AR Pistol Brace = SBR with new ATF rules :(

[lar45]

Looks like as of Friday January 13th the new ATF ruling goes into effect on Pistol Braces.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces

Any rearward attachment not needed for the function of the pistol with any surface area that could be used to shoulder the weapon now turns it into a short barreled rifle, SBR.
They are supposed to give us 120 days to register, modify, turn in or destroy...
I bought a 16" barrel about a year ago for mine, just in case, Looks like I'll be installing it soon. I just hope the 16" barrel shoots as good as the 10".

[makeurownfun]

Just waiting for that inevitable Justice Thomas peepee smack... I just hope it doesn't take 2+ years

[Larry Gibson]

Not all pistols with a brace fall under the new SBR regulations. There is a worksheet (form 4999) that is used to determine if the firearm is an SBR. Pay particular attention to the fine print at the bottom of section I.

ATF is supposedly not charging the $200 tax if the firearm is submitted for SBR status in the next 120 days.

[JimB..]

The rule is effective when published in the Federal Register, most expect that tomorrow.

I’m in no rush to do anything, lets see how it plays for a couple months.

[lar45]

Hi Larry, I heard that form 4999 is not being used at all with the new ruling. I have not read the entire thing yet though.

[jdgabbard]

Not all pistols with a brace fall under the new SBR regulations. There is a worksheet (form 4999) that is used to determine if the firearm is an SBR. Pay particular attention to the fine print at the bottom of section I.

ATF is supposedly not charging the $200 tax if the firearm is submitted for SBR status in the next 120 days.

Larry, you need to read the new 290 page rule. The 4999 is now out. Its completely gray with no black and white except for they're basically telling you anything they THINK could be used to shoulder a weapon is now considered a redesign.

[45_Colt]

I need some help here, haven't SBRs (short barreled rifles) been an NFA item since '34? I don't understand how a brace that is used to shoulder the firearm with a barrel less then 16" can be anything but (a SBR).

Just because it is called a 'brace', not a 'stock', is supposed to make it legal?

I've seen all the conflict this ruling has caused, maybe the AFT waited too long on the ruling?

But if someone had tried to sell me one of these 'braces', I would have just laughed and said no-way....

45_Colt

[jdgabbard]

I need some help here, haven't SBRs (short barreled rifles) been an NFA item since '34? I don't understand how a brace that is used to shoulder the firearm with a barrel less then 16" can be anything but (a SBR).

Just because it is called a 'brace', not a 'stock', is supposed to make it legal?

I've seen all the conflict this ruling has caused, maybe the AFT waited too long on the ruling?

But if someone had tried to sell me one of these 'braces', I would have just laughed and said no-way....

45_Colt

Well, they were originally designed for handicapped shooters to be able to better support AR style pistols. The ATF reviewed them, and determined they were not SBRs. Then a few people got wise to it and started shouldering them. Then they started asking the ATF if shouldering them constituted a redesign. The ATF said no, but later said it did, but then flipped again when it was pointed out to them that the way you use an item does not constitute a redesign under US law. So...then to settle the issue they basically started crafting a way to just make them all illegal. However, that kind of backfired on them when it was discovered that they had waited until between 10-40 million braced firearms were in circulation. So now, they're trying to clean it up in the most politically correct way possible.

Funny story, this isn't the first time this has happened. The GCA created a provision for the SBR, shortening the required barrel length from 18 to 16 inches. And really, the SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs are all carry overs from when the NFA was intending to ban all Pistols. They yanked that part out last minute, but didn't think to pull the rest of them which were included to prevent work arounds for the pistol ban from becoming legal. The reality is that neither SBRs or SBSs should be in the NFA to begin with if you consider what the purpose of having them in there to begin with was. Moreover, both should have been removed as of 1942 when the M1 Carbine entered service, it was considered an SBR by definition of the NFA. Since, as US v Miller states, it was then in common usage within the military. According to the Miller Decision they should have been removed once the M1 Carbine was adopted. However, that never happened....

[DougGuy]

Where exactly is the measuring point for a pistol with a lead dust accumulator on it? Breech face with the bcg in battery to the end of the accumulator?

What would be the cutoff point making one SBR as opposed to non-SBR? 17.5" would not be considered SBR correct?

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, you need to read the new 290 page rule. The 4999 is now out. Its completely gray with no black and white except for they're basically telling you anything they THINK could be used to shoulder a weapon is now considered a redesign.

Sorry, but I have read it. Suggest you do so also. Got table of contents and find Section B. There you will find in the regulation how Form 4999 is to be used;

"B. Application of Proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 Similar to the Factoring Criteria for Weapons, ATF Form 4590 (“Form 4590”), which is used for the importation of pistols and revolvers, the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 contained a point system assigning a weighted value to various characteristics of the fully assembled firearm, as configured when submitted for classification. Under the proposed worksheet, a firearm accumulating fewer than 4 points in Section II (Accessory Characteristics), and fewer than 4 points in Section III (Configuration of Weapon), would have been generally determined not to be designed to be fired from the shoulder, unless there was evidence that the manufacturer or maker expressly intended to design the weapon to be fired from the shoulder. A firearm accumulating 4 points or more in Section II or Section III would have indicated that not only is the “brace” device more suitable as a shoulder stock but also that the firearm’s overall configuration with the “brace” attached was designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. See 86 FR at 30828–30.


The proposed Worksheet 4999 assigned point values for the objective design characteristics or features that are common to rifles, features associated with shoulder stocks, and features limiting the ability to use the “stabilizing brace” as an actual “brace.” These point values ranged from 0 to 4 points based upon the degree of the indicator, explained as follows: • 1 point: Minor Indicator (the weapon could be fired from the shoulder) • 2 points: Moderate Indicator (the weapon may be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder) • 3 points: Strong Indicator (the weapon is likely designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder) • 4 points: Decisive Indicator (the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder) The point values associated with particular features or designs were based upon their relative importance in classifying the firearm under Federal law. Therefore, more points were assigned to design features that more strongly indicated the manufacturer or maker’s intent was to produce a shoulder-fired weapon. The various factors on the Worksheet 4999 fell into two categories—Accessory Characteristics and Configuration of the Weapon. The NPRM explained the criteria that would be considered and why they were important in making classifications of firearms with attached “stabilizing braces.” Id. at 30831–34. As stated above, if the total point value of the firearm submitted was equal to or greater than 4—in either Section II (Accessory Characteristics) or III (Configuration of a Weapon)—then the firearm, with the attached “stabilizing brace,” would be determined to be “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” or a “rifle” under the GCA and NFA. And, if the attached barrel was also less than 16 inches, the firearm would be classified as a “short-barreled rifle” under the GCA and come under the NFA definition of “firearm.” Section IV of the NPRM provided examples of how the factoring criteria in Worksheet 4999 would be implemented with respect to three weapons with common “stabilizing braces” attached. Id. at 30834–43. Under these examples, the NPRM showed that, in applying the factors of the worksheet: (1) an AR-Type Firearm with SBMini Accessory would be classified as a pistol with an attached “stabilizing brace” because it garnered three points in each of Section II and III; (2) an AR-Type Firearm with SBA3 Accessory would be classified as a “short-barreled rifle” subject to the NFA because it garnered eight points in Section II and five points in Section III; and (3) an AR-Type Firearm with Shockwave Blade Accessory as configured would also be classified as a short-barreled rifle subject to the NFA because it garnered five points in Section II and 14 points in Section III.

That is what is in the regulation. Can you provide ATFs statement that the Form 4999 will not be used?

[lar45]

Where exactly is the measuring point for a pistol with a lead dust accumulator on it? Breech face with the bcg in battery to the end of the accumulator?

What would be the cutoff point making one SBR as opposed to non-SBR? 17.5" would not be considered SBR correct?

16" is legal, but your lead dust accumulator will have to be permanantly affixed.

I'm only on page 26 out of 293...

[jdgabbard]

Sorry, but I have read it. Suggest you do so also. Got table of contents and find Section B. There you will find in the regulation how Form 4999 is to be used;

"B. Application of Proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 Similar to the Factoring Criteria for Weapons, ATF Form 4590 (“Form 4590”), which is used for the importation of pistols and revolvers, the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 contained a point system assigning a weighted value to various characteristics of the fully assembled firearm, as configured when submitted for classification. Under the proposed worksheet, a firearm accumulating fewer than 4 points in Section II (Accessory Characteristics), and fewer than 4 points in Section III (Configuration of Weapon), would have been generally determined not to be designed to be fired from the shoulder, unless there was evidence that the manufacturer or maker expressly intended to design the weapon to be fired from the shoulder. A firearm accumulating 4 points or more in Section II or Section III would have indicated that not only is the “brace” device more suitable as a shoulder stock but also that the firearm’s overall configuration with the “brace” attached was designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. See 86 FR at 30828–30.


The proposed Worksheet 4999 assigned point values for the objective design characteristics or features that are common to rifles, features associated with shoulder stocks, and features limiting the ability to use the “stabilizing brace” as an actual “brace.” These point values ranged from 0 to 4 points based upon the degree of the indicator, explained as follows: • 1 point: Minor Indicator (the weapon could be fired from the shoulder) • 2 points: Moderate Indicator (the weapon may be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder) • 3 points: Strong Indicator (the weapon is likely designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder) • 4 points: Decisive Indicator (the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder) The point values associated with particular features or designs were based upon their relative importance in classifying the firearm under Federal law. Therefore, more points were assigned to design features that more strongly indicated the manufacturer or maker’s intent was to produce a shoulder-fired weapon. The various factors on the Worksheet 4999 fell into two categories—Accessory Characteristics and Configuration of the Weapon. The NPRM explained the criteria that would be considered and why they were important in making classifications of firearms with attached “stabilizing braces.” Id. at 30831–34. As stated above, if the total point value of the firearm submitted was equal to or greater than 4—in either Section II (Accessory Characteristics) or III (Configuration of a Weapon)—then the firearm, with the attached “stabilizing brace,” would be determined to be “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” or a “rifle” under the GCA and NFA. And, if the attached barrel was also less than 16 inches, the firearm would be classified as a “short-barreled rifle” under the GCA and come under the NFA definition of “firearm.” Section IV of the NPRM provided examples of how the factoring criteria in Worksheet 4999 would be implemented with respect to three weapons with common “stabilizing braces” attached. Id. at 30834–43. Under these examples, the NPRM showed that, in applying the factors of the worksheet: (1) an AR-Type Firearm with SBMini Accessory would be classified as a pistol with an attached “stabilizing brace” because it garnered three points in each of Section II and III; (2) an AR-Type Firearm with SBA3 Accessory would be classified as a “short-barreled rifle” subject to the NFA because it garnered eight points in Section II and five points in Section III; and (3) an AR-Type Firearm with Shockwave Blade Accessory as configured would also be classified as a short-barreled rifle subject to the NFA because it garnered five points in Section II and 14 points in Section III.

That is what is in the regulation. Can you provide ATFs statement that the Form 4999 will not be used?

Larry, that old rule you're looking at is just that: THE OLD RULE. The brand new one, just released on Friday, doesn't use the 4999 as stated very clearly on pages 8-9. So I would suggest you go read the new one, which states:

"The proposed amendment clarified that a firearm equipped with a “stabilizing brace” device falls under the definition of “rifle” if the weapon “has objective design features and characteristics that facilitate shoulder fire,” as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999, Factoring Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with Accessories commonly referred to as “Stabilizing Braces” (“Worksheet 4999”). Id. at 30851. The Department published for public comment the criteria ATF considers when evaluating the objective design features of firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” to determine whether the weapon is a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the GCA and a “rifle” or “firearm,” (i.e., a short-barreled rifle) under the NFA. The NPRM also included the proposed Worksheet 4999, which assigned points to various criteria and provided examples of how the Worksheet 4999 would be used to evaluate firearms equipped with certain models of “stabilizing braces.”

After careful consideration of the comments received regarding the complexity in understanding the proposed Worksheet 4999 and the methodology used in the Worksheet to evaluate firearms equipped with a “brace” device, this final rule does not adopt some aspects of the approach proposed in the NPRM, specifically the Worksheet 4999 and its point system. Instead, based on the comments received, the Department took the relevant criteria discussed in the NPRM and Worksheet 4999 that indicate when a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and incorporated them into the rule’s revised definitions of rifle."

In case you'd like the link to the brand new rule, it can be found here. (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/undefined/factoringcriteriaforfirearmswithattachedstabilizin gbracespdf/download)

[jdgabbard]

Oh, and this gem from page 171-172:

"The Department disagrees that it has not considered the interests of AR-15 enthusiasts by including accessories in the analysis of whether a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. The NPRM and proposed Worksheet 4999 would not have prevented AR-15 enthusiasts from altering their firearms, and individuals may continue to install accessories on a firearm under this final rule. However, if the firearm falls within the purview of the NFA (i.e., designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder with a barrel less than 16 inches) then the firearm must be registered in the NFRTR. The Department agrees that an unintended consequence of the proposed worksheet and the point system was that the addition or removal of a single peripheral accessory could redesign the firearm to be fired from the shoulder or remove the firearm from the purview of the NFA. Therefore, the Department does not adopt the proposed Worksheet 4999 and, as discussed, several of the peripheral accessories listed in the worksheet are not considered objective design features in the final rule."

So, they made it a little more clear towards the end of the rule...

[charlie b]

I am glad I listened to 'my little voice' and did not purchase one. I just knew this thing would change.

The bad part is they didn't make this decision years ago when braces were first proposed. They are shoulder stocks on pistols, no matter how anyone wants to fudge the wording.

FWIW, I think pistol grip shotguns will be next on the block.

[Beaverhunter2]

I expect this to go the same way as the bump stock ban. Let the lawsuits play out. Fortunately we have a Supreme Court that believes the Constitution means what it says. I don't have a braced pistol and don't want one but I don't like our government restricting firearm ownership by law abiding citizens- period. "Shall not be infringed" seems clear to me.

[lar45]

I'm only on page 63. UGH is this dry reading.

[Larry Gibson]

I have been reading the ATF reg signed Friday. That is what it says alright. It is the criteria of the old form 4999 that applies to the new definition of "rifle" that is used in the new reg. If you read the reg, it does not state that "ALL" stock braces are now subject to NFA taxation. There are numerous references to "weight criteria", "criteria for heavy pistols", etc. There are still exceptions under the new reg. The part I highlighted in red says it is the criteria off the Form 4999 that is used.

Further is listed in the Friday signed regulation is the new definition of "rifle" and includes the criteria and where it is adopted from [the Form 4999 to be exact as high lighted in red];

Definition of “Rifle” The rule provides an amendment to the definition of “rifle” in §§ 478.11 and 479.11. In issuing this final rule, the Department has revised the proposed regulatory text in the NPRM to account for the comments received. The rule does not adopt the Worksheet 4999 as proposed in the NPRM. The rule does, however, adopt from the NPRM and proposed Worksheet 4999 several of the objective design features that indicate a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and incorporates those features into the definition of “rifle.” The final regulatory text for the definition of “rifle” reflects the best interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.

All previous ATF classifications involving “stabilizing brace” attachments for firearms are superseded as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. As such, they are no longer valid or authoritative, and cannot be relied upon. However, firearms with such attachments may be submitted to ATF for re classification. This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other factors are:

(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;

(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method) that is consistent with similarly designed rifles;

(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed;

(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations;

(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and (vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community.

Thus, we see the devil is in the details. The devilish answers not specifically addressed in criteria (i) through (V) come from the Form 4999 as so stated in the red highlighted part. Thus, the answers to all the proffered questions so far can be answered by referring to the pertinent section of Form 4999 because that's what ATF and the Justice Department will do as per this regulation. Note on Form 4999 that weight and length are the first section and if the firearm does not meet both then the 2nd section is not relevant. The only change to that I see in this reg is in (iii).

Thus, I will have to rethink the sights on my Contender [it does not meet the weight requirement] with an arm brace. Not sure if the Burris Fast Fire is acceptable as it can be used on both pistol and rifle. May just go with a pistol scope.

[jdgabbard]

Larry, but you're missing the part where it says it will not adopt the 4999 (which was criticized due to it's relative arbitrary and confusing nature), and "Instead, based on the comments received, the Department took the relevant criteria discussed in the NPRM and Worksheet 4999 that indicate when a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and incorporated them into the rule’s revised definitions of rifle." In otherword, rather than using the 4999 it instead determines what is and is not a rifle by definition. Which is what you asked with this:


That is what is in the regulation. Can you provide ATFs statement that the Form 4999 will not be used?

I've done that very clearly, where I pointed out in the very text of the new rule the ATF states:

"After careful consideration of the comments received regarding the complexity in understanding the proposed Worksheet 4999 and the methodology used in the Worksheet to evaluate firearms equipped with a “brace” device, this final rule does not adopt some aspects of the approach proposed in the NPRM, specifically the Worksheet 4999 and its point system. Instead, based on the comments received, the Department took the relevant criteria discussed in the NPRM and Worksheet 4999 that indicate when a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and incorporated them into the rule’s revised definitions of rifle."

And,

"Therefore, the Department does not adopt the proposed Worksheet 4999 and, as discussed, several of the peripheral accessories listed in the worksheet are not considered objective design features in the final rule."

In your own quote you just posted you conveniently skipped over the sentence immediately before the one you highlighted in red, which reads "The rule does not adopt the Worksheet 4999 as proposed in the NPRM.", to point to the text that states (key phrase of sentence in bold) "The rule does, however, adopt from the NPRM and proposed Worksheet 4999 several of the objective design features that indicate a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and incorporates those features into the definition of “rifle.” Which state exactly what I posted in my original response to you: that they are instead incorporated definitions which will allow the ATF to arbitrarily define what is an SBR based on whether it provides any rear surface useful in shouldering the rifle. The point system is gone. They simply get to decide what is and what is not. No more 4999, period. And while I agree that this actually says very clearly that not all pistols with braces will be considered SBRs, the fact that by effect every brace will have likely be defined as having a rear surface useful for shouldering the firearm (I can't think of a single brace which defeats this definition, but feel free to point out one that does) means that from a technical standpoint ALL BRACED PISTOLS will likely be arbitrarily considered SBRs. That is why I pointed out in my first post this: Its completely gray with no black and white except for they're basically telling you anything they THINK could be used to shoulder a weapon is now considered a redesign. Along, with pointing out the 4999 is no longer used, in reference to when you wrote "There is a worksheet (form 4999) that is used to determine if the firearm is an SBR." I was simply pointing out that the 4999 is no longer relevant.

The point I'm trying to get across, and there are literally hundreds of posts and videos from Attorneys throughout the internet discussing this, is that:

1) The 4999 is no longer used, being instead replaced by a definition of what is and what is not a rifle.

2) The definition is so gray as to allow effectively any accessory they say provides rearward surface to actually redesign the rifle to be shouldered.

I'm just making sure the relevant information is out there. It doesn't matter to me so much, as I do not currently have any braced pistols. And as such, am not currently impacted by this rule. I saw the writing on the wall some time ago and applied for Form 1s for my firearms which would be affected. Though, I do outright agree that the ATF is overstepping here. And really needs to have the chair kicked out from under them.

[lar45]

page 111
Nevertheless, after careful reviewand consideration of the comments, the
objective design features of rifles, and the administrative record, the Department does not
adopt the proposed Worksheet 4999 and point system in this rule.

[jdfoxinc]

So does having a buffer tube, make an AR upper with a barrel shorter than 16 inches attached to an AR lower, an SBR?

[jdgabbard]

So does having a buffer tube, make an AR upper with a barrel shorter than 16 inches attached to an AR lower, an SBR?

Thats the million dollar question. I may have missed it, but I couldn't find anything suggesting one way or the other but for the length of pull topic. I _THINK_ straight buffer tubes are still a go. But who knows with this hot mess....

[KenH]

Reading a bit on the ATF website I see "This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. "

I've not been able to find a definitive answer as to which stabilizing braces are considered legal. It seems the result is there is no way to tell, just allow atf agent to inspect and see how they rule. Of course, that ruling might change from day to day, and agent to agent.

[lar45]

Okay, I finally finished all 293 pages.

No, having a bugger tube does not make it a SBR.
If the buffer tube has anything that looks like a stock, or has added material not neccesary to the function of the firearm, then it can become a SBR.
Also if you have any part that extends the buffer tube rearward, then it becomes a SBR.
If you have the folding stock accesory, so you can fold the buffer tube out of the way for compact storage, then that makes it a SBR. That part was specifically discussed and mentioned several times. I totally dissagree with this part, but it is now part of the rule.

[lar45]

page 269:

This final rule’s amended definition of “rifle” clarifies that the term “designed,
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a
weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment
(e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired
from the shoulder, provided that other factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the
weapon is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other
factors are:
(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or
length of similarly designed rifles;
269



(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the
trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory,
component or attachment (including an adjustable or telescoping
attachment with the ability to lock into various positions along a buffer
tube, receiver extension, or other attachment method) that is consistent
with similarly designed rifles;
(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that
require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as
designed;
(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the
shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for
the cycle of operations;
(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional
materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general
community.

[lar45]

page 270

B. Options for Affected Persons
Persons in possession of short-barreled rifles equipped with a “stabilizing brace”
device have until [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER] to come into compliance with the NFA’s requirements.
The options are as follows:
Current Unlicensed Possessors
270











1. Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm, thus
removing it from the scope of the NFA.
2. Submit through the eForms system an Application to Make and Register a Firearm, ATF
Form 1 (“E-Form 1”) by [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 174 The possessor may adopt the
markings on the firearm for purposes of the E-Form 1 if the firearm is marked in
accordance with 27 CFR 478.92 and 479.102. If the firearm does not have the markings
under 27 CFR 478.92 and 479.102, then the individual must mark the firearm as required.
Proof of submission of the E-Form 1 should be maintained by all possessors.
To transfer an affected firearm to another individual after the date this rule is
published, it must be registered in the NFRTR, and the individual must submit and
receive approval on an Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm,
ATF Form 4; otherwise, the transfer is a violation of the NFA. See 26 U.S.C. 5861(e).
3. Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be
reattached, thereby removing the weapon from regulation as a “firearm” under the NFA.
The Department recognizes that the removal of a “stabilizing brace” from a firearm that
was originally received as a “short-barreled rifle” results in the production of a “weapon
made from a rifle,” as defined by the NFA. However, the Department in its enforcement
discretion will allow persons to reconfigure the firearm to a pistol by [INSERT DATE
120 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and
will not require the registration of these firearms as a “weapon made from a rifle.”
174 ATF strongly advises that affectedparties use the eFormssystem to lessen the administrative burden in
registering firearms affected by this rule.
271









4. Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.
5. Destroy the firearm. ATF will publish information regarding proper destruction on its
website, www.atf.gov.

[Larry Gibson]

page 111
Nevertheless, after careful reviewand consideration of the comments, the
objective design features of rifles, and the administrative record, the Department does not
adopt the proposed Worksheet 4999 and point system in this rule.

It is the criteria on Form 4999 that is/will be used as per the definition if "rifle " as previously posted not thr worksheet itself or the point system.

[lar45]

Reading a bit on the ATF website I see "This rule does not affect “stabilizing braces” that are objectively designed and intended as a “stabilizing brace” for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle. Such stabilizing braces are designed to conform to the arm and not as a buttstock. "

I've not been able to find a definitive answer as to which stabilizing braces are considered legal. It seems the result is there is no way to tell, just allow atf agent to inspect and see how they rule. Of course, that ruling might change from day to day, and agent to agent.

You are absolutely right, it is a very grey area. They give a list of common rifle lengths, weights, and length of pull.
If you wanted to use a stabilizing brace, I would get the shortest fixed length one you could find and then not put a rifle scope on it.

[lar45]

They declined to post an exhaustive list,
The braces are not banned .
Anything that extends the length of the tube will be considered a buttstock. So putting a buttstock on a pistol makes it a SBR.

[jdfoxinc]

(iv) whether the surface area that allows thte weapon to be fired from the
shoulder is created by buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for
the cycle of operations;

Buffer tube is specifically mentioned.

[lar45]

I watched a YouTube video of forgotten weapons that explains the whole sbr sbs very clearly . Essentially in 1934, congress wanted to ban Handguns in the NFA, in order to limit people from cutting down rifles and shotguns to pistol size, they added in sbr and sbs clauses to the NFA. Appearantly there was considerable pushback on banning Handguns, so they took that part out. Now we're left with the barrel length limits.

[lar45]

https://youtu.be/lsE0naVApPU

[44Blam]

One would think that there may be many new lower receivers that do not have an upper associated with them...

[jdgabbard]

One would think that there may be many new lower receivers that do not have an upper associated with them...

The uppers are not illegal, though I suppose they could get you through constructive intent. Personally, if people start flooding the market with uppers people like me with actual SBRs will reap the benefit. I have a few other configurations I'd like to add to my approved Form 1s.

[makeurownfun]

(iv) whether the surface area that allows thte weapon to be fired from the
shoulder is created by buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other
accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for
the cycle of operations;

Buffer tube is specifically mentioned.

This is what I want to know. So, are they stating that if you remove the "brace", foam pad, or anything on the tube itself, Are they still claiming that you could shoulder the buffer tube? Then claim that it is infact an SBR?

[Larry Gibson]

They declined to post an exhaustive list,
The braces are not banned .
Anything that extends the length of the tube will be considered a buttstock. So putting a buttstock on a pistol makes it a SBR.

Basically, but there are other pistols that do not have a "tube", hence the criteria. Weight & length being the most critical.

[charlie b]

If you own a 'pistol' and a 'rifle' then you should be set for 'normal' use.

If the SHTF then just put the pistol upper on the rifle lower. In those kinds of circumstances anything the feds say will be a moot point.

But, if the 'need' is to go and show off your SBR to the crowd at the local range, then just get the SBR paperwork.

Or am I missing something here (other than normal fed overstepping their bounds since the '30's)?

[Larry Gibson]

Yes, charlie, I think you are missing the fact if they get away with such "bans/taxation' w/o representation simply by executive decree then they will begin to "decree" other firearms as "bad" and do the same to them. You might think not but it's already happening in different states. Take a hard look at how gun control has progressed in England and the British commonwealth and you will see that is exactly what occurred.

[charlie b]

Larry, I understand that part. However, the basic set of rules was set back in the 30's. The emergence of things like bump stocks and pistol braces are just a way to circumvent that old law.

While I don't agree with any of those laws, the use of 'loopholes' to circumvent laws or procedures is bound to be dealt with eventually. Yes, I include the left's work on 'assault' weapon bans in the same category.

FWIW, I think it was clear in the 2nd Amendment that it did refer to military grade weapons, ie, militia level equipment. So, anything that prevents me from owning a mini-gun or M1 Abrams should be unconstitutional.

[elmacgyver0]

It seems a lot of people even here, do not understand the old story about the frog in the pot of water with the heat being gradually increased.

[barnetmill]

Not all pistols with a brace fall under the new SBR regulations. There is a worksheet (form 4999) that is used to determine if the firearm is an SBR. Pay particular attention to the fine print at the bottom of section I.

ATF is supposedly not charging the $200 tax if the firearm is submitted for SBR status in the next 120 days.

Not any more and that is the super big problem. There is no written metric as to what passes. They will discuss the importance of what was in form 4999, but there are no inch measurements. IIRC you are suppose to get your braced pistol approved by ATF. This vagueness is the weakest part of the new ATF law(err final rule). For the ARs you are allowed to remove the brace and specifically the buffer tube is ok since it is needed for the cycling of the gun as stated in their simple 292 or 293 pages final rule explanation. There might be some other standards coming to give some precise metrics for length of pull, length of buffer tube, permissible surface area of brace to shoulder contact, wt of gun, optics eye relief, etc.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry, I understand that part. However, the basic set of rules was set back in the 30's. The emergence of things like bump stocks and pistol braces are just a way to circumvent that old law.

While I don't agree with any of those laws, the use of 'loopholes' to circumvent laws or procedures is bound to be dealt with eventually. Yes, I include the left's work on 'assault' weapon bans in the same category.

FWIW, I think it was clear in the 2nd Amendment that it did refer to military grade weapons, ie, militia level equipment. So, anything that prevents me from owning a mini-gun or M1 Abrams should be unconstitutional.

Perhaps you are not aware that numerous civilians do, in fact, own mini-guns and tanks.

All it takes is money as they are expensive and, of course, approval from the BATFE and payment of the transfer tax. Apparently, they couldn't even actually ban those back in '34 but they could tax them. No ban because of....you guessed it, the 2nd Amendment.

:drinks:

[Loudenboomer]

Banning guns that fall threw the loop holes is just the start. We make their job a whole lot easier if we just say "O well I don't have one of those anyway."

[P Flados]

A while back, I purchased a 16" 300 BO barrel to replace the 8.5" one I was using with a braced AR. I figured the cost of 16" barrels would skyrocket with what ever ruling came out.

Now I have the choices of tossing the brace, using the brace for a 16" gun or submitting for the "free" SBR stamp. The stamp is a tempting option at this point.

[Finster101]

A while back, I purchased a 16" 300 BO barrel to replace the 8.5" one I was using with a braced AR. I figured the cost of 16" barrels would skyrocket with what ever ruling came out.

Now I have the choices of tossing the brace, using the brace for a 16" gun or submitting for the "free" SBR stamp. The stamp is a tempting option at this point.

That is the way I am leaning as well. Might just get the stamp and put a stock on it. I can't hit squat with it as a pistol anyway. I still feel like I should not be forced to do it though. For me it is just something I was already contemplating.

[barnetmill]

I will wait 60 days to verify everything first that will give me 2 more months prior to the dead line of 120 days.
To be safe I would make sure the braces are removed and gone; this also includes the kak type pistol buffer tubes that were longer than the permitted 6.5 inch pistol buffer tubes mentioned below. I have found strike industry pistol buffer tubes that are just over 5 inches and there is likely no way that ATF should consider those long enough to be used by themselves as a buttstock. But there is an ATF maybe here that is troubling. (See bottom paragraph for exact ATF quotation)
The big question is whether this set up will be shootable with a tensioning sling and using a check rest to fire the gun. If not it will all have to wait until sometime in the future when these rules are reversed.


The Strike Industries Pistol Buffer Tube introduces added functionality to an often overlooked part of an AR pistol PDW. At an overall length of just over 5 inches, the pistol buffer tube reduces the pistol’s overall length. The pistol buffer tube comes complete with our proven tungsten filled buffer and flat-wire buffer spring to aid in reliable cycling over a long service life. The receiver extension features an anti-rotation tab that locks into place over the buffer retaining plunger.

From the recent ATF final rule document
(5) Final Rule: Necessary for the cycle of operations of the firearm.
The rule provides that ATF may also consider whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations (i.e., to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive). This consideration is drawn from the NPRM and the proposed Worksheet 4999, which assessed two points for “Extended AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube,” “Inclusion of FoldingAdapter extendinglength of pull,” and “Use of ‘Spacers’ to extend length of pull.” Id. at 30831. These extensions provide additional material to the firearm that is not required for the cycle of operations and, therefore, can be an indicator the firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. In contrast, material on a firearm that extends the rear surface area of the firearm toward the shooter but is required for the cycle of operations, such as an AR¬type pistol with a standard 6 to 6-1/2 inch buffer tube, maybe an indicator that the firearm is not be designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Even if a weapon is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment (e.g.,a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area that allows shouldering of the weapon, under the rule, whether the accessory, component, or other rearward attachment is necessary for the cycle of operations needs to be considered in determining whether a firearm is designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.

[elmacgyver0]

That is the way I am leaning as well. Might just get the stamp and put a stock on it. I can't hit squat with it as a pistol anyway. I still feel like I should not be forced to do it though. For me it is just something I was already contemplating.

I'm afraid that dog won't hunt.
If you get the free stamp, you had better keep the brace on it, once you swap it to a stock you are entering uncharted space.
Why do you think they are requiring a photo?
Do you really think these people are stupid? Devious, power crazed, underhanded, yes, stupid no.
But, what the hell, go for it, we need a test case.

[barnetmill]

I'm afraid that dog won't hunt.
If you get the free stamp, you had better keep the brace on it, once you swap it to a stock you are entering uncharted space.
Why do you think they are requiring a photo?
Do you really think these people are stupid? Devious, power crazed, underhanded, yes, stupid no.
But, what the hell, go for it, we need a test case.

A rifle stock replacing the brace on an SBR should be fine. I assume they want a picture to confirm it has a brace or rifle stock on it that needs that written down in their records as an SBR. What if the brace is still legally a handgun according to their rules. What if someone for a joke is registering a toy gun for a big ha ha. Asking for a picture seems like common sense to me.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

I am just going to wait for the NRA to file the lawsuit and watch it go to the Supreme Court to overturn it.

Those of you who want to clip their nuts permanently, just send your Reps a request to cut the ATF's budget in half. We own the House come January.

[nagantguy]

I am just going to wait for the NRA to file the lawsuit and watch it go to the Supreme Court to overturn it.

Those of you who want to clip their nuts permanently, just send your Reps a request to cut the ATF's budget in half. We own the House come January.

Waiting for the nra to anything about anything since the nfa is hilarious. I wish we had sarcasm font . Cause you’d win the internet for today.
And all these fudds talking about “loopholes” and “dodging” . Have fun with your trap guns and old milsurp s - until they come and burn your house down and shoot your dog. Cause why would anyone need to make their own boolits and or possibly want to own a weapon of war like a k98 or a Springfield?
But still laughing about the nra comment - might raise enough funds to buy Wayne some suits or hunt another elephant.

[44Blam]

I figured out what I'm gonna do. I've got a 300 BO upper that's a little guy 10" barrel. I'll take that guy down to parts. Then sell the brace on ebay... Also, I just bought a 20" 410 upper for an AR15. I have a little reloading kit for 410 and a svarog slug mold for 410... Now I've repurposed my lower as a racoon slayer.

[barnetmill]

I figured out what I'm gonna do. I've got a 300 BO upper that's a little guy 10" barrel. I'll take that guy down to parts. Then sell the brace on ebay... Also, I just bought a 20" 410 upper for an AR15. I have a little reloading kit for 410 and a svarog slug mold for 410... Now I've repurposed my lower as a racoon slayer.

Be interesting to read how the .410 barrel goes. It is only 2.5 inch shells is my understanding. Will you need a new carrier special gas tube?
I doubt that there is too much of a market for braces at the moment. I looked at the possibility and decided .410 was not a good idea for me on an AR.
Good luck with it. I rather have one in 9mm, 40-10mm, or 45 acp.

[jdgabbard]

I'm afraid that dog won't hunt.
If you get the free stamp, you had better keep the brace on it, once you swap it to a stock you are entering uncharted space.
Why do you think they are requiring a photo?
Do you really think these people are stupid? Devious, power crazed, underhanded, yes, stupid no.
But, what the hell, go for it, we need a test case.

That’s not exactly true. As someone that has multiple SBRs let me add a little info…

Yes, how it is registered is how it is supposed to stay. Meaning I’d your configuration is a 6” barrel with a OAL of 23” then that is what you’re stuck with UNLESS you send them a signed letter asking for modification of your Form 1 to include additional configurations.

As an example, I have an AR with two configurations. One is a 4” with a 21” OAL. The second configuration is an 8” with a 25” OAL. As you are filing a Form 1 for the pistol for entry into the registry as an SBR the same rules applies. So modification of your configuration should be straightforward.

[WJP]

I'd have to dig through some stuff but I don't believe that is 100% true. Permanent changes should be amended with the atf. Temporary changes do not. You just need to retain all originally configured parts so it can go back to registered condition or notify them of changes.

[jdgabbard]

I'd have to dig through some stuff but I don't believe that is 100% true. Permanent changes should be amended with the atf. Temporary changes do not. You just need to retain all originally configured parts so it can go back to registered condition or notify them of changes.

Correct, you have to maintain your original configuration so long as that is how your Form 1 is configured. I'm aware of no mean to do a temporary configuration change. If that can be done let me know, as that is easier than writing them a new letter ever time I want to change my mind.

[charlie b]

Perhaps you are not aware that numerous civilians do, in fact, own mini-guns and tanks.

All it takes is money as they are expensive and, of course, approval from the BATFE and payment of the transfer tax. Apparently, they couldn't even actually ban those back in '34 but they could tax them. No ban because of....you guessed it, the 2nd Amendment.

:drinks:

Yes, I am aware. I just hold that even the tax, registration and federal restrictions are unconstitutional.

:)

Until then I live within the law...mostly :)

[WJP]

Some old faq I ran across. You can change temporarily if you retain old parts and no notification is required. Change it and get rid of the parts will require atf notification. Put a 16 inche+ barrel on it and you can travel freely without a 5320.20 as well.


Q: May I transfer the receiver of a short-barrel rifle or shotgun to an FFL or to an individual as I would any GCA firearm?
A: Yes. A weapon that does not meet the definition of a NFA firearm is not subject to the NFA and a possessor or transferor needn't comply with NFA requirements. The firearm is considered a GCA firearm and may be transferred under the provisions of that law.

Q: Who is responsible for notifying the NFA Branch when I transfer the GCA firearm to a FFL or another individual?
A: There is no requirement that the transferor or transferee of a GCA firearm notify the NFA branch of a transfer or that either party determine whether the firearm was previously registered under the NFA. There is no also no requirement for the registrant or possessor of a NFA firearm to notify ATF of the removal of features that caused the firearm to be subject to the NFA; however, ATF recommends the owner notify the NFA Branch in writing if a firearm is permanently removed from the NFA.

Q: What is the registered part of a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) or Short Barreled Shotgun (SBS)?
A: While a receiver alone may be classified as a firearm under the Gun Control Act (GCA), SBRs and SBSs are classified in totality under the National Firearms Act (NFA). A firearm that meets the definition of a SBR consists of a rifle that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. A SBS consists of a shotgun that has a barrel less than 18 inches in length. The serialized receiver is recorded for registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR).

Q: I possess a properly registered SBR or SBS. I intend to strip the receiver and remove the barrel prior to selling the receiver. Is the bare receiver still subject to regulation under the NFA as a SBR or SBS?
A: A stripped receiver without a barrel does not meet the definition of a SBR or SBS under the NFA. Although the previously registered firearm would remain registered unless the possessor notified the NFA Branch of the change, there is no provision in statute or regulation requiring registration of a firearm without a barrel because its physical characteristics would make it only a GCA firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B). If the subsequent owner buys the receiver as a GCA firearm and installs a barrel less than 16 inches in length (SBR) or 18 inches in length (SBS), the firearm would be subject to a $200 making tax and registration under the NFA by the manufacturer or maker of the SBR or SBS. Because registration depends upon the stated intent of the applicant, there is no provision to allow registration of a NFA firearm by anyone other than the maker or manufacturer.

Q: If I remove the short barrel from the registered SBR or SBS, is the receiver still subject to NFA transfer and possession regulations?
A: If the possessor retains control over the barrel or other parts required to assemble the SBR or SBS, the firearm would still be subject to NFA transfer and possession regulations. ATF recommends contacting State law enforcement officials to ensure compliance with state and local law.

Q: Does the installation of a barrel over 16 inches in length (SBR) or 18 inches in length (SBS) remove the firearm from the purview of the NFA? If so, is this considered a permanent change?
A: Installation of a barrel greater than 16 inches in length (SBR) or 18 inches in length (SBS) will remove the firearm from the purview of the NFA provided the registrant does not maintain control over the parts necessary to reconfigure the firearm as a SBR or SBS.

[nagantguy]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DggOmUXxVWY&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snipershide.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title


It’s a trap.

[smokeater]

No attorney here, but if sold as a pistol, a carbine buffer tube is legal. If sold as a rifle and converted to a pistol w/brace according to their rule, removing the brace it's still illegal. I was gifted an AR pistol with brace. Since it was sold as a pistol, I can replace brace with a carbine/pistol length buffer tube and be legal. Ruling is so fuzzy (typical government double talk) one can make their case for whatever outcome they want. I like the original ruling: "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

[shortlegs]

Removing the brace is not enough... you have to destroy it.

[blue32]

The NFA tax came about because it was voted on by congress, the only authority to levy taxes. It seems like until NFA is repealed, not paying that tax is a violation of the act no matter what the BATFE says.

[elmacgyver0]

That’s not exactly true. As someone that has multiple SBRs let me add a little info…

Yes, how it is registered is how it is supposed to stay. Meaning I’d your configuration is a 6” barrel with a OAL of 23” then that is what you’re stuck with UNLESS you send them a signed letter asking for modification of your Form 1 to include additional configurations.

As an example, I have an AR with two configurations. One is a 4” with a 21” OAL. The second configuration is an 8” with a 25” OAL. As you are filing a Form 1 for the pistol for entry into the registry as an SBR the same rules applies. So modification of your configuration should be straightforward.

I don't care, do as you want.
The rules now seem fluid and are pretty much changing daily.
As far as I know a Stock on a SBR is still $200.00 even with the "free" brace stamp.
The government can get away with "bait and switch", but can you?
It should be interesting to see.
Personally, I am not quite that adventurous.

[JimB..]

I don't care, do as you want.
The rules now seem fluid and are pretty much changing daily.
As far as I know a Stock on a SBR is still $200.00 even with the "free" brace stamp.
The government can get away with "bait and switch", but can you?
It should be interesting to see.
Personally, I am not quite that adventurous.
This ground has been plowed. If you file an application to convert a braced pistol to an SBR under the “amnesty” program you will use the filing receipt as a temporary stamp for as long as the review takes. However, you can’t switch out the brace for a stock until the application is approved and the stamp delivered. This was updated in the FAQ last week.