB-47 I found this quote:

"Blaming the brace for being misused as a SBR stock is like blaming a gun for shooting someone. It’s not the object’s fault."*

And while misusing the brace may not be the brace's fault, someone else's misuse of a brace is now everyone's fault.

*https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gear-review-sb-tactical-sb-47-stabilizing-brace/

This is 18 pages of what if's.
Not even one paragraph or sentence of "laws".
Everyone is complaining or trying to second guess the AFT.
They are going to do what they do since they answer to no one.

Go watch football or play with your kids and drink a beer. Relax.

If WA’s “assault weapons” ban passes before the ATF approves a stamp, expect the ATF to deny the stamp. I know, adding a stock to a state-grandfathered AW does not make it “more assaulty” or a higher tier, but the ATF would likely not care. Waiting 100 days to apply for a stamp may be too late to ever get a stamp for any semi auto gun.

My "arbitrary brace weight approxim-a-guess" was because you didn't list a specific configuration. Spec I saw for an M92 is 6.6 lbs

An SOB47 is 14.2 oz. Those combined would be 7.4875lbs, under the arbitrary 7.5 lbs. AKTF would be lighter

Don't use an SB-47 if it puts the weight over 7.5 lbs would be my recommendation

Wasn't an attack and I wasn't saying you were wrong, just that a person should be careful to add up the weight of the brace and hardware.

Yeah, I'm not waiting 100 days either. I've seen NFA groups posting less than 30 day F1 stamps, so maybe I'll get on it today.

"Guessing" is exactly what they want you to do. You can't even find two lawyers that agree what it all means in it's entirety. This is just one of many reaons it's unlikely to hold up in court.

Wait and see is the way to go. Those that are rushing to do the form one aren't helping. Those rushing to change barrels, pin/weld extensions etc right away....why?

For some of the others would remind you:

BATFE HAS ALREADY ACCUSED YOU OF A CRIME.

Handing them information they could use later to initiate an investigation of you might not be smart. All those who want to register in my mind, should do it via the normal form 1 process, and pay the 200 bucks. At least then, you would not be admitting a crime or have acknowledged their premise. $200 might be cheap insurance in the future. They would have nothing except knowledge of your SBR. Which is bad enough.

Would they deny the stamp if an AWB comes into play? Well, it is written in state law that SBR's are legal here, and I haven't seen the bill text to know if they deleted that. Would that invalidate existing stamps too? You see, this is not something to dwell on, it's just an amusing talking point to me.

Decent people who are afraid of the ATF? I totally get it. This is how they rule over us. History proves them not only un-useful, but bloodthirsty, murderous and criminal in their conduct. This registration "amnesty" is just a mass scale criminal conspiracy to violate the NFA, so what BATFE is actually doing in telling you you are now a felon, is leading that criminal conspiracy.

But consider not living your life this way when it comes to this, or any gun control from any source. And that the time may well have come quietly and anonymously assert your rights as we all know and understand what they really are.

EXACTLY!

This right here.

That was likely before ATF got flooded with requests for free stamps. I bet they have a big backlog now.

I don't like how this likely plays out..

There is nothing remotely appetizing in that picture

SACRILEGE!!! Tabasco is a heavenly fluid. And the meat (maybe)...depending on what it actually is...