Trust doesn't have to possess the stabilizing brace, it does need to possess the firearm you are using the brace on (ie lower up are using the brace with, or purchased firearm that came with a brace).

Judging by some of the responses on this thread, I’d say the Democrats strategy of divide and conquer is doing pretty well. I hope those of you who don’t like bump stocks and pistol braces will remember these discussions when you are restricted to only three or five approved rifles or shotguns as in Europe. The smug complacency on this board is amazing.

I bought an AR pistol a few months back knowing this was in the works. Rumor back then was a grace period with no tax stamp so I figured worst case, I get an SBR w/o paying the $200.

I am actually a little surprised that the ATF went forward with this though. It just opened the door for a court case and it's going to get fast tracked because it has a deadline affecting several million Americans. The courts have not been friendly to regulators lately and I doubt they will be here, either. My hope is that once SCOTUS cracks the door on this one with the ATF, that the NRA kicks it open and goes after everything the ATF has ever "regulated".

NRA has and will continue to do nothing. GOA will probably get something done though.

I don't see much difference between this and the 2017 bump stock ban. A federal court just struck that down, but it will get appealed to the Supreme Court. The mechanical arguments against bump stocks was not much of a factor in court, the argument was mostly about agency power. I don't think there will be any difference between bump stock and pistol braces, in that regard.

Yep nra is worthless and continues to side w anti gunners more and more, just plain silly

All interesting commentary. I'm sort of inclined to register it so I get the SBR, no tax stamp, and no wait time. Figure Uncle Sam knows everything about me anyways. Perhaps I'm ignorant.

I did do quick research on the trust transfer because I had the same question and I did find what perhaps could be the reason that they are saying you can't add it to your trust prior to registering...the $200 tax stamp they are supposedly "waiving".

I'm not a lawyer, so do your own research as well, but apparently anytime you transfer an NFA Item (pistols now called SBRs) to another entity, example individual (you) to your trust, you have to pay a $200 tax stamp, regardless if you had already paid one at point of sale. Follow the money they say...

I found this to be very informative.

This popped up on FOX...

Gaetz introduces 'Abolish the ATF Act' after ruling against stabilizing braces

Instead of introducing this bill, why not just void the rule?

Was just about to post this, along with how many inaccuracies are in the piece from both the author and Gaetz himself

Everyone is acting like this is new. It's not. the NFA was passed in 1934 making a rifle with a barrel length less than 16" subject to the tax stamp. A few years ago the ATF TB advised they really don't care if a brace is fired from the shoulder so a bunch of folks built them. In 2022, Biden directed the ATF to change that opinion. I've had SBR's since the early 90's and knew better than to trust the original brace opinion so I never messed with them.

The "21 year rule" mentioned is the Rule Against Perpetuities. In a nutshell, the trust may only last as long as the last surviving "life in being" who was alive at the trust formation + 21 years. So if a person formed an NFA trust and named his newborn grandchild as a beneficiary, the trust could last for that grandchilds lifetime plus an additional 21 years. N.B. There is a new statutory 300 year rule against perpetuities in Texas, but it appears to be in conflict with the State Constitution, so I'm reluctant to use the new rule in trusts that I draft.

NFA trusts may own Title I and Title II weapons. If the Grantor assigned Title I firearms with a written assignment of property dated prior to the rule, it would probably qualify (presumably the grantor would have to have some evidence that s/he acquired the Title I firearm individually prior to the rule as well).

Finally, an SBR or any other Title II firearm may be sold as a private party sale, provided that the buyer submits a Form 4 to ATF for approval.

I wouldn’t count on the SCOTUS. They won’t even hear this one.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-...ilers-bid-block-new-concealed-carry-laws

I think the SCOTUS will ultimately stirke this down, it seems giving the circuits just enough rope to hang themselves is the default way of handling 2A cases now.

Have to love Oklahoma - and someone who understands how laws are made!!!!

https://fb.watch/ihn4CSyeuO/

If it does not work, you can go here on FB and scroll down: https://www.facebook.com/OCSO911

Without getting into the NFA rules and all the other malarkey going on in this thread.......
here is my concern, referencing a bloggers post from the ShotShow when the ATF drafted this new rule and the exceptions given.
1) the ATF stated they will essentially give everyone a free tax stamp for the SBR, okay cool!
However, according to this blogger, the FBI told the ATF to stick it and will no longer perform the back ground checks. So no the ATF will have to do said back ground checks.
Apparently, they have 88days to complete background check or the application gets automatically denied. So no SBR Tax Stamp.
2) with millions of tax stamp apps being submitted, this seems like many will get denied due to background checks not being performed in less than 88days.
So you gave your information, address, gun serial number and pictures proving you have a brace to the ATF. Now they deny your tax stamp.
So do they enforce on you for an illegal NFA item? Why would they not. You just proved everything they need to create a case against you!

I will not be submitting for a free tax stamp. I will reconfigure my guns until the dust settles from this.

I thought the whole point of the e form was it automated the background check?