Sig Responds

[7.62NATO]

.........................

[MegademiC]

The response from Sig isn't about repealing the NFA, but holding the ATF accountable for "arbitrary and capricious" rulings that overstep their authority. Under the current circumstances, I think this is the best thing that can happen and I am glad Sig at least made a statement. The way I see it, their pending suit with the MPX brake is very much like the Brace in that the decision was arbitrary. ATF says its a silencer part, even though USE shows that it is not a silencer and does not reduce db. If we are lucky, Sig will win that a silencer part is not a silencer until assembled into a working suppressor. There is no telling what will actually come out of the suit.

SCOTUS already decided the NFA is constitutional.

Analogous to the brace. They are regulating a part as something that it's not.

Any brake could be considered a silencer then, as if you seal the side ports, it is a silencer. What's next, suppressor mounts are silencers? Buffer tubes are stocks?

ATF should get back to doing their jobs regulating illegal devices, and not behaviors and speculative situations. Not that I think they should be illegal anyways, but at least get back in their own lane.

/rant

[freeride1]

Have they lost over the mpx brake? I saw where they filed suit in October 2014 but haven't seen anywhere that they lost, just that the atf doesn't agree with them.

I don't think it's fully resolved. But it doesn't look like they are bringing the muzzle break to market. So in my book they lost.

[Dr Dues]

Analogous to the brace. They are regulating a part as something that it's not.

Any brake could be considered a silencer then, as if you seal the side ports, it is a silencer. What's next, suppressor mounts are silencers? Buffer tubes are stocks?

ATF should get back to doing their jobs regulating illegal devices, and not behaviors and speculative situations. Not that I think they should be illegal anyways, but at least get back in their own lane.

/rant

They have stated as much in their last open letter.

With the interpritation of "Reclassification is defined by use" they can go ANYWHERE!

[jpmuscle]

I'm waiting for them to come out and just say possession of a firearm or firearm related materials suggests criminal intent, give us all your guns, do not pass go, go straight to jail.

[BuzzinSATX]

The response from Sig isn't about repealing the NFA, but holding the ATF accountable for "arbitrary and capricious" rulings that overstep their authority. Under the current circumstances, I think this is the best thing that can happen and I am glad Sig at least made a statement. The way I see it, their pending suit with the MPX brake is very much like the Brace in that the decision was arbitrary. ATF says its a silencer part, even though USE shows that it is not a silencer and does not reduce db. If we are lucky, Sig will win that a silencer part is not a silencer until assembled into a working suppressor. There is no telling what will actually come out of the suit.

SCOTUS already decided the NFA is constitutional.

Yes, I understood that Sig is fighting/appealing the ATF ruling, and that SCOTUS says the NFA is legal. The point I failed to convey, and perhaps it is beyond the scope of this thread, is that Sig is going after the "small fish". Obviously this is easier, and they have standing as it is their product that's the source of these 'controversial' rulings/interpretations by a (activist?) regulatory agency.

The trophy would be for the Congress, who implemented the NFA and could also repeal it, either in whole or part, to take action. I suspect repealing in whole would be the most difficult play, but repealing portions, such as the SRP rule or the Suppressor Role, is probably possible at some level, especially with increased CHL laws and states increasingly allowing suppressors for hunting. Personally, the ultimate argument, IMO, is that SBR's and suppressors are ALREADY LEGAL at the federal level, and really only require a 'permission slip' and, of course, a nominal fee. Regulations on transfer and transportation could (should) easily be scaled back to mirror firearms sales. The proposed law, IMO, should cover all 50 states/DC/territories, but I suppose States could/would challenge that they can impose their own restrictions like they already do in the socialist strongholds like CA/NY/MA/NJ/MD et al.

A concerted, multi-front effort would be key, with firearm owners/2A supporters, gun rights organizations, and firearms manufacturers applying pressure to their elected representatives. Sig, as a manufacturer of SBR's, has a dog in this fight, as would DD, BCM, Colt, Ruger, and ultimately all other long gun manufacturers.

To me, this is a serious 'no brainer", but one that really needs a serious catalyst. There are firearms makers in almost every state, an organization like the NRA or a group of the major firearms makers have the logistics and supporters to pull it off. Just need a strong catalyst.