But ATF is basically saying that our AR pistols never were pistols. They were actually unregistered SBR's. So doesn't that mean that they can never be converted back to pistols? (Sorry if this has already been covered, but I don't have time right now to go back and read the previous 12 pages.)

In his video, William Kirk says that a person cannot create an NFA trust and then register an SBR under it because it would be too late. I'm really confused about that. Doesn't it only take a short time to create an NFA trust?

Some, not all, fall under that category.

Keep in mind the 'intent' game. If it was intended to shoulder, then it's an SBR, even if it has a pistol brace on it and complies with their definitions/findings of a braced pistol.

I think an example would be a Scorpion evo pistol with 'factory' brace. You bought it in that configuration, but the BATFE now says that's an SBR. You purchased it as an SBR, so... who the hell knows, at this point.

Just like the pistol -> Rifle -> Pistol BS.. Let's say you complete a lower, put a buttstock on it, then put a 16" bbl upper on it.. It's forever a rifle... But put a pistol buffer tube on there, and a bbl shorter than 16" BEFORE you put on a stock and a 16" upper and *magic* it's a pistol...... and you can now either keep that short upper on there OR swap in a 16" bbl upper, or go back and forth, provided it's never in an illegal configuration eg short bbl upper with stock lower..


All this means, realistically, for those wanting unregistered SBRs, is they have an AR pistol and an AR rifle, whose uppers can swap in seconds..... at least until BATFE changes their minds again and says that's constructive possession....

The end run around this, if your braced pistol doesn't comply with the new mandates (Again, keep in mind, not all braced pistols are banned), is to either throw a rifle upper on your former pistol lower, and build a new pistol lower, or remove the brace....

As much as people are saying the sky is falling, it's actually fairly simple. If you built a pistol with the intent to shoulder it, it's not a pistol. BATFE will use a myriad of ways to infer intent, in an attempt to designate it as an SBR. If it was BUILT with intent to shoulder, it's a rifle and always will be a rifle, unless it was a pistol first. The shitty part is the fact that a lot of braced pistols, like MP5 clones, Evo pistols, AK pistols, are pretty much not able to be efficiently braced, as they say that any non-functioning extension would be one of the things they look for to determine if it's an SBR. MP5 clones and EVO pistols should be OK with a brace, provided it's not too similar to a stock.... But AK pistols are pretty much toast..

Clear as mud?

Good.

Correct. My question is referring to those pistols that came with arm braces. 99% of those will be deemed unregistered SBR's by ATF at the time of purchase.

I think another interesting aspect is what happens to 5.56 uppers with 22LR conversion kits.

They could argue that the buffer tube 'isn't necessary for function' when equipped with a 22LR conversion kit.

Same with anyone that builds a dedicated 22LR upper but uses a standard lower with pistol buffer tube and spring/buffer.

It depends on if they were built FIRST, then the brace added later. They'd be pistols converted to SBRs, which were then purchased as SBRs.... without proper transfer.

I guess, technically, they could seize them, and arrest the purchaser/seller, but I don't think they're that interested in committing suicide... You'd pretty much guarantee a whole shit ton of no longer alive federal agents if all the sudden 1000s of people were getting their doors knocked on demanding the surrender of the weapon they purchased then arresting them.

There's confussion about that because the eForms site states that firearms needed to be in the trust before 1/13, the date the final rule was submited to the federal register

In reality they need to be in the trust before the final rule is published in the federal register, that's what the final rule states

That hasn't happened yet so there is still time to put them in a trust. Probably not much time though. I imagine the final rule will be published this week or next

Might be deemed unregistered SBRs

Depends on how it was marketed by the manufacturer

...or if there's a youtube video of someone shouldering it
...or if some yahoo on a gun forum posts that the brace makes a great stock
...or if it came with a scope with short eye relief
...or by some other made up metric

A lot of grey area that they can color in how they want

I bought a scorpion with a brace because that's what was available. I wanted a pistol and sold the brace that came on it shortly after buying the gun. I would think that would show that I intended to use the scorpion like a pistol. How well that counters a youtube video of someblody else shouldering a similar scorpion and brace is anybody's guess

It seems like whatever YOU decide (what is right or wrong), the ATF will only listen to themselves and their own made up definitions.
Kinda like Klinton saying, "I never had sex with that woman".

One more thing.
For those that have never been in the military, there is a very old saying:
Luckily my dad taught me that before I went in.

Yep, learned that in the Navy real quick:

Never
Again
Volunteer
Yourself

The video Kirk put up recently regarding trusts kind of confused me in this regard. I thought being the settler and such, the assignment of property was what you needed to give them to the trust, but what he implied was that you'd have to do a 4473 to transfer the gun to the trust officially. Just like how all sales are done in WA now. So anything post 594 on a 4473, would need to go through one again to be assigned?

But would the ATF be even cross checking state sales records to see if that happened? It's essentially your notorized form vs their opinion at that point I feel.

I’m a bit baffled by Kirk’s take on trusts too

You don’t do a transfer to put a gun in your will, which is a legal vehicle similar to a trust

The transfer doesn’t occur till the grantor passes away (generally, trusts can specify any number of different scenarios). With a will it goes through probate. Trusts do not

Not a lawyer. He is. Not sure what else to say

Hopefully he does a follow up video after all the inter web attorneys chime in

The terminology is giving me a headache because legally it is the reciever that is the firearm not what you put on it. In my case all mine are others. The ATF wants a picture of the finished product but the finished product is not legally the firearm just the reciever is.