Current and Upcoming Legislation. Local, State and Federal.
Forum rules
Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.
Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:15 pm
https://blog.princelaw.com/2020/12/16/a ... races/amp/The ATF is instituting rulemaking to redefine at least some, probably most or all, braced pistols as SBRs.
They are offering free stamps to owners of the newly defined SBRs.
They seem to be violating the required rulemaking requirement of 90 days by allowing only two weeks for public comment, likely two weeks over the Christmas holidays.
Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:30 pm
Are they also going to pay for the legally required form 1 engraving on these braced sbr’s?
Nothing about this sounds free or even close to fair. Even with the free stamp they’re placing an undue hardship on millions of people.
#defundtheATF
Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:50 pm
Just the beginning ...
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:21 pm
I'll have to read through this some more,
But my initial thought is that I'd be happy to get a few more SBRs without paying the tax stamp
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:25 pm
A few people have said it won’t be free sbrs for all it will be a new classification of “braced pistol” akin to AOWs. They brainstorm about how they messed up the bump stock ban and came up with this instead.
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:30 pm
wilmermj wrote:A few people have said it won’t be free sbrs for all it will be a new classification of “braced pistol” akin to AOWs. They brainstorm about how they messed up the bump stock ban and came up with this instead.
Adding an extra category to the NFA would require congressional intervention. The ATF has been squirrely in the past, but It'll be a lot harder to skate around this one. It's possible, but more difficult. A more likely scenario will be to just call them SBR's.
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:42 pm
RocketScott wrote:I'll have to read through this some more,
But my initial thought is that I'd be happy to get a few more SBRs without paying the tax stamp
That’s an interesting way to look at it. Once it’s an SBR that’s it. Take the stupid brace off and put on a real stock. Huh. Good call. I hope that’s what happens if they actually follow through with this.
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:48 pm
Sinus211 wrote:RocketScott wrote:I'll have to read through this some more,
But my initial thought is that I'd be happy to get a few more SBRs without paying the tax stamp
That’s an interesting way to look at it. Once it’s an SBR that’s it. Take the stupid brace off and put on a real stock. Huh. Good call. I hope that’s what happens if they actually follow through with this.
It may be contrary to my last comment, but I'm not sure it will end with calling them SBR's. It may very well end with calling them AOW's. It might be easier to shoehorn in an amended definition of an AOW, specifically they could alter the definition to be more restrictive with regards to concealability, as that's always been defined purely by ATF's judgment. Trying to redefine a brace as a purpose-built shoulderable device might meet with more resistance.
Either path becomes easier if the ATF decides that the classification you apply for could be
either an SBR
or an AOW to get the free stamp.
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:51 pm
Sinus211 wrote:Are they also going to pay for the legally required form 1 engraving on these braced sbr’s?
Nothing about this sounds free or even close to fair. Even with the free stamp they’re placing an undue hardship on millions of people.
#defundtheATF
The Government giving Gun owner's something for free? Yeah, or it's a way to get us to Federally register millions of Semi Auto Sporting Rifles....
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:58 pm
Pvanderzee wrote:Sinus211 wrote:RocketScott wrote:I'll have to read through this some more,
But my initial thought is that I'd be happy to get a few more SBRs without paying the tax stamp
That’s an interesting way to look at it. Once it’s an SBR that’s it. Take the stupid brace off and put on a real stock. Huh. Good call. I hope that’s what happens if they actually follow through with this.
It may be contrary to my last comment, but I'm not sure it will end with calling them SBR's. It may very well end with calling them AOW's. It might be easier to shoehorn in an amended definition of an AOW, specifically they could alter the definition to be more restrictive with regards to concealability, as that's always been defined purely by ATF's judgment. Trying to redefine a brace as a purpose-built shoulderable device might meet with more resistance.
Either path becomes easier if the ATF decides that the classification you apply for could be
either an SBR
or an AOW to get the free stamp.
What do you think an alteration regarding concealability to the AOW definition might look like?
And if they do decide to hand out free SBR stamps I’ve got a lot of engraving to get done. If they thought they were buried in paperwork now, well, good luck to them.
Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:08 pm
Sinus211 wrote:Pvanderzee wrote:Sinus211 wrote:RocketScott wrote:I'll have to read through this some more,
But my initial thought is that I'd be happy to get a few more SBRs without paying the tax stamp
That’s an interesting way to look at it. Once it’s an SBR that’s it. Take the stupid brace off and put on a real stock. Huh. Good call. I hope that’s what happens if they actually follow through with this.
It may be contrary to my last comment, but I'm not sure it will end with calling them SBR's. It may very well end with calling them AOW's. It might be easier to shoehorn in an amended definition of an AOW, specifically they could alter the definition to be more restrictive with regards to concealability, as that's always been defined purely by ATF's judgment. Trying to redefine a brace as a purpose-built shoulderable device might meet with more resistance.
Either path becomes easier if the ATF decides that the classification you apply for could be
either an SBR
or an AOW to get the free stamp.
What do you think an alteration regarding concealability to the AOW definition might look like?
And if they do decide to hand out free SBR stamps I’ve got a lot of engraving to get done. If they thought they were buried in paperwork now, well, good luck to them.
Probably size and weight specifics, which could blend into the definition of either category. Anything under or over a certain size or weight becomes concealable or legally not reasonably designed to be fire with a single hand. It probably would be easier to shoehorn it into an AOW category, thinking more about it. The "fired from the shoulder" or "made from a rifle" part of the SBR definition might be hard to fudge.
I don't plan on registering anything. I've never seen a barrel get checked for pinning or welding, and nobody's asked to see a stamp for my cans. I don't carry one, anyway. It's a tax document. Show me a subpoena or GTFO.
If anything, I am now more motivated to finish my growing stack of unserialized P80 frames. Never hurts to have a stack of clean ones.
For legal reasons, that last part's a joke.
Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:16 pm
RocketScott wrote:I'll have to read through this some more,
But my initial thought is that I'd be happy to get a few more SBRs without paying the tax stamp
Both of mine are already S/N "registered" with the State of Washington, so other than transferability I'm not seeing much downside.
It does suck for those down the line of course. I see lots of "WTB: Pistol Brace" ads popping up by opportunistic types. And of course all the brace makers will be history.
Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:47 pm
This hinders those who carry pdw’s in their vehicles quite a bit if they’re classified as sbr’s.
Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:57 pm
Mr. Q wrote:This hinders those who carry pdw’s in their vehicles quite a bit if they’re classified as sbr’s.
It doesn’t though. Someone will be along shortly to expand on my ignorance but I believe some part of the recent infringement on our rights mistakenly classified SBR’s as legal to conceal and therefore carry in our vehicles.
Little help over here legal gurus?
Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:17 pm
Sinus211 wrote:Mr. Q wrote:This hinders those who carry pdw’s in their vehicles quite a bit if they’re classified as sbr’s.
It doesn’t though. Someone will be along shortly to expand on my ignorance but I believe some part of the recent infringement on our rights mistakenly classified SBR’s as legal to conceal and therefore carry in our vehicles.
Little help over here legal gurus?
Depends what WA does to their definitions.
A WA CPL allowed the CPL-holder to carry a loaded pistol in their vehicle. For the purposes of WA state law, a pistol is defined in R.C.W. 9.41.010. If that definition does not change, it is conceivable that the firearm in question would be an SBR or AOW according to newly interpreted Federal law, but still a pistol according to WA law.
I think that is walking on thin ice, though.
*edit* Are you talking about RCW 77.15.460? That's the law that restricts the carrying of loaded
rifles and
shotguns, specifically, in vehicles. I guess it could be argued that a "short-barreled rifle" and a "rifle" are two distinct legal categories. They are certainly defined separately in 9.41.010.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.