Understanding the implications of the recent ATF ruling regarding overall length measurements

Posted on July 6, 2019 by John Pierce

Social media is buzzing about the recent release of a letter from the ATF regarding folding or telescoping ‘stabilizing braces’, non-standard receiver extensions, and the measurement of overall length (OAL).

I have received several calls and emails from clients who are unsure whether this ruling will impact their particular configuration(s).

While there may be other implications, this ruling will primarily affect those who have added a folding or telescoping stabilizing brace (or other non-standard receiver extension) to a pistol with the intent of making the OAL greater than 26 inches so that a vertical fore-grip may be added to the pistol without it becoming an Any-Other-Weapon (AOW).

The ATF’s position is as follows:

a) Adding a vertical fore-grip to a pistol generally makes it an AOW subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

b) However, if the overall length (OAL) of the pistol is greater than 26 inches then adding a vertical fore-grip doesn’t result in the pistol becoming an AOW.

Previously, many people have concluded that the OAL of a pistol containing a folding or telescoping stabilizing brace would be measured with the brace extended since the OAL of a rifle or shotgun is measured with the stock extended (see below).

However, this latest ruling makes it clear that ‘stabilizing braces’ are NOT stocks and they must be measured with the brace folded or collapsed.  If the OAL with the brace folded or collapsed is less than 26 inches then the addition of a vertical fore-grip will render said firearm an AOW.  If you have such a firearm, I recommend remove the vertical fore-grip immediately.

Finally, there is a second component of the ruling that few people are discussing: the language regarding non-standard receiver extensions.  What does this mean?  I interpret it to mean that if you have a non-folding and non-telescoping brace which would, in its default configuration, not be greater than 26 inches, you cannot use spacers or other extensions to artificially extend it beyond 26 inches.  If the only reason your pistol configuration is greater than 26 inches is that you have a spacer installed and you have a vertical fore-grip installed, I recommend you remove the vertical fore-grip immediately.

If you are looking for alternatives, see my article on angled fore-grips or my article on permanently attaching a muzzle device.

 

Disclaimer:  This information is presented for educational purposes only and does not give rise to an attorney-client relationship. Additionally, I am licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia and this answer may not be appropriate for other states.

Posted in Administrative Law, AOW, AR Pistols, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, ATF Ruling, BATFE, Overall Length (OAL), Stabilizing Brace | Comments Off on Understanding the implications of the recent ATF ruling regarding overall length measurements

Can a private seller ship a Curio and Relic firearm directly to an out-of-state C&R FFL holder?

Posted on June 28, 2019 by John Pierce

One of my clients called with this question today.  He was selling a firearm that happens to be listed on Section II of the latest Curios and Relics List and the buyer was a C&R FFL holder from another state.

For those unfamiliar with the Curios and Relics List, Section II contains those firearms that are deemed to be a Curio and Relic (C&R), but which are still subject to the provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA).

Never having dealt with an out-of-state C&R holder before, my client was concerned about the ‘still subject to the Gun Control Act‘ verbiage and how that might intersect with interstate shipment.

As it turns out, from a federal law perspective, there is a fairly simple answer to this question for most classes of C&R firearms (those on the C&R list but still subject to the National Firearms Act require additional details and are not covered here).

In short, a C&R FFL allows a holder to receive intrastate and interstate shipments of C&R firearms directly from a seller (licensed or individual) without violating federal law.

However, as is always the case where legal issues are concerned, that isn’t the end of the analysis.  There may be additional requirements imposed by state law in the C&R holders state.

Therefore, while there is no bar under federal law, anyone shipping to a C&R holder in another state would be advised to get appropriate legal advice regarding the laws in the C&R holder’s state prior to shipping the firearm.

Posted in C&R, Criminal Law, Curio and Relic, Federal Law, FFL 03, FFL Issues, Interstate Firearm Transfers, Private Sales | Comments Off on Can a private seller ship a Curio and Relic firearm directly to an out-of-state C&R FFL holder?

Status of the Bump Fire Stock Ban

Posted on February 25, 2019 by John Pierce

I receive calls almost every day from clients asking for an update on the status of the bump fire stock ban.

The ban is currently scheduled to go into effect (with items surrendered or destroyed) on March 26, 2019 unless one of the four legal challenges succeeds in postponing or overturning the regulatory ‘redefinition’ of bump fire stocks as machineguns.

For those who are not familiar with the history and ongoing status of the attempted ban, the following is a simplified timeline of the steps which lead us here.

Until we get a final answer, this post will contain updates as they occur.  However, it isn’t looking good for law-abiding gun owners.

In the meantime, Firearms Policy Foundation attorney Joshua Prince has published a guide to surrendering your bump stock to the ATF under protest.

The ATF has also ‘helpfully’ provided a Bump Fire Destruction Guide.

Posted in Administrative Law, ATF, ATF Ruling, BATFE, Bump Fire Stocks, Federal Law, Machine Guns, Regulatory Rulemaking | Comments Off on Status of the Bump Fire Stock Ban

The NFA Branch has a new mailing address for Form 1 and Form 4 submissions

Posted on February 8, 2019 by John Pierce

The ATF recently announced that they have a new mailing address for both Form 1 and Form 4 submissions (although if you are still doing paper Form 1 submissions then you should strongly consider taking advantage of the return of Form 1 to eForms).

As for the change of address, just to be clear, the NFA Branch is not moving from their Martinsburg, West Virginia location.  The change of address merely reflect a change in the payment processing locations to which forms are initially sent before being forwarded to the NFA Branch for processing.

Formerly, paper Form 1 and Form 4 submissions were mailed to the NFA Branch’s lockbox service in Atlanta, GA which was handled by Bank of America.  Starting February 1, they have changed this service to U.S. Bank in Portland, Oregon.

Any forms sent to the Atlanta address until approximately May 1 will be forwarded to the new Portland address.  After that, the forms will be returned to the sender.

They have released updated copies of the Form 1 and Form 4 which have the new address.

The New Address Is:
National Firearms Act Division (ATF Forms 1 and 4)
P.O. Box 5015
Portland, OR 97208-5015
Posted in ATF, BATFE, Form 1, Form 4, NFA Transfers, NFA Trusts | Comments Off on The NFA Branch has a new mailing address for Form 1 and Form 4 submissions

Can those with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction own muzzle loaders?

Posted on December 30, 2018 by John Pierce

This question involves the intersection of two complex areas of firearms law:

  1. The federal prohibition triggered by a misdemeanor conviction of a crime of domestic violence; and
  2. Whether black powder firearms are considered ‘firearms’ under state and federal law.

Let’s start with #1 – What triggers this ban?

The ban on purchase and possession of firearms by those who have been convicted of a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ is based in federal law.  It is codified at 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(9)(purchase) and 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) (possession).  There is NO equivalent ban under Virginia law.

These two sub-sections generally prohibit the acquisition, possession, and transportation of firearms by any person “who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”

This leads us then to #2.  Are muzzle loaders considered ‘firearms’ under federal law?

Federal law, at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), defines a firearm as:

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

‘Antique firearm’ is specifically exempted from the definition.  But what exactly does that term mean?  Further in the same code section, we find the following:

(16) The term “antique firearm” means— (A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or (B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica— (i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or (ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or (C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “antique firearm” shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.

Note that even under federal law, any firearm “which can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof” is not considered an ‘antique firearm’ and would be considered a ‘firearm’ for purposes of federal prohibitions.  The same is true for any firearm that incorporates the frame or receiver of a firearm such as a Remington 870 with a muzzle loading barrel or a Thompson Contender.

However, if you are careful when selecting your muzzle-loading firearm, then the answer to the question presented is:

“Yes.  Those with a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence may purchase, possess, and hunt with an appropriate muzzle-loading firearm under federal and Virginia law.”

DISCLAIMER:  I am only licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia and this advice is focused on federal law and the laws of Virginia.  Your state may have additional restrictions and you should seek the advice of an attorney licensed to practice law in your state if you are not a Virginia resident.

Posted in Black Powder Firearms, Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, Federal Law, Hunting, MCDV, Muzzle Loading Firearms, Purchasing Firearms, Virginia Law | Comments Off on Can those with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction own muzzle loaders?