[landtoy80]

So you can take an imported pistol, add a brace, register it then add a regular stock and not have to worry about 922r rules as they are not required under this registration! You save on the tax stamp, 922r parts and engraving. Why would anyone comply and pay for a real SBR at this point???

Do the rules of letting others fire the firearm apply when its registered as an "Individual" still apply?

 

[landtoy80]

Per https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/u...questions-and-sba-compliance-guide-2/download
16. If my SBR is made after the date of publication of the final rule, can I still register it as an SBR
for free during the tax forbearance period?
• No. The registration options available to a possessor of such firearm applies to those
possessed as of January 31, 2023.

I would guess that the 922r rules would apply too then if you bought the pistol after January 31, 2023???

 

[zack991]

No reason to do any of that it is looking like its going to be striked down

 

[landtoy80]

But if you have pistols that you plan on making them a SBR, registering them with a brace now bypasses the normal rules and costs of making a SBR from an imported pistol. $200 stamp, $100 plus for 922r parts and so on.

Say I have 10 pistols I was going to SBR that's $200 per stamp x 10 = $2000 plus parts in savings during the brace amnesty registration. I know they can and have changed the rules but if you were going to SBR them anyways, the $2000 would be just delayed.

 

[PRDUBI]

I did my g17, 19, and 26 because I got micro roni stocks for them.

I figure if they change their mind, my pistolas are still pistolas para siempre y sin cesar.



Sent from my SM-G988U1 using Tapatalk

 

[jithaca]

I have seen conflicting information on 922r and imported pistols. Thoughts ?

 

[Jack Flash]

I have seen conflicting information on 922r and imported pistols. Thoughts ?

Just curious.

How many form 1 holders of SBR's have ever had to prove 922r compliance?

Checked at a shooting range, or ATF knocking on their door?

 

[jithaca]

The issue is that what was posted in the CFR, said the only option you had was to destroy it or turn it in to the ATF. Now ATF is saying it is a non issue.

 

[PRDUBI]

Just curious.

How many form 1 holders of SBR's have ever had to prove 922r compliance?

Checked at a shooting range, or ATF knocking on their door?

It's not the owner..it's the maker that needs to prove it.

Sent from my SM-G988U1 using Tapatalk

 

[zack991]

But if you have pistols that you plan on making them a SBR, registering them with a brace now bypasses the normal rules and costs of making a SBR from an imported pistol. $200 stamp, $100 plus for 922r parts and so on.

Say I have 10 pistols I was going to SBR that's $200 per stamp x 10 = $2000 plus parts in savings during the brace amnesty registration. I know they can and have changed the rules but if you were going to SBR them anyways, the $2000 would be just delayed.

Feel free to get added to the ATF list of whos doors they are kicking in first. Also before you say they will never do that, people said they don't have an federal registry of gun owners. Yet we know that is fact now, and they still operate it when they were told to shut it down. Never give your info to the feds when you have a choice. Americans will learn the hard way one way or the other.

 

[Jack Flash]

It's not the owner..it's the maker that needs to prove it.

Sent from my SM-G988U1 using Tapatalk

I have 3 AR's 2 HK's, a CZ, and a Ruger that's SBR's.

The way I've read it HK and CZ made the pistols, and I'm the maker of making them short barrel rifles. Same with the AR's and the Ruger, but they were made in USA anyhow.

 

[Jabberwocky]

The FAA also has a long history of making up regulations independent of congressional oversight; the reason is because federal law allows them to do so. Not every aspect of aviation operations has to be approved by Congress.

Similarly, other agencies of the federal government of the United States do not require congressional approval for every single rule they make. That is not new.

So when people get on this site and act like there’s some usurpation of federal authority, there is often not. New regulations that are made up by some of these federal agencies are, in fact, authorized by law to be so.

It is not outside an act of Congress that these agencies make the rules and regulations; in fact it explicitly permitted, within the statute.

That’s why they’re not actually making up their own laws; it was already permitted by the law.

I’ve put up with this shit is a professional pilot for years. (Even though that is not what I do for a living anymore.)

Just saying…it’s not illegal or whatever…

 

[jithaca]

Too late for me to stay under ATFs radar I Did. My first Form 1 in 1980.

 

[43m1garand]

The FAA also has a long history of making up regulations independent of congressional oversight; the reason is because federal law allows them to do so. Not every aspect of aviation operations has to be approved by Congress.

Similarly, other agencies of the federal government of the United States do not require congressional approval for every single rule they make. That is not new.

So when people get on this site and act like there’s some usurpation of federal authority, there is often not. New regulations that are made up by some of these federal agencies are, in fact, authorized by law to be so.

It is not outside an act of Congress that these agencies make the rules and regulations; in fact it explicitly permitted, within the statute.

That’s why they’re not actually making up their own laws; it was already permitted by the law.

I’ve put up with this shit is a professional pilot for years. (Even though that is not what I do for a living anymore.)

Just saying…it’s not illegal or whatever…

The Constitution of The United States of America as agreed upon by the Convention
September 17, 1787

Articles in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the legislature of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution

[Article II.]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

My emphasis placed on the last four words.

 

[Bret]

Feel free to get added to the ATF list of whos doors they are kicking in first. Also before you say they will never do that, people said they don't have an federal registry of gun owners. Yet we know that is fact now, and they still operate it when they were told to shut it down. Never give your info to the feds when you have a choice. Americans will learn the hard way one way or the other.

I can understanding not wanting to get on the NFA list if you don't already have NFA items. However, I don't see a downside for those of us who do.

Similarly, other agencies of the federal government of the United States do not require congressional approval for every single rule they make. That is not new.

So when people get on this site and act like there’s some usurpation of federal authority, there is often not. New regulations that are made up by some of these federal agencies are, in fact, authorized by law to be so.

It is not outside an act of Congress that these agencies make the rules and regulations; in fact it explicitly permitted, within the statute.

That’s why they’re not actually making up their own laws; it was already permitted by the law.

The federal agencies have the power to make regulations that are in compliance with the law. What they do not have the power to do is declare an action to be perfectly legal and then some time later declare it to be a felony without any corresponding change in the law. This is the exact situation we have here.

 

[Jack Flash]

The Constitution of The United States of America as agreed upon by the Convention
September 17, 1787

Articles in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the legislature of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution

[Article II.]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

My emphasis placed on the last four words.

Well we had the National Firearms Act of 1934. Then the ban on making a machinegun after May of 1986.

 

[43m1garand]

Well we had the National Firearms Act of 1934. Then the ban on making a machinegun after May of 1986.

Both are illegal. So is the 1968 Gun Control Act.