zuk said:If you have a reserve of serialized receivers already and you are submitting a number of form 1 applications on them, that doesn't look like something that would require a manufacturing license other than the license involved in the form 1 process itself.
The obstacle would be that all those braced pistols would have to have existed at the time the reg became effective.
JohnKsa said:And, I think, already be in the possession of the person registering them at that point.
Indeed.
JohnKsa said:Actually, the tone of the document as I read it is justifying their position the entire time, starting from the very first ruling they issued on the topic, and showing how at each step their position has been consistent with the law/NFA and with the current position. They go into detail, starting with the first stabilizing brace they received and working up to the new rule.
That is, they are trying to make the point that this isn't really a new rule at all, just a clarification of the existing law--and that all the rulings they have issued to date, when taken in context have all also been consistent with existing law. Having read a good deal of the document, I have to say they make a pretty good case.
Due to inconsistent advice regarding
how the use of a “stabilizing brace” device affected a classification and the resulting
public confusion on the proper application of the NFA and GCA to firearms with
“stabilizing braces,” as described in the NPRM and this final rule, the Department seeks
to inform the industry and public on the best interpretation regarding when “a firearm is
designed . . . , made . . . , and intended to be fired from the shoulder” within the meaning
of the relevant statutory terms.
p. 95, Factoring Criteria.
That inconsistent advice came from the agency. Where the advice has been that one can shoulder a brace or not without violating the NFA, the agency position that its current position is a clarification may not be persuasive.
The argument based on the statutory language defining a rifle as "intended to be fired from the shoulder" shook loose a memory from congression hearings prior to the AWB. The witness from the ATF testified with concern about just one of the evil features of AR15s. He assured the congressman that the only reason to put a "pistol' grip on a rifle is to allow faster unaimed firing from the hip.