View Full Version : SIG Brace Declared Illegal to Shoulder By The ATF
Everyone said this would never happen.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Sig_Brace_Page_1_of_3.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Sig_Brace_Page_2_of_3.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Sig_Brace_Page_3_of_3.jpg
So the brace ships with a letter that says it's ok, but now you have one that says it's not. There really just need to be a clear list of do's and don't' s
This was the issue I came across when I spoke to a Prosecutor and Defense attorney. Intent of use. "The design or redesign and intended to be fired from the shoulder". Obviously this would have to be proven-up to a Jury.
Failure2Stop
12-26-14, 08:51
Looking forward to their opinion letter on bump firing.
Hard to believe they allowed it in the first place.
Hard to believe they allowed it in the first place.
I agree, I was under the understanding that anything that could be shouldered or appeared to have a stock with a barrel under 16" has to be registered as a SBR.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So is shouldering a buffer tube now a redesign to a stock?
Don Robison
12-26-14, 09:05
Not surprising, Stevie Wonder could have seen it coming especially when retailers started advertising it as a legal unregistered SBR.
Maybe "we" should keep writing letters to the ATF asking permission & bringing attention to little loopholes like this so all of them get taken away.
Firearm enthusiasts are their own worst enemy.
Don Robison
12-26-14, 09:21
Maybe "we" should keep writing letters to the ATF asking permission & bringing attention to little loopholes like this so all of them get taken away.
Firearm enthusiasts are their own worst enemy.
Yep, ask a question enough times and eventually you'll get the answer you don't want to hear.
How does how one uses something change its design.
Not surprising that those bitching the loudest about pistols using these braces are writing letters trying to keep them from being used.
I suppose you really can't expect different behavior from your average 25 year old.
Maybe "we" should keep writing letters to the ATF asking permission & bringing attention to little loopholes like this so all of them get taken away.
Firearm enthusiasts are their own worst enemy.
No joke. What a bunch of retarded monkeys. How many times have I read of people contacting them just to make sure? Let's define "shouldering" in an anatomical sense now, let's have write the ATF asking if it can be on the subscapularis with emphasis on the pectoralis major. These pansies remind me of the guy on Dazed and Confused who goes to the party analyzing everyone and makes the smoking pot comment then gets his ass kicked. I hate that guy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe "we" should keep writing letters to the ATF asking permission & bringing attention to little loopholes like this so all of them get taken away.
Firearm enthusiasts are their own worst enemy.
You beat me to it.
When you keep writing logical thinking letters to a "dumb as dogshlt" government, you give them the ability to think and realize that maybe they made a bad decision and should now make everything illegal.
So again, we bring these rules and regulations on ourselves and continue to cry about it.
I saw the beginning of the end when manufacturers started adding pistol buffer tubes to guns that didn't require buffer tubes specifically to add these "braces".
Not surprising, Stevie Wonder could have seen it coming especially when retailers started advertising it as a legal unregistered SBR.
waveslayer
12-26-14, 09:26
Maybe "we" should keep writing letters to the ATF asking permission & bringing attention to little loopholes like this so all of them get taken away.
Firearm enthusiasts are their own worst enemy.
+1 seriously
I'm not surprised this happened, a feeling this was coming led me to build my pair of pistols without SIG braces - they are designed to shoot with cheek weld only just like AR pistols have been used for years, no shoulder contact at all. Too many people poking the lion led to this.
The only thing MORE RETARDED than the Sig Brace, is the ATF and the imbeciles who are employed by the Agency.
Time to dump the sig shares along with oil portfolio.
Thies really does not clear anything up. You now have 2 opinion letters with apposing veiws. This also opens up the window of just about anything. Does a 1 poing sling turn a pistol into a rifle if slung around the shoulder. Does a bare buffer tube become a stock if placed against the shoulder. If you take an ak pistol with nothing on the back end, and brace it at your hip, does your hip become a buttstock because it is connected to your shoulder?
This message is hidden because scottryan is on your ignore list.
The sig brace makes me want to puke.
I can't stand how this thing has consumed the gun industry for the last 6 months.
OP you need to ask yourself this:
Do you want to be a real gunman or look like a wannabe at the range?
I can't tell you this. I have never met one person who owns a pistol version of an assault rifle that had their shit together.
Looks like more of you will be getting yourselves squared away and start being "real gunmen"
Failure2Stop
12-26-14, 10:02
I agree, I was under the understanding that anything that could be shouldered or appeared to have a stock with a barrel under 16" has to be registered as a SBR.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just about anything can be shouldered, therefore the whole affair is silly.
Pretty soon there will be an ATF ruling that putting two hands on a pistol is counter to the definition.
Gun Control Act Definitions
Pistol
18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(29) and 27 CFR § 478.11
The term “Pistol” means a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having:
a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);
and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
Just about anything can be shouldered, therefore the whole affair is silly.
after all your arm is connected to your shoulder. I am just waiting for the ATF to release their opinion that all arms are now stocks and therefore all pistols must be registered as SBR
Just about anything can be shouldered, therefore the whole affair is silly.
Pretty soon there will be an ATF ruling that putting two hands on a pistol is counter to the definition.
Don't give them anymore ideas! But yes I can see why you say that.
For the most part, the 1934 NFA is ridiculous at best. Initially they wanted it to be much broader, including hand guns, etc. Their reasons for the whole thing really doesn't make any real sense at all.
Voodoo_Man
12-26-14, 10:25
Basically what F2S said - anything can be shouldered...does that make that item NFA instantly?
The fact of the matter is that the ATF has two many opinions and not enough actions. When they start prosecuting people for it then we can talk, until then that letter is intended for the person it was written for and until they make a widely publicized law, I do not see anything changing.
For those that think this letter means anything, every single person you have seen "shouldering" the brace in pictures and videos - are they felons now? It's shortsighted and contradictory at best.
Funny to sit back and watch the show...
Voodoo_Man
12-26-14, 10:38
someone posted this on arf
http://cdn5.gunssavelives.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2cht9he-640x853.jpg
Trump the trump?
someone posted this on arf
http://cdn5.gunssavelives.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2cht9he-640x853.jpg
Trump the trump?
Link to the op of this letter?
Voodoo_Man
12-26-14, 11:14
Link to the op of this letter?
search arf, its in every thread about the topic.
That's the older letter from the last chief. The new letter is from the new acting chief.
Politics at work.
The new chief needs to have a better proofreader. I see at least one typo. Are we sure this isn't a bad joke? Of course, if it is, someone faking NFA Branch letterhead had better take to down fast...
Voodoo_Man
12-26-14, 11:28
That's the older letter from the last chief. The new letter is from the new acting chief.
Politics at work.
Yes, the dates are clear.
Issue is, which one is it? Is it an opinion or is it law?
It can't be both.
Also, who the letter is addressed to is either two things:
1. The idiot that asked "Are you positively sure" one too many times - and knows he's not going to be very popular; or
2. The rival company that was getting their business taken away by such a simple product...
Of course, isn't the original unredacted letter going to be posted on NFA's website?
That's the older letter from the last chief. The new letter is from the new acting chief.
Politics at work.
They are both signed by the same guy.
Yes, the dates are clear.
Issue is, which one is it? Is it an opinion or is it law?
It can't be both.
As someone else pointed out, it is signed by Max Kingery FOR Earl Griffith. Acting Chief Kingery signed both of these opinion letters that directly contradict each other.
Look at Page 2 of the Sgt. Bradley reply:
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/DWood13/BradleyLetterPage-2_zps9e204a77.jpg
Voodoo_Man
12-26-14, 12:08
I do not want to spam my blog, but I can't find the link to this post on Prince Law's webiste/blog (if someone does please post it)
I pasted it from my email to my blog - (second / quoted part)
http://vdmsr.blogspot.com/2014/12/current-sig-brace-debacle.html
Pretty interesting stuff. I do not believe this opinion will be able to withstand a court challenge.
Stupid device for posers anyway. This site should not care, other than the entertainment value of another reversal letter and watching TOS get their panties in a wad.
There is no law defining what position a shooter must use when shooting any type of firearm. If the brace is legal on a pistol, it is not a buttstock. If placing it against the shoulder makes it a stock, then it is always a stock. Will placing a receiver extension against the shoulder make it a stock? Will placing the grip of a handgun against the shoulder make it a stock? Does buying a stripped receiver and never building it make it not a firearm? Does buying a rifle, pistol or shotgun and never loading it with ammunition make them not firearms?
The brace is either is not a stock and legal to use on a handgun regardless of stance used, or it is a stock and not legal on a pistol
There is no law defining what position a shooter must use when shooting any type of firearm. If the brace is legal on a pistol, it is not a buttstock. If placing it against the shoulder makes it a stock, then it is always a stock. Will placing a receiver extension against the shoulder make it a stock? Will placing the grip of a handgun against the shoulder make it a stock? Does buying a stripped receiver and never building it make it not a firearm? Does buying a rifle, pistol or shotgun and never loading it with ammunition make them not firearms?
The brace is either is not a stock and legal to use on a handgun regardless of stance used, or it is a stock and not legal on a pistol
You crack me up bringing common sense to the table.
Until the BATFE redefines SBR, Firearm, Pistol, & rifle in regards to and effect on the definitions based on shooting stance I don't see how this letter changes anything, as it states a sig brace equipped pistol is still a pistol.
The ATF will not make a ruling on the SB15 if they don't have to. The reason is that if they do make the SB15 illegal, they would make the current owners of SB15s register their weapons as SBRs and the ATF would have to eat the $200 tax stamp. The ATF is the only government agency that makes money so that would surely make a dent in incoming Gov funds.
So this is their way of scaring people into not shouldering the SB15.
This is idiotic. What if I hold my carbine in one hand and shoot it like a pistol, then am I violating the law? They need to clarify a lot of things and granted it may be hard for this government agency to keep up with industry innovations. But I think they should take a hands off approach unless something is actively violating the law.
Thies really does not clear anything up. You now have 2 opinion letters with apposing veiws. This also opens up the window of just about anything. Does a 1 poing sling turn a pistol into a rifle if slung around the shoulder. Does a bare buffer tube become a stock if placed against the shoulder. If you take an ak pistol with nothing on the back end, and brace it at your hip, does your hip become a buttstock because it is connected to your shoulder?
This is actually easy. SIG brace is still legal and fine so long as you use it "as advertised" and strap it to your forearm.
But the exact same weapon, put to the should and fired like a rifle is ILLEGAL. It's a lot like a shoestring or magnet are perfectly legal UNTIL you use them in such a way that the result is repeated fire from a single trigger pull.
That said, honestly I'm surprised it has remained technically legal as an arm brace. But as people keep writing letters, I'm sure that will be corrected shortly. And you can thank the "bubba crowd" who is unwilling to spend $200 to register a correct SBR for this situation.
The SBR registry didn't get closed in 1986, if you want a SBR for chrissakes just do it the easy way. The only reason for anyone to use a SIG brace is if they live in a ban state and that is as close as they can get.
Just about anything can be shouldered, therefore the whole affair is silly.
Pretty soon there will be an ATF ruling that putting two hands on a pistol is counter to the definition.
This is NOTHING compared to past rulings. This is the same agency that declared an "empty volume of air" constitutes a machine gun.
I would think some of you would do a better job of hiding your glee.
This is actually easy. SIG brace is still legal and fine so long as you use it "as advertised" and strap it to your forearm.
But the exact same weapon, put to the should and fired like a rifle is ILLEGAL. It's a lot like a shoestring or magnet are perfectly legal UNTIL you use them in such a way that the result is repeated fire from a single trigger pull.
That said, honestly I'm surprised it has remained technically legal as an arm brace. But as people keep writing letters, I'm sure that will be corrected shortly. And you can thank the "bubba crowd" who is unwilling to spend $200 to register a correct SBR for this situation.
The SBR registry didn't get closed in 1986, if you want a SBR for chrissakes just do it the easy way. The only reason for anyone to use a SIG brace is if they live in a ban state and that is as close as they can get.
This same logic says that anyone who shoots a pistol with two hands on it has converted their pistol to an AOW and is subject to the same legal implications.
Rick
daddyusmaximus
12-26-14, 17:09
And you can thank the "bubba crowd" who is unwilling to spend $200 to register a correct SBR for this situation.
Not always the case. I have a legal SBR, but also an AR pistol truck gun I'm still planning on adding the Sig brace to. I'm not too cheap to pony up $200 and be put on a list I shouldn't have to be on. Other stupid laws are why a pistol is better to have as a truck gun. Many areas have laws against having a loaded long gun in a vehicle, yet with a License to carry a handgun, you're OK. I can't take my SBR on vacation with me out of state because their stupid laws require me to get a "permission slip" prior to the trip. I can, however, take my "pistol". I love my SBR, but I don't want to leave it in my truck. It represents a 9 month long hassle I went through to get it. That, and it being on a federal list kinda makes it a liability to have as a truck gun. Therefore, I also need a pistol version of my AR to stay in compliance with all these other stupid laws, or travel with just a standard pistol.
Yep, ask a question enough times and eventually you'll get the answer you don't want to hear.
I'm trying to figure out how writing letters to the ATF somehow caused them to "punish" gun owners by declaring it illegal.
Blaming gun owners for the ruling is diverting blame from the responsible party: A government organization with no oversight that contradicts its own rulings and muddies the waters of the NFA.
Quiet-Matt
12-26-14, 18:04
It's like my son asking the same question over and over. First 10 times... "Yes, Yes I already answered you." Next time... "You know what? Forget it!"
This is actually easy. SIG brace is still legal and fine so long as you use it "as advertised" and strap it to your forearm.
But the exact same weapon, put to the should and fired like a rifle is ILLEGAL. It's a lot like a shoestring or magnet are perfectly legal UNTIL you use them in such a way that the result is repeated fire from a single trigger pull.
That said, honestly I'm surprised it has remained technically legal as an arm brace. But as people keep writing letters, I'm sure that will be corrected shortly. And you can thank the "bubba crowd" who is unwilling to spend $200 to register a correct SBR for this situation.
The SBR registry didn't get closed in 1986, if you want a SBR for chrissakes just do it the easy way. The only reason for anyone to use a SIG brace is if they live in a ban state and that is as close as they can get.
Nope, putting it in your shoulder is still legal.
Also, the notion that there is a "right" way to follow the law is ludicrous.
Pistols are legal in cars, nothing else is, SBR means nothing and should not exist anyway, so don't tell me I'm cheap or a bubba because I don't want to waste range time loading mags and have a functional/useful gun.
It's like my son asking the same question over and over. First 10 times... "Yes, Yes I already answered you." Next time... "You know what? Forget it!"
No, it's actually nothing like that at all. That's not how government works. Even the ATF.
The only reason for anyone to use a SIG brace is if they live in a ban state and that is as close as they can get.
Or not wanting to deal with paperwork.
Or wait.
Or being a single person in a household who can legally touch that thing, without going a trust route.
Or spending time and money on a trust.
Or in principle registering your gun with feds.
Or etching your name on a gun.
Or worrying about what state I can cross into with it.
Or letting BATFE know I wanna travel with my gun.
Two hundred bucks is, without exaggeration, of zero concern to me, and yet I don't have anything NFA.
Raven Armament
12-26-14, 18:36
That said, honestly I'm surprised it has remained technically legal as an arm brace.
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Eurodriver
12-26-14, 18:52
I don't give a shit about the sig brace. I know it's nice to allow people who travel to do so without issue, but I think it's a dumbass design.
What I do give a shit about is the government telling us that we can possess something but not use it against our shoulder.
Don Robison
12-26-14, 19:20
I'm trying to figure out how writing letters to the ATF somehow caused them to "punish" gun owners by declaring it illegal.
Blaming gun owners for the ruling is diverting blame from the responsible party: A government organization with no oversight that contradicts its own rulings and muddies the waters of the NFA.
I'm not diverting anything. The factory supplies a letter with the product, but that isn't good enough for some people so they need to ask the same question. If you ask the same question enough it will eventually be answered by someone with the answer you don't want.
I'm with Eurodriver on this, I couldn't care less about the SB15. I think it's one of the more stupid things to hit gun stores, but it pisses me off that the ATF is trying to redefine something.
Quiet-Matt
12-26-14, 19:24
No, it's actually nothing like that at all. That's not how government works. Even the ATF.
Sorry, I'll sit down. :agree:
Wait. Fact is since the original letter stating that it was ok to shoulder, people have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. We knew it was going to drop. History shows us that it almost always comes back around with doo dads like this. Folks had the answer they wanted but continued to "poke the bear" so to speak by sending countless letters asking daddy ATF for approval to have this thing on their pistol. Maybe they couldn't make sense of the language in the original letter? Also, the YouTube videos went from a few people making videos about it and getting scolded by others telling them to be quiet as not to draw attention to the fact that it was being shouldered. Kind of a guilty conscious type thing. But as time went on the videos started to push the issue more and more, to the point that it was being thrown in the face of the ATF, as if the people at the ATF live in a hole and don't see this and inevitably would start giving it a little thought. So, yes in a way it is a bit like my son asking me the same question over and over.
People are stupid... Combine stupid people who can't leave a relatively good thing alone with stupid government and guess what you get? More stupidness.
The Sig brace is stupid, everyone knows that. But the fact that it came into existence because of the environment we live in is even stupider, again noone disagrees with that but I digress..
Idk it floors me that people are so dense that they don't understand that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing and hopefully legally changing matters such as the this.. Poking the bear with an IQ barely above freezing is not the right way to go about it... Makes me loathe people even more...
At any rate an opinion letter is not law so whatever.. The brace doesn't change the classification of the firearm and don't be one of the stupid unwashed masses pandering your intellectual brilliance that is comparable to the simpleness of a hydrogen atom all over YouTube and life will go on..
The wheels in the bus go round and round round and round.....
Assuming the second letter is legit, this is pretty simple. The application of the reg to the brace is subject to court challenge. There have been two opinion letters in a short period of time. The ATF cannot "change its mind." It has to go by the law. If the ATF can't figure it out, then the law may be too vague to be enforced with regard to braces.
I don't like the braces, and I'm happy to have paid the money for my SBRs. However, this should be challenged just to push back on the idea by the ATF that they can just swing back and forth like this. Most of the ATF agents I know are quality guys; high-integrity, reasonable, capable of common sense application of the law. This second letter is not in that vein. Someone needs to file a declaratory judgment action. Discovery alone should be fun. I would love to read the emails that preceded these letters.
Now all the SBR superfan "real shooters who don't want to look like posers" can finally rejoice and yell, "I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" and go to bed holding their "real" registered SBRs with a big smile knowing all the "idiots" out there can't shoulder their Sig Braces anymore.
I still can't seem to fathom why some gun people, who supposedly support the 2A, would ridicule other gun owners for trying to find a solution to an idiotic law that shouldn't be there in the first place. I guess they like paying the government MORE TAXES to tell them what they can and can't own, and how they can and can't shoot their guns.
Give me a break, and enjoy continuing to pay more of your hard earned money to the all powerful government so they will "allow" your to shoot your short guns. :rolleyes:
Outlander Systems
12-26-14, 20:35
Is it illegal to fire from the hip? Do we have an opinion letters on this?
How many angels can (legally) dance on the head of a firing pin before it becomes an NFA item?
If I use a bipod to lay down more accurate fire, does that count as a third hand on the weapon? Does this reclassify my firearm?
What if I were to use a weaver stance to shoot my pistol? Cup and Saucer? Which one is the legal method to fire a handgun?
What if I were to grip a bipod on a pistol? Would that be considered a VFG?
What's the opinion letter on shooting from prone or kneeling? Is offhand the only legal way to shoot a rifle?
Can someone show me a law, in writing, state or Federal, that says how or how not a firearm can be fired? Because, if the Sig Brace does not reclassify the firearm, I'd like to see the statutes that mandate how a firearm can, or can not, be used.
I can shoulder a revolver all day long too. Does that mean the grip on a Super Blackhawk is now a "shoulder stock"?
GTFOH
A simple solution to all this would be as follows:
Make the use of a firearm in the commission of crime illegal.
In other words, I don't care if you rob a liquor store with a full-auto MP5 or a single-shot H&R. The fact that you are robbing a liquor store should be the only thing anyone gives a flying flip about.
The_War_Wagon
12-26-14, 20:42
The only thing MORE RETARDED than the Sig Brace, is the ATF and the imbeciles who are employed by the Agency.
I believe this is why Col. Cooper called them - tongue-in-cheek - BATmen.
Is it illegal to fire from the hip? Do we have an opinion letters on this?
How many angels can (legally) dance on the head of a firing pin before it becomes an NFA item?
If I use a bipod to lay down more accurate fire, does that count as a third hand on the weapon? Does this reclassify my firearm?
What if I were to use a weaver stance to shoot my pistol? Cup and Saucer? Which one is the legal method to fire a handgun?
What if I were to grip a bipod on a pistol? Would that be considered a VFG?
What's the opinion letter on shooting from prone or kneeling? Is offhand the only legal way to shoot a rifle?
Can someone show me a law, in writing, state or Federal, that says how or how not a firearm can be fired? Because, if the Sig Brace does not reclassify the firearm, I'd like to see the statutes that mandate how a firearm can, or can not, be used.
I can shoulder a revolver all day long too. Does that mean the grip on a Super Blackhawk is now a "shoulder stock"?
GTFOH
A simple solution to all this would be as follows:
Make the use of a firearm in the commission of crime illegal.
In other words, I don't care if you rob a liquor store with a full-auto MP5 or a single-shot H&R. The fact that you are robbing a liquor store should be the only thing anyone gives a flying flip about.
Harumph
Leaveammoforme
12-26-14, 21:02
Now all the SBR superfan "real shooters who don't want to look like posers" can finally rejoice and yell, "I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" and go to bed holding their "real" registered SBRs with a big smile knowing all the "idiots" out there can't shoulder their Sig Braces anymore.
I still can't seem to fathom why some gun people, who supposedly support the 2A, would ridicule other gun owners for trying to find a solution to an idiotic law that shouldn't be there in the first place. I guess they like paying the government MORE TAXES to tell them what they can and can't own, and how they can and can't shoot their guns.
Give me a break, and enjoy continuing to pay more of your hard earned money to the all powerful government so they will "allow" your to shoot your short guns. :rolleyes:
It's not that 'real shooters' look forward to saying "told you". It's the fact that they saw the writing on the wall. Akins Accelerator (auto with spring) , original GSG-5SD faux suppressor (functional) & the Bradley Safety Sear (DIAS, notice lack of 'R') were a few of the previous attempts at playing in the gray zone.
Sorry, I'll sit down. :agree:
Wait. Fact is since the original letter stating that it was ok to shoulder, people have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. We knew it was going to drop. History shows us that it almost always comes back around with doo dads like this. Folks had the answer they wanted but continued to "poke the bear" so to speak by sending countless letters asking daddy ATF for approval to have this thing on their pistol. Maybe they couldn't make sense of the language in the original letter? Also, the YouTube videos went from a few people making videos about it and getting scolded by others telling them to be quiet as not to draw attention to the fact that it was being shouldered. Kind of a guilty conscious type thing. But as time went on the videos started to push the issue more and more, to the point that it was being thrown in the face of the ATF, as if the people at the ATF live in a hole and don't see this and inevitably would start giving it a little thought. So, yes in a way it is a bit like my son asking me the same question over and over.
The ATF knew full well what they were agreeing to when they sent the letter to SIG authorizing the brace in the first place. If they contradicted that decision (which still remains to be seen if it IS actually a contradiction), it was going to happen anyway, and had nothing to do with the letters they were receiving.
Stop blaming gun owners for "pushing their luck". Any assumption that the reversal was as a result of "pestering" the ATF is just that, an assumption.
The ATF knew full well what they were agreeing to when they sent the letter to SIG authorizing the brace in the first place. If they contradicted that decision (which still remains to be seen if it IS actually a contradiction), it was going to happen anyway, and had nothing to do with the letters they were receiving.
Stop blaming gun owners for "pushing their luck". Any assumption that the reversal was as a result of "pestering" the ATF is just that, an assumption.
So you think if the one & only correspondence they received regarding the Sig brace was the original letter, they still would've changed their mind? Would they have set up a reminder in Outlook for 2 years later to arbitrarily change their position? :rolleyes:
It's the letters and all the internet/magazine talk that the brace got from knuckhead gun owners that caused this. All the hype got the attention of the ATF to rethink their position. Plain & simple, nothing more, nothing less.
"Outta sight, outta mind" & "squeaky wheel gets the grease". Two applicable cliches that, instead of picking the former, gun owners chose the route of the latter.
In for the rush of used short barrel uppers to soon flood the market :sarcastic:
Maybe this will be the case to expose the BATF is an inept organization that contradicts it's own regulations. I am still trying to figure out how they can dictate how something is used.
This actually sets a dangerous precedent as Jack mention.
The ATF knew full well what they were agreeing to when they sent the letter to SIG authorizing the brace in the first place. If they contradicted that decision (which still remains to be seen if it IS actually a contradiction), it was going to happen anyway, and had nothing to do with the letters they were receiving.
Stop blaming gun owners for "pushing their luck". Any assumption that the reversal was as a result of "pestering" the ATF is just that, an assumption.
Maybe this will be the case to expose the BATF is an inept organization that contradicts it's own regulations. I am still trying to figure out how they can dictate how something is used.
This actually sets a dangerous precedent as Jack mention.
So who's to say the BATF wasn't planning exactly this from the start? Far fetched obviously but idk.
So who's to say the BATF wasn't planning exactly this from the start?
Because that would require forward thinking...
And the wouldn't wanna flood the streets with those deadly short barrel guns that are WAYYYYYY more dangerous the 16 inch guns, just to confuse people.
So you think if the one & only correspondence they received regarding the Sig brace was the original letter, they still would've changed their mind? Would they have set up a reminder in Outlook for 2 years later to arbitrarily change their position? :rolleyes:
It's the letters and all the internet/magazine talk that the brace got from knuckhead gun owners that caused this. All the hype got the attention of the ATF to rethink their position. Plain & simple, nothing more, nothing less.
"Outta sight, outta mind" & "squeaky wheel gets the grease". Two applicable cliches that, instead of picking the former, gun owners chose the route of the latter.
So you're basing your theory on what, exactly? You think some g-man sitting behind a mountain of poorly-spelled correspondence suddenly threw up his hands and yelled "That's it! No more Sig Braces! I'm sick of reading these damned letters!"
Nothing that happened in the market as a result of the original approval was in any way surprising or unpredictable. The ATF knew that people would buy these braces to use as stocks, and they did. There are reasons for the (supposed) reversal that make more sense, most namely pressure from a higher office in the ATF, or the AG's office, for one. Did we have a change of leadership anywhere recently? Was the ruling a stop-gap measure to reduce the load on the eforms or the influx of paperwork for SBRs that was always planned to be discarded at a particular date? Who knows? I'd bet my next paycheck that the reason wasn't a bunch of rednecks pestering Uncle BATFE, though.
Concelable rifles and full auto weapons weren't put under the aegis of the NFA because of crime- they were banned because our grandfathers snuck them into the Ford factory during a strike and took over the plant
So you're basing your theory on what, exactly? You think some g-man sitting behind a mountain of poorly-spelled correspondence suddenly threw up his hands and yelled "That's it! No more Sig Braces! I'm sick of reading these damned letters!"
You clearly don't see it, so sorry, I can't help you any further.
Come back and show me something concrete and not just paranoia and I'll listen all day.
Interesting read I found trolling around on book face.
http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/26/cinderella-and-atfs-determination-the-fairy-tale-of-an-ar-pistol-to-sbr-through-magic/
Also are any one y'all this Sean guy?
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/26/d7da878f0feff8e22f7b77a5c8e79a26.jpg
This is actually easy. SIG brace is still legal and fine so long as you use it "as advertised" and strap it to your forearm.
But the exact same weapon, put to the should and fired like a rifle is ILLEGAL. It's a lot like a shoestring or magnet are perfectly legal UNTIL you use them in such a way that the result is repeated fire from a single trigger pull.
That said, honestly I'm surprised it has remained technically legal as an arm brace. But as people keep writing letters, I'm sure that will be corrected shortly. And you can thank the "bubba crowd" who is unwilling to spend $200 to register a correct SBR for this situation.
The only reason for anyone to use a SIG brace is if they live in a ban state and that is as close as they can get.
Nice of you to call everyone else 'bubba'...
just because you have gone the SBR route doesn't mean those who didn't don't have the money to do so.
There are many other reasons to go with the brace
Or not wanting to deal with paperwork.
Or wait.
Or being a single person in a household who can legally touch that thing, without going a trust route.
Or spending time and money on a trust.
Or in principle registering your gun with feds.
Or etching your name on a gun.
Or worrying about what state I can cross into with it.
Or letting BATFE know I wanna travel with my gun.
Two hundred bucks is, without exaggeration, of zero concern to me, and yet I don't have anything NFA.
Agreed. $200 is nothing. The main thing that many are against is the government extortion fee, and the principle of registration.
Just about anything can be shouldered, therefore the whole affair is silly.
Pretty soon there will be an ATF ruling that putting two hands on a pistol is counter to the definition.
+10000
Or not wanting to deal with paperwork.
Or wait.
Or being a single person in a household who can legally touch that thing, without going a trust route.
Or spending time and money on a trust.
Or in principle registering your gun with feds.
Or etching your name on a gun.
Or worrying about what state I can cross into with it.
Or letting BATFE know I wanna travel with my gun.
Two hundred bucks is, without exaggeration, of zero concern to me, and yet I don't have anything NFA.
Ditto to all the above. I rather pay $400, then have to deal with all the headaches.
Ditto to all the above. I rather pay $400, then have to deal with all the headaches.
Yea, but for those in anti-nfa Nazi states it's viable work around.
This same logic says that anyone who shoots a pistol with two hands on it has converted their pistol to an AOW and is subject to the same legal implications.
Rick
This is the ATF trying to strictly define an object, you can't really apply logic.
If we applied logic, a receiver alone would never be considered a firearm. A suppressor wouldn't be a firearm. A sear wouldn't be a firearm.
Not always the case. I have a legal SBR, but also an AR pistol truck gun I'm still planning on adding the Sig brace to. I'm not too cheap to pony up $200 and be put on a list I shouldn't have to be on. Other stupid laws are why a pistol is better to have as a truck gun. Many areas have laws against having a loaded long gun in a vehicle, yet with a License to carry a handgun, you're OK. I can't take my SBR on vacation with me out of state because their stupid laws require me to get a "permission slip" prior to the trip. I can, however, take my "pistol". I love my SBR, but I don't want to leave it in my truck. It represents a 9 month long hassle I went through to get it. That, and it being on a federal list kinda makes it a liability to have as a truck gun. Therefore, I also need a pistol version of my AR to stay in compliance with all these other stupid laws, or travel with just a standard pistol.
You are correct, "not always" but I think most of the time the problem is as I stated.
It's not that 'real shooters' look forward to saying "told you". It's the fact that they saw the writing on the wall. Akins Accelerator (auto with spring) , original GSG-5SD faux suppressor (functional) & the Bradley Safety Sear (DIAS, notice lack of 'R') were a few of the previous attempts at playing in the gray zone.
And that is where I was mostly coming from. The Akins Accelerator was my wake up call. The ATF said yes, then changed their minds. I was actually stunned that anyone got away with the SIG brace thing at all.
Nice of you to call everyone else 'bubba'...
Except I didn't. I noted exceptions for those who live in ban states and by extension have other practical restrictions.
But everyone here knows exactly who and what I'm talking about. There is no need to try and make it seem like I said anything more or distort what I said. You guys will rip somebody for a SERPA holster for 20 pages but we can't talk about the many limitations of a SIG brace firearm?!?
Not always the case. I have a legal SBR, but also an AR pistol truck gun I'm still planning on adding the Sig brace to. I'm not too cheap to pony up $200 and be put on a list I shouldn't have to be on. Other stupid laws are why a pistol is better to have as a truck gun. Many areas have laws against having a loaded long gun in a vehicle, yet with a License to carry a handgun, you're OK. I can't take my SBR on vacation with me out of state because their stupid laws require me to get a "permission slip" prior to the trip. I can, however, take my "pistol". I love my SBR, but I don't want to leave it in my truck. It represents a 9 month long hassle I went through to get it. That, and it being on a federal list kinda makes it a liability to have as a truck gun. Therefore, I also need a pistol version of my AR to stay in compliance with all these other stupid laws, or travel with just a standard pistol.
You do realize that the snobs won't approve of this post, don't you?
Or not wanting to deal with paperwork.
Or wait.
Or being a single person in a household who can legally touch that thing, without going a trust route.
Or spending time and money on a trust.
Or in principle registering your gun with feds.
Or etching your name on a gun.
Or worrying about what state I can cross into with it.
Or letting BATFE know I wanna travel with my gun.
Two hundred bucks is, without exaggeration, of zero concern to me, and yet I don't have anything NFA.
:thank_you2:
Polymerhead
12-27-14, 09:20
Maybe this will be the case to expose the BATF is an inept organization that contradicts it's own regulations. I am still trying to figure out how they can dictate how something is used.
This is what I'm thinking. It's a clear case of directly contradictory opinions coming out of the BATFE within a few years of each other. If anything, it weakens the position of the BATFE all around, by exposing the fact that issued opinions are arbitrary, onerous and subject to change within a short period of time.
Is anyone really surprised by this? Come on, we all know this has been a verbal game since they first commented on the SIG brace.
The AR15 "pistol" is not a pistol, everyone has always known that.
The "brace" was never really intended only to be a "brace" but clear was designed to be a should stock as well.
So finally the ATF has ruled what anyone with an ounce of common sense has been expecting: Hey, if you are using that "brace" to shoulder your "pistol" ... guess what, it ain't a pistol, it's a rifle now.
The sad thing, assuming this letter is the ATF's latest word on this. is that there are a heck of a lot of people now financially invested in the whole "AR pistol" thing, all based on the "forearm brace" game that has been played for the past couple of years.
Here's my shocked face:
https://welimin.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/shocked-face.png
This is what I'm thinking. It's a clear case of directly contradictory opinions coming out of the BATFE within a few years of each other. If anything, it weakens the position of the BATFE all around, by exposing the fact that issued opinions are arbitrary, onerous and subject to change within a short period of time.
The ATF has gone over the top with including potential use in classifying NFA firearms. This potentially affects all gun owners and the silly "you should have seen this coming" VS "you are an SBR snob" is just Internet stupidity and a waste of time.
The fact is the ATF issued an opinion to the inventor, Alex Bosco, that his brace (that ultimately became the SB-15) is not a butt stock and does not change the classification of an AR pistol to an NFA firearm. Sgt. Bradley asked for an opinion on the legality of shouldering an AR-15 pistol. As far as I can tell, that was the entirity of his question and he wasn't asking as an interested shooter of shouldered pistols, but as a police officer and enforcer of laws. It appears to me that the famous response to "Sgt. Bradley" volunteered information about the "Sig Stability Brace" with a statement that accessories like it do not change the classification either, even if they are misused, i.e. shouldered.
Now, the same Max Kingery who signed the Bradley letter signed a more recent opinion that using the Sig Brace "like a stock" instantly makes that pistol into a rifle, even though the SB-15 is "not a stock" by their own determination. This is an important issue that needs to be resolved and the waters have become so polluted a lawsuit may be the only way it can happen.
If you walk into a room containing only an AR pistol with a Sig Brace (or Shockwave Blade, crutch tip, bare buffer tube, etc.), what is it? AR pistol or NFA SBR? If the way you pick it up changes the answer, then that is a problem. I hope Sig sues, even if the shouldering ban is upheld, so this dangerous mindset at the ATF is challenged, and hopefully stopped. How long before the Thordsen becomes their next target?
A full auto gun is an NFA item no matter how you use it. I would love to have an M-16 that is only an NFA item if I throw the selector to the "auto" position. If the SB-15 is not a stock, then letting them say that using it like a stock makes the pistol into a rifle (and NFA firearm if the barrel is < 16") needs to be stopped. I can live without Sig Braces but would like to still use them so I support a lawsuit to resolve these convoluted opinions once and for all, whichever way it goes.
What will the Internet forums talk about if this is resolved clearly, in court, with no room for interpretation? :cool:
KalashniKEV
12-27-14, 11:25
Maybe this will be the case to expose the BATF is an inept organization that contradicts it's own regulations. I am still trying to figure out how they can dictate how something is used.
This actually sets a dangerous precedent as Jack mention.
That's my thinking.
Let them reverse their opinion and let all the neckbeards who bought them keep shouldering them.
Eventually "just making" SBRs will be like illegal immigration- yes, there is a law against it, but it is universally ignored and thus has no meaning.
Now all the SBR superfan "real shooters who don't want to look like posers" can finally rejoice and yell, "I TOLD YOU SO!!!!" and go to bed holding their "real" registered SBRs with a big smile knowing all the "idiots" out there can't shoulder their Sig Braces anymore.
I still can't seem to fathom why some gun people, who supposedly support the 2A, would ridicule other gun owners for trying to find a solution to an idiotic law that shouldn't be there in the first place. I guess they like paying the government MORE TAXES to tell them what they can and can't own, and how they can and can't shoot their guns.
Give me a break, and enjoy continuing to pay more of your hard earned money to the all powerful government so they will "allow" your to shoot your short guns. :rolleyes:
Not purchasing NFA weapons plays right into the anti gun agenda.
It keeps them a small niche item and the NFA will never be repealed if they remain a niche item.
Is anyone really surprised by this? Come on, we all know this has been a verbal game since they first commented on the SIG brace.
The AR15 "pistol" is not a pistol, everyone has always known that.
The "brace" was never really intended only to be a "brace" but clear was designed to be a should stock as well.
So finally the ATF has ruled what anyone with an ounce of common sense has been expecting: Hey, if you are using that "brace" to shoulder your "pistol" ... guess what, it ain't a pistol, it's a rifle now.
The sad thing, assuming this letter is the ATF's latest word on this. is that there are a heck of a lot of people now financially invested in the whole "AR pistol" thing, all based on the "forearm brace" game that has been played for the past couple of years.
Here's my shocked face:
https://welimin.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/shocked-face.png
The only reason for your sarcasm is because you don't understand what happened.
The brace was legitimately designed for one handed use. The fact that some people never use it with one hand is like how some people never use a "regular" pistol (like a Glock) with one hand. The end-user's intent and actual use doesn't change the designer's intent. That's common sense. It's also the law.
The ATF cannot make new laws nor modify old ones via letter to an individual.
But that's what it did.
Is anyone surprised that the ATF is doing another illegal thing? No. That's basically in its mission statement. But most are surprised they did it in this manner.
The ATF cannot make new laws nor modify old ones via letter to an individual.
This has been happening for 40 years with every government agency.
My patience for fair weather gun owners reached its limit in 2008 with the election of bam bam.
This queer stock/brace thing will segway into the banning of imported pistol versions of rifles such as the SIG 553, Zastava 92, MKEs, and CZ Skorpion.
Too many bubba tards have dicked with the system long enough that we are at this point in time.
You can bitch about the ATF all you want. They are not your equal in discourse. They get to do whatever they want. Bring an issue to their attention and you will not like the outcome. This concept eludes about 50% of the people on internet forums.
I will have to post my list of items over the past 20 years where the ATF banned something after idiots dicked with the system for too long.
You can bitch about the ATF all you want. They are not your equal in discourse. They get to do whatever they want. Bring an issue to their attention and you will not like the outcome. This concept eludes about 50% of the people on internet forums.
I'd say your estimate is way too low, make it about 90%.
:)
This has been happening for 40 years with every government agency.
Negative.
Negative.
The EPA is trying to regulate puddles of water on farms and golf courses.
How is this not analogous to what the ATF is doing ?
What about the IRS targting scandal?
Polymerhead
12-27-14, 13:47
Next will be an opinion letter that shooting a Glock two handed is "redesigning" a pistol into an AOW since the current definition of a pistol specifies "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand..."
The ATF cannot make new laws nor modify old ones via letter to an individual.
But that's what it did.
"ATF has determined" is all that is required to legislate by decree. We were worried Obama would make AR-15 rifles NFA weapons, ATF already did that with Street Sweeper and USAS 12 shotguns. One day they were Title 1, next day they were DDs.
As I recall that had to do with the bore diameter as well. I can't find the particular reference. Not quite the same thing.
"ATF has determined" is all that is required to legislate by decree. We were worried Obama would make AR-15 rifles NFA weapons, ATF already did that with Street Sweeper and USAS 12 shotguns. One day they were Title
1, next day they were DDs.
scottryan makes a valid point. 7n6 ammo anyone? What do you think would happen if there was readily available 5.56 AP ammo?
This is ridiculous.
Can someone remind me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to even pick and choose which arms the people can bear in the first place, let alone make up laws that can send a citizen to prison depending on how he/she shoulders a firearm?
Just checking.
This is ridiculous.
Can someone remind me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to even pick and choose which arms the people can bear in the first place, let alone make up laws that can send a citizen to prison depending on how he/she shoulders a firearm?
Just checking.
Unfortunately the National Firearms Act of 1934 gives law-based regulation to specific items: SBR's, AOW's, suppressors, machineguns, etc. That law would have to be repealed (good luck) to get those things legalized without the jumping-through-hoops process. It is ATF's arbitrary and seesaw rulings that need to be brought into check in absence of repealing NFA '34.
Any lawsuit brought forth on this brace issue is going to have to be filed in the most gun-friendly federal court possible. For instance anything under the 9th Circus jurisdiction is a bad idea. Same for anything covered by the NE or upper Midwest. Careful judge shopping at a lower level might be prudent too if one has the option of where to file.
As far as any criminal prosecutions (which I doubt we'll see except for maybe as an add-on charge) you'll need a prudent, common sense judge and non-brain dead jury (which is what they want to install). Good luck with both of those.
scottryan makes a valid point. 7n6 ammo anyone? What do you think would happen if there was readily available 5.56 AP ammo?
I'd buy 1K+ rounds of it?
Leaveammoforme
12-27-14, 15:29
I'd buy 1K+ rounds of it?
No you wouldn't. It would be outlawed since it can be chambered in a pistol.
AP pistol ammo: Illegal
AP rifle ammo : Legal
Just another 'screw you' we received thanks to AR/AK/G3 pistols.
Raven Armament
12-27-14, 16:00
As I recall that had to do with the bore diameter as well. I can't find the particular reference. Not quite the same thing.
Over a half inch bore diameter and non-sporting = destructive device.
Remove the sporting clause from the GCA and they won't be DDs anymore.
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-27-14, 16:30
Just laminate the old letter and use it as a cheek riser.
Bubbas are a threat to your gun rights.
When the media is at a gun show, who do they put the camera on?
1. The normally dressed professional man.
2. The fat slob with a unkept beard and a dirty t-shirt.
The answer isn't #1.
Don Robison
12-27-14, 17:02
Bubbas are a threat to your gun rights.
When the media at a gun show, who do they put the camera on?
1. The normally dressed professional man.
2. The fat slob with a unkept beard and a dirty t-shirt.
The answer isn't #1.
You mean like this gem talking about skirting NFA and throwing it in the face of the ATF being a good thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhTw3Vq-cpk
jerrysimons
12-27-14, 17:11
Bubbas are a threat to your gun rights.
When the media at a gun show, who do they put the camera on?
1. The normally dressed professional man.
2. The fat slob with a unkept beard and a dirty t-shirt.
The answer isn't #1.
Sadly true, but the NFA, ATF, and POS politicians are the problem. Bubba has the same rights as Mr. Professional.
As I recall that had to do with the bore diameter as well. I can't find the particular reference. Not quite the same thing.
All 12 ga. shotguns are .50 diameter. And sure they tried to throw the "large bore" 68 GCA import hokey pokey into their ruling but at the end of the day a Title 1 importable shotgun was transformed into a NFA destructive device with nothing more than a determination letter.
No you wouldn't. It would be outlawed since it can be chambered in a pistol.
AP pistol ammo: Illegal
AP rifle ammo : Legal
Just another 'screw you' we received thanks to AR/AK/G3 pistols.
Actually I think it was a Remington bolt action 5.56 pistol that screwed us on that particular round.
Raven Armament
12-27-14, 17:48
All 12 ga. shotguns are .50 diameter.
Nominal bore diameter is .729".
No you wouldn't. It would be outlawed since it can be chambered in a pistol.
AP pistol ammo: Illegal
AP rifle ammo : Legal
Just another 'screw you' we received thanks to AR/AK/G3 pistols.
He did say if it was "readily available".
There are .308 pistols yet you can still buy M61 AP black-tip 7.62x51 ammo. Really have a hard-on for rifle caliber pistols, eh?
Dunno if this has already been posted...This, and TWO lawsuits by Sig (which they won both), lends creditability to the story below.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/calm-pistol-brace-ruling-hasnt-changed/
----------------------------------------------
The National Firearms Act is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the world ever. And I don’t just mean that in terms of infringing on our Second Amendment rights. I mean that grammatically as well. The law is as clear as mud, sometimes when it comes to relatively straightforward questions. Once again we seem to have run headlong into an issue that the NFA doesn’t clearly spell out. In this case, the ATF appears to have told someone that using the pistol brace “improperly” makes it an SBR. And while that is 100 percent true for that person, the ATF isn’t “reversing their decision.” The letter makes perfect sense. And it’s fully consistent with past communications. Here’s why . . .
I have had the benefit of spending some time with legal counsel, experts in this matter, as well as a Cuban Missile Crisis style conversation that…didn’t…happen with an ATF agent in the last few hours. As a result, things have been clearing up for me. The difference here, and why Alex Bosco’s letter doesn’t jibe with this latest one, is intent.
When Alex originally submitted his letter asking for approval of the pistol brace, he intended it to be used as just that: a brace for attaching AR-style pistols to an arm. The device is intended to allow someone to fire an AR pistol with one hand, a definition that is just peachy keen and in no way falls under the National Firearms Act. The important thing to remember here is that intent matters — Alex intended to make a brace specifically designed for pistols. SIG SAUER’s pistols are intended to be
fired with one hand like a pistol when they are manufactured, and can be sold as such.
Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, “pistol” is defined as:
… a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
Intent plays a huge part in that definition, too, which is the problem — both for us and the ATF. The NFA talks about design details in this definition, but the biggest part of that statement is about intent. Since there is no way to factually determine intent in most cases, they default to a generally permissive status. If you say you intend to make a pistol, we believe you. Which is what they said in their next letter.
A little later, a letter came out from a police officer asking what they should do if they see someone using the pistol brace in a manner other than the way it was intended. If a firearm that is designed and intended to be used with one hand changes classification when used improperly. The answer was from the ATF was no, since the firearm was intended to be used as a pistol it is indeed a pistol no matter how the end user actually uses it. The same goes for individual manufacturers (those building an AR in their basement from parts). If they intend to build a pistol then a pistol they have built.
The issue apparently with this most recent letter is that the person writing it didn’t understand this nuanced point of law and basically outed himself to the ATF. It appears that he tipped his hand, telling them what he really wanted was a short barreled rifle, and was intending to build the firearm for that purpose.
Since he would be the manufacturer of that firearm, it would be what he intended it to be. In this case, a short barreled rifle. The issue is that the ATF’s tech branch aren’t exactly wordsmiths, and they produced a letter that contained all of the relevant facts and responses, but wasn’t exactly reader friendly. The following is a paraphrased version of the letter that might make a little more sense to the lay person, and including the previous letters’ rulings:
You asked if building an AR pistol with a SIG SAUER brace required a Form 1 as a Short Barreled Rifle. If you build the pistol as described and intend to use it as a pistol, then it does not require a From 1 and is just a pistol. If you intend to build a pistol and it is improperly used from time to time, that’s OK. If you intend to build the firearm to be a Short Barreled Rifle and use the pistol brace as a stock, then you intend to build an SBR and that requires a Form 1 and a tax stamp. If you intend to build a small gun designed to be fired from the shoulder, that is an SBR no matter what parts you use.
Robert’s article said that the ATF has “reversed” itself, and that’s not really true. This latest ruling is 100% consistent and in-line with everything else that has come before it. The entire reason we have the pistol brace and can use it in the manner to which we are accustomed is this idea of intent, and so long as the intent is to build a pistol when installing the brace there is no problem.
The moral of the story, once again, is that intent matters when “manufacturing” your firearm (which, in NFA speak, means assembling or altering the gun ). If you intend to make a SB-15-based pistol as a pistol, you are in the clear. But if you telegraph your intention to make an SBR by informing the ATF in writing that you plan to build it and not file any paperwork, expect the ATF to object no matter what parts you use.
In short, this guy basically sent a love note to the ATF letting them know that he was about to build an unregistered SBR. As long as you intend to make a pistol and don’t go sending superfluous letters, you should be just fine.
Unfortunately the National Firearms Act of 1934 gives law-based regulation to specific items: SBR's, AOW's, suppressors, machineguns, etc. That law would have to be repealed (good luck) to get those things legalized without the jumping-through-hoops process. It is ATF's arbitrary and seesaw rulings that need to be brought into check in absence of repealing NFA '34.
Any lawsuit brought forth on this brace issue is going to have to be filed in the most gun-friendly federal court possible. For instance anything under the 9th Circus jurisdiction is a bad idea. Same for anything covered by the NE or upper Midwest. Careful judge shopping at a lower level might be prudent too if one has the option of where to file.
As far as any criminal prosecutions (which I doubt we'll see except for maybe as an add-on charge) you'll need a prudent, common sense judge and non-brain dead jury (which is what they want to install). Good luck with both of those.
I am familiar with the NFA, its absurdities, self-contradictions, etc. but the NFA itself, like every other law, must itself be constitutional. There is zero basis for the NFA in the Constitution, no matter how broadly one "interprets" it.
A rifle requires a stock, and the ATF has determined that the SB-15 is not a stock. A pistol without a stock can't be an SBR.
Dunno if this has already been posted...This, and TWO lawsuits by Sig (which they won both), lends creditability to the story below.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/calm-pistol-brace-ruling-hasnt-changed/
----------------------------------------------
The National Firearms Act is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the world ever. And I don’t just mean that in terms of infringing on our Second Amendment rights. I mean that grammatically as well. The law is as clear as mud, sometimes when it comes to relatively straightforward questions. Once again we seem to have run headlong into an issue that the NFA doesn’t clearly spell out. In this case, the ATF appears to have told someone that using the pistol brace “improperly” makes it an SBR. And while that is 100 percent true for that person, the ATF isn’t “reversing their decision.” The letter makes perfect sense. And it’s fully consistent with past communications. Here’s why . . .
I have had the benefit of spending some time with legal counsel, experts in this matter, as well as a Cuban Missile Crisis style conversation that…didn’t…happen with an ATF agent in the last few hours. As a result, things have been clearing up for me. The difference here, and why Alex Bosco’s letter doesn’t jibe with this latest one, is intent.
When Alex originally submitted his letter asking for approval of the pistol brace, he intended it to be used as just that: a brace for attaching AR-style pistols to an arm. The device is intended to allow someone to fire an AR pistol with one hand, a definition that is just peachy keen and in no way falls under the National Firearms Act. The important thing to remember here is that intent matters — Alex intended to make a brace specifically designed for pistols. SIG SAUER’s pistols are intended to be
fired with one hand like a pistol when they are manufactured, and can be sold as such.
Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, “pistol” is defined as:
… a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
Intent plays a huge part in that definition, too, which is the problem — both for us and the ATF. The NFA talks about design details in this definition, but the biggest part of that statement is about intent. Since there is no way to factually determine intent in most cases, they default to a generally permissive status. If you say you intend to make a pistol, we believe you. Which is what they said in their next letter.
A little later, a letter came out from a police officer asking what they should do if they see someone using the pistol brace in a manner other than the way it was intended. If a firearm that is designed and intended to be used with one hand changes classification when used improperly. The answer was from the ATF was no, since the firearm was intended to be used as a pistol it is indeed a pistol no matter how the end user actually uses it. The same goes for individual manufacturers (those building an AR in their basement from parts). If they intend to build a pistol then a pistol they have built.
The issue apparently with this most recent letter is that the person writing it didn’t understand this nuanced point of law and basically outed himself to the ATF. It appears that he tipped his hand, telling them what he really wanted was a short barreled rifle, and was intending to build the firearm for that purpose.
Since he would be the manufacturer of that firearm, it would be what he intended it to be. In this case, a short barreled rifle. The issue is that the ATF’s tech branch aren’t exactly wordsmiths, and they produced a letter that contained all of the relevant facts and responses, but wasn’t exactly reader friendly. The following is a paraphrased version of the letter that might make a little more sense to the lay person, and including the previous letters’ rulings:
You asked if building an AR pistol with a SIG SAUER brace required a Form 1 as a Short Barreled Rifle. If you build the pistol as described and intend to use it as a pistol, then it does not require a From 1 and is just a pistol. If you intend to build a pistol and it is improperly used from time to time, that’s OK. If you intend to build the firearm to be a Short Barreled Rifle and use the pistol brace as a stock, then you intend to build an SBR and that requires a Form 1 and a tax stamp. If you intend to build a small gun designed to be fired from the shoulder, that is an SBR no matter what parts you use.
Robert’s article said that the ATF has “reversed” itself, and that’s not really true. This latest ruling is 100% consistent and in-line with everything else that has come before it. The entire reason we have the pistol brace and can use it in the manner to which we are accustomed is this idea of intent, and so long as the intent is to build a pistol when installing the brace there is no problem.
The moral of the story, once again, is that intent matters when “manufacturing” your firearm (which, in NFA speak, means assembling or altering the gun ). If you intend to make a SB-15-based pistol as a pistol, you are in the clear. But if you telegraph your intention to make an SBR by informing the ATF in writing that you plan to build it and not file any paperwork, expect the ATF to object no matter what parts you use.
In short, this guy basically sent a love note to the ATF letting them know that he was about to build an unregistered SBR. As long as you intend to make a pistol and don’t go sending superfluous letters, you should be just fine.
the 556 guy
12-27-14, 20:27
Maybe "we" should keep writing letters to the ATF asking permission & bringing attention to little loopholes like this so all of them get taken away.
Firearm enthusiasts are their own worst enemy.
Amen. However, loopholes that have have not been declared illegal yet, may still be illegal, just unprosecuted. Tread in grey areas and one takes risks.
Amen. However, loopholes that have have not been declared illegal yet, may still be illegal, just unprosecuted. Tread in grey areas and one takes risks.
They're well aware of the loopholes already. What makes you think writing letters does anything to "bring them to their attention"?
jerrysimons
12-27-14, 22:47
Dunno if this has already been posted...This, and TWO lawsuits by Sig (which they won both), lends creditability to the story below.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/calm-pistol-brace-ruling-hasnt-changed/
----------------------------------------------
The National Firearms Act is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the world ever. And I don’t just mean that in terms of infringing on our Second Amendment rights. I mean that grammatically as well. The law is as clear as mud, sometimes when it comes to relatively straightforward questions. Once again we seem to have run headlong into an issue that the NFA doesn’t clearly spell out. In this case, the ATF appears to have told someone that using the pistol brace “improperly” makes it an SBR. And while that is 100 percent true for that person, the ATF isn’t “reversing their decision.” The letter makes perfect sense. And it’s fully consistent with past communications. Here’s why . . .
I have had the benefit of spending some time with legal counsel, experts in this matter, as well as a Cuban Missile Crisis style conversation that…didn’t…happen with an ATF agent in the last few hours. As a result, things have been clearing up for me. The difference here, and why Alex Bosco’s letter doesn’t jibe with this latest one, is intent.
When Alex originally submitted his letter asking for approval of the pistol brace, he intended it to be used as just that: a brace for attaching AR-style pistols to an arm. The device is intended to allow someone to fire an AR pistol with one hand, a definition that is just peachy keen and in no way falls under the National Firearms Act. The important thing to remember here is that intent matters — Alex intended to make a brace specifically designed for pistols. SIG SAUER’s pistols are intended to be
fired with one hand like a pistol when they are manufactured, and can be sold as such.
Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, “pistol” is defined as:
… a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).
Intent plays a huge part in that definition, too, which is the problem — both for us and the ATF. The NFA talks about design details in this definition, but the biggest part of that statement is about intent. Since there is no way to factually determine intent in most cases, they default to a generally permissive status. If you say you intend to make a pistol, we believe you. Which is what they said in their next letter.
A little later, a letter came out from a police officer asking what they should do if they see someone using the pistol brace in a manner other than the way it was intended. If a firearm that is designed and intended to be used with one hand changes classification when used improperly. The answer was from the ATF was no, since the firearm was intended to be used as a pistol it is indeed a pistol no matter how the end user actually uses it. The same goes for individual manufacturers (those building an AR in their basement from parts). If they intend to build a pistol then a pistol they have built.
The issue apparently with this most recent letter is that the person writing it didn’t understand this nuanced point of law and basically outed himself to the ATF. It appears that he tipped his hand, telling them what he really wanted was a short barreled rifle, and was intending to build the firearm for that purpose.
Since he would be the manufacturer of that firearm, it would be what he intended it to be. In this case, a short barreled rifle. The issue is that the ATF’s tech branch aren’t exactly wordsmiths, and they produced a letter that contained all of the relevant facts and responses, but wasn’t exactly reader friendly. The following is a paraphrased version of the letter that might make a little more sense to the lay person, and including the previous letters’ rulings:
You asked if building an AR pistol with a SIG SAUER brace required a Form 1 as a Short Barreled Rifle. If you build the pistol as described and intend to use it as a pistol, then it does not require a From 1 and is just a pistol. If you intend to build a pistol and it is improperly used from time to time, that’s OK. If you intend to build the firearm to be a Short Barreled Rifle and use the pistol brace as a stock, then you intend to build an SBR and that requires a Form 1 and a tax stamp. If you intend to build a small gun designed to be fired from the shoulder, that is an SBR no matter what parts you use.
Robert’s article said that the ATF has “reversed” itself, and that’s not really true. This latest ruling is 100% consistent and in-line with everything else that has come before it. The entire reason we have the pistol brace and can use it in the manner to which we are accustomed is this idea of intent, and so long as the intent is to build a pistol when installing the brace there is no problem.
The moral of the story, once again, is that intent matters when “manufacturing” your firearm (which, in NFA speak, means assembling or altering the gun ). If you intend to make a SB-15-based pistol as a pistol, you are in the clear. But if you telegraph your intention to make an SBR by informing the ATF in writing that you plan to build it and not file any paperwork, expect the ATF to object no matter what parts you use.
In short, this guy basically sent a love note to the ATF letting them know that he was about to build an unregistered SBR. As long as you intend to make a pistol and don’t go sending superfluous letters, you should be just fine.
That may be what they meant to say based on the line: "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire... when held in one hand...", but that is not what they said in the letter. The wording of the letter takes into account not just the original intent of the designer/maker but the intent of the user of an unmodified SB-15 brace, [I]as used -- after the assembly of the pistol -- thus "redesigning/remaking" it into a SBR. It is obviously absurd, but in their own words:
"the attachment of the SB-15 brace to an AR-type pistol alone; would not change the classification of the pistol to an SBR. However, if this device, un-modified or modified; is assembled to a pistol and [underline original] [I]used as a shoulder stock, [I]thus [italics mine] designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a weapon design [sic] to be fired from the shoulder; this assembly would constitute the making of a "rifle" as defined in [the NFA]"
Not only are we prohibited from using the SB-15 pistol brace as a shoulder stock, we can't even use it as a "should stock"! :fie:
Edit: Perhaps in the letter they could have distinguished a semantic difference between the SB-15 brace "used as a shoulder stock" and something like "shouldering the SB-15 pistol brace." That would support the meaning according to your view, but if they meant a differentiation in regards to the original intention at the time of manufacture being the sole criteria in classifying the SB-15 as a shoulder stock as opposed to the use of "shouldering a SB-15 pistol brace" then it would not logically follow that the phrase "used as a shoulder stock" comes after the phrase "if this device is assembled to a pistol and..." The preceding use of the word "pistol" denotes the usage as a shoulder stock occurring after original assembly.
God help me, I have gone full-retard having to preform exegesis on an ATF letter.:suicide:
skydivr said
Since he would be the manufacturer of that firearm, it would be what he intended it to be. In this case, a short barreled rifle. The issue is that the ATF’s tech branch aren’t exactly wordsmiths, and they produced a letter that contained all of the relevant facts and responses, but wasn’t exactly reader friendly. The following is a paraphrased version of the letter that might make a little more sense to the lay person, and including the previous letters’ rulings:
You asked if building an AR pistol with a SIG SAUER brace required a Form 1 as a Short Barreled Rifle. If you build the pistol as described and intend to use it as a pistol, then it does not require a From 1 and is just a pistol. If you intend to build a pistol and it is improperly used from time to time, that’s OK. If you intend to build the firearm to be a Short Barreled Rifle and use the pistol brace as a stock, then you intend to build an SBR and that requires a Form 1 and a tax stamp. If you intend to build a small gun designed to be fired from the shoulder, that is an SBR no matter what parts you use.
Robert’s article said that the ATF has “reversed” itself, and that’s not really true. This latest ruling is 100% consistent and in-line with everything else that has come before it. The entire reason we have the pistol brace and can use it in the manner to which we are accustomed is this idea of intent, and so long as the intent is to build a pistol when installing the brace there is no problem.
The moral of the story, once again, is that intent matters when “manufacturing” your firearm (which, in NFA speak, means assembling or altering the gun ). If you intend to make a SB-15-based pistol as a pistol, you are in the clear. But if you telegraph your intention to make an SBR by informing the ATF in writing that you plan to build it and not file any paperwork, expect the ATF to object no matter what parts you use.
In short, this guy basically sent a love note to the ATF letting them know that he was about to build an unregistered SBR. As long as you intend to make a pistol and don’t go sending superfluous letters, you should be just fine.
Very well put!!! Another problem is, it's very hard to enforce.
Yes, that's correct. Thanks for the reference.
Over a half inch bore diameter and non-sporting = destructive device.
Remove the sporting clause from the GCA and they won't be DDs anymore.
Nominal bore diameter is .729".
Meant to say more than .50. Correction noted.
Yes, that's correct. Thanks for the reference.
It's the "non sporting" part that got them. They have the same bore diameter as any other 12 ga. shotgun. Being imports they should have simply been subject to the 89 Import Ban, which they were.
But this isn't simply a matter of failing the "sporter clause" of GCA 68. These became destructive devices and as a result an NFA item. This happened about a decade AFTER they were imported if my memory is correct.
softorchestra
12-28-14, 02:39
[content removed]
Distinguished Rick
12-28-14, 05:14
It's the government. Were you really expecting anything different?
How did this "new" ATF letter get to the Internet and is it a real ATF opinion letter to Anthony Crawford?
Most ATF letters that have been posted online come with some kind of background from the person posting them or a description of the source. This letter, dated November 10, 2014 just magically appeared in multiple forums and the ongoing discussions ensued.
Letter with "Anthony Crawford" and business name (unreadable)
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/DWood13/AnthonyCrawfordATFLetter_zpsc762465f.jpg
Letter with name covered
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h264/DWood13/AnthonyCrawfordSIG-Brace-ATF-letter-page-2_zpsa08cde79.jpg
wildcard600
12-28-14, 10:34
soo.... an SB-15 is not a stock unless used as one, but a AFG is not a forward grip even if it is being used as one ?
Am I missing something here ?
soo.... an SB-15 is not a stock unless used as one, but a AFG is not a forward grip even if it is being used as one ?
Am I missing something here ?
Welcome to the twilight zone......
wildcard600
12-28-14, 10:45
Welcome to the twilight zone......
Even Rod Serling couldn't make up something as fantastical and logic defying as this.
Raven Armament
12-28-14, 11:16
soo.... an SB-15 is not a stock unless used as one, but a AFG is not a forward grip even if it is being used as one ?
Am I missing something here ?
Yes.
The Magpul Angled Fore Grip is not a Vertical Fore Grip.
https://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/041006-openletter-nfa-adding-vertical-fore-grip.html
Yes.
The Magpul Angled Fore Grip is not a Vertical Fore Grip.
https://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2006/04/041006-openletter-nfa-adding-vertical-fore-grip.html
Thats not the point he was making. Atf said the Sig brace is not a stock... But now they say (allegedly) that using it like a stock makes it a stock and is illegal. Even though using the afg like a vfg is still legal. Same principle.
Thats not the point he was making. Atf said the Sig brace is not a stock... But now they say (allegedly) that using it like a stock makes it a stock and is illegal. Even though using the afg like a vfg is still legal. Same principle.
Bingo.
They're well aware of the loopholes already. What makes you think writing letters does anything to "bring them to their attention"?
Writing a letter forces them to establish a ruling on the subject matter. It is a guidance about how a potential case will be prosecuted on the governments side and sets a precedence. Gun companies follow this and will remove product from the market. An example of this is factory Benelli magazine extensions. Some asshole had to write a letter back in 2004 and these got pulled off the market.
Not writing a letter, lets sleeping dogs lie and lets people keep doing what they have been doing.
I'm going to write a letter to the ATF and ask their opinion about writing letters...maybe they'll change their stance on only start accepting emails.
I'm going to write a letter to the ATF and ask their opinion about writing letters...maybe they'll change their stance on only start accepting emails.
Just spam them with thousands of copies. They can't put opinion letters in a timely manner if they can't keep up lol. Denial of service blah blah
Robb Jensen
12-28-14, 12:35
The Nov. 10th letter doesn't CHANGE a damn thing.
I'm surprised at all of the people who like to support 2A, but only in the way that suits them. Like all of the sbr owners that hate the sig brace.
I'm not ragging on any of the board members here, it's human nature. I know I have a self serving bias too.
Unintended consequences from the visibility this has gotten is what concerns me.
I'm surprised at all of the people who like to support 2A, but only in the way that suits them. Like all of the sbr owners that hate the sig brace.
I'm not ragging on any of the board members here, it's human nature. I know I have a self serving bias too.
Unintended consequences from the visibility this has gotten is what concerns me.
Similar to hunters that rag on the tactical crowd.
United We Stand, Divided We Fall.
sellersrodshop
12-28-14, 14:49
I'm surprised at all of the people who like to support 2A, but only in the way that suits them. Like all of the sbr owners that hate the sig brace.
I'm not ragging on any of the board members here, it's human nature. I know I have a self serving bias too.
Unintended consequences from the visibility this has gotten is what concerns me.
my thoughts exactly. i've read over the numerous forums & just can't figure out the animosity towards the sig brace & exuberance over this letter. the same folks will be shouting to the mountaintops when something is ruled on that has an effect on them. just remember, give them an inch & they will take a mile.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller
Thats not the point he was making. Atf said the Sig brace is not a stock... But now they say (allegedly) that using it like a stock makes it a stock and is illegal. Even though using the afg like a vfg is still legal. Same principle.
I hope someone doesn't write a letter to clarify it.
Leaveammoforme
12-28-14, 15:14
When you butt stroke someone with a sig brace does it make the chew toy squeak noise? I guess a neighbor got destroyed the other morning and I didn't even investigate the noise. *Squeak, squeak, squeak..* at a very fast tempo for a good 5 minutes.
my thoughts exactly. i've read over the numerous forums & just can't figure out the animosity towards the sig brace & exuberance over this letter. the same folks will be shouting to the mountaintops when something is ruled on that has an effect on them. just remember, give them an inch & they will take a mile.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller
I don't get it either. Its a means to an end. Nothing more nothing less. It's as simple as that. Maybe it's an exclusivity thing, idk. People are childish like that.
daddyusmaximus
12-28-14, 15:47
When you butt stroke someone with a sig brace does it make the chew toy squeak noise? I guess a neighbor got destroyed the other morning and I didn't even investigate the noise. *Squeak, squeak, squeak..* at a very fast tempo for a good 5 minutes.
If you "butt" stroke someone with a Sig brace, it becomes a "butt" of a stock, and not an arm "brace", and is therefore illegal...
Squeak noise or not.
Outlander Systems
12-28-14, 15:51
my thoughts exactly. i've read over the numerous forums & just can't figure out the animosity towards the sig brace & exuberance over this letter. the same folks will be shouting to the mountaintops when something is ruled on that has an effect on them. just remember, give them an inch & they will take a mile.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller
If the ATF tries to back out on allowing trust ownership without fingerprints/CLEO-sign off, the gnashing of teeth will be legendary.
Like it or not, we are ALL in this together.
softorchestra
12-28-14, 16:15
[content removed]
Lastly, we should NOT hate the folks that have filed Form 1s to get their SBR, in some ways that might be the best way to go. I don't like the Form 1 and don't feel that it is a fair system
Variety is the spice of life. I own both and see a valid purpose for owning both. Most of the vitriol appears to come from the SBR side and it is difficult to understand why this is such a divisive topic.
All is good as far as I am concerned and the folks who can't understand owning one or the other need to flipping get over it, as you have far more in common, than not, by the simple fact that you own firearms.
Tempest in a teapot.
Variety is the spice of life. I own both and see a valid purpose for owning both. Most of the vitriol appears to come from the SBR side and it is difficult to understand why this is such a divisive topic.
All is good as far as I am concerned and the folks who can't understand owning one or the other need to flipping get over it, as you have far more in common, than not, by the simple fact that you own firearms.
Tempest in a teapot.
I'm convinced that if we as Americans were blessed with opportunity to right the ship regarding all of the absurd gun restrictions we have to deal with there would be people within our community that would complain and oppose it. I kid you not.
I'm convinced that if we as Americans were blessed with opportunity to right the ship regarding all of the absurd gun restrictions we have to deal with there would be people within our community that would complain and oppose it. I kid you not.
If NFA was going to be repealed, do you think the people that have 100k+ in FA would go along with it? Hell no, they would oppose so they don't loose their investment. They would be hailed as common sense gun owners that choose to register and regulate their firearms. Picture a libtard magazine with a lawyer holding a FA AR with a caption of "I registered mine."
softorchestra
12-28-14, 20:01
[content removed]
I'm convinced that if we as Americans were blessed with opportunity to right the ship regarding all of the absurd gun restrictions we have to deal with there would be people within our community that would complain and oppose it. I kid you not.
Yep, unfortunately, you're 100% correct.
People, myself included, to a greater extent than I like, focus too much on what makes them different, or better instead of focusing on those things that are shared, regardless of topic.
juliomorris
12-28-14, 20:30
Yep, unfortunately, you're 100% correct.
Yep and some of the people just had to keep writing letters just looking for the ATF to rule this way...
juliomorris
12-28-14, 20:32
I'm betting soon we will have the same thing happen with freeze plugs and form 1 suppressor builds.
Leaveammoforme
12-28-14, 20:45
If you "butt" stroke someone with a Sig brace, it becomes a "butt" of a stock, and not an arm "brace", and is therefore illegal...
Squeak noise or not.
True. I should send a letter asking if a person could buttstroke someone with a sig brace installed or if they should only utilize pistol-whipping. The definition of buttstroke is 'to strike someone with the butt of a rifle'. So you would have a pistol, then a rifle (while buttstrokin'), then a pistol again as soon as you stopped. Thus temporarily making an illegal SBR. Yeah, I need clarification. Letter sent.
I'm betting soon we will have the same thing happen with freeze plugs and form 1 suppressor builds.
Autozone won't know what hit them.. Same with maglite.
softorchestra
12-28-14, 21:45
[content removed]
Nonsense, I want to be able to own uncommon firearms too... I'm greedy like that.
But I agree with you just the same.
softorchestra
12-28-14, 22:48
[content removed]
Writing a letter forces them to establish a ruling on the subject matter. It is a guidance about how a potential case will be prosecuted on the governments side and sets a precedence. Gun companies follow this and will remove product from the market. An example of this is factory Benelli magazine extensions. Some asshole had to write a letter back in 2004 and these got pulled off the market.
Not writing a letter, lets sleeping dogs lie and lets people keep doing what they have been doing.
Cannot disagree with this statement anymore; excellent example. The people that work at ATF are Government employees that get paid 26 times a year, many are not gun people, and have already gave an opinion on the matter. Why keep on bothering them with stupid questions through letters ?!? If you put anything in writing to a Government official, whether by official letter or e-mail, it becomes a official request and puts them in a corner where they HAVE to respond or they could become liable later. So if you keep asking them stupid questions via official correspondence you will get that type of written response, so don't cry about it later.
To the first guy that wrote to the ATF after getting a ruling on the Sig Brace , you should be kicked many times in the balls.
Is anyone really surprised by this? Come on, we all know this has been a verbal game since they first commented on the SIG brace.
The AR15 "pistol" is not a pistol, everyone has always known that.
The "brace" was never really intended only to be a "brace" but clear was designed to be a should stock as well.
So finally the ATF has ruled what anyone with an ounce of common sense has been expecting: Hey, if you are using that "brace" to shoulder your "pistol" ... guess what, it ain't a pistol, it's a rifle now.
The sad thing, assuming this letter is the ATF's latest word on this. is that there are a heck of a lot of people now financially invested in the whole "AR pistol" thing, all based on the "forearm brace" game that has been played for the past couple of years.
Here's my shocked face:
https://welimin.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/shocked-face.png
Thats not what they declared in the letter. What they did say to the author of the letter is ...if you put a Brace on an AR Pistol with the INTENTION of shouldering it as a stock & then you shoulder it as a stock, you have created an SBR. If you build an AR Pistol with the intent of using it as a pistol and then equip said Pistol with a Pistol Brace and inadvertently shoulder it, it still does not change the Pistol into an SBR. It is all in the intent. This intent has to be proven. I would love to see how in the hell the ATF is going to prove that.
In short, SB15/SBX/SB47 haters and proud tax/extortion payers, this changes nothing. Until the ATF reclassifies the Pistol braces and magically makes them stocks
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m53huanA3c1qzpbkto1_400.gif
by then I'll have my factory SBR lower ( Yea, yea I paid the tax, I am not proud nor do I think it makes me "better" than a pistol owner) in hand and a little switcheroo and I still wont worry
softorchestra
12-29-14, 01:08
[content removed]
I'm surprised at all of the people who like to support 2A, but only in the way that suits them. Like all of the sbr owners that hate the sig brace.
I'm not ragging on any of the board members here, it's human nature. I know I have a self serving bias too.
Unintended consequences from the visibility this has gotten is what concerns me.
Just for clarification, or to go on record with my position, I think the SIG brace is stupid, but I support the right of anyone to put whatever stupid Sig brace / TAPCO / Leapers crap they want to put on any firearm.
To me it's like owning a zero grade firearm. It should be legal for all law abiding citizens. I do understand for some it's the only option for a variety of reasons. But I still think it's a zero grade firearm.
That's not exactly what was said in the letter in the 1st post of this topic.
It said:
"Consequently, the attachment of the SB-15 brace to an AR-type pistol alone;
would not change the classification of the pistol to an SBR. However, if the
device, un-modified or modified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a
should stock, thus designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a
weapon design to be fired from the shoulder; this assembly would constitute
the making of a "rifle" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(7)."
That seems quite different from what you posted. There is some question of what a "should" stock is, which many believe to be a shoulder stock (and I would agree), but that is also not clear. We must be anal about their response in the same way they are about any inquiries...so just saying...to be clear it seems the letter is saying that you are redesigning the firearm into a rifle by the "use", there is really nothing about intent in that response, AFAICT, it uses the term "used".
My interpretation is in keeping with their closing statement. I do see your point in approaching the anti-logic from the ATF like I would a chimp with a grenade. The "use" thing to me is a scare tactic or an unfinished explanation. I carry the "Sgt Bradly" letter in my range bag and another in my pistol grip, another photocopy in my phone, it directly contradicts this "new' letter and the same twit signed them both. If this logic applies they would have to arrest two handed pistol shooters and all two handed gripping buffer-tube cheek welders. This would be next to impossible for them to get a conviction on.
"Further, if this device modified or unmodified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock in the designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder, which incorporates a barrel less than 16"; this assembly would constitute the making of a rifle having a barrel of less than 16"; an NFA firearm in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(7)."
We should also consider that letter is not a public announcement, simply a letter to a moron that is seemingly trying to rock the boat, as anybody that would know of the classification of "other" would be aware that a virgin receiver is listed as "other" when picking it up from an FFL. I am not saying the ATF wont put out an official notification stating this new voodoo now is grounds for a felony but until they do , what has changed? AT least the "SGT Bradley" letter was a concise and very clearly worded letter advising an LEO that shouldering a Pistol Brace was not a crime or a transforming action and that the ATF had made no determinations in how a legal firearm was fired as far as classification goes. This latest letter is a vague joke that makes alot of things we all do with pistols of any sort illegal for brief periods of time.
If NFA was going to be repealed, do you think the people that have 100k+ in FA would go along with it? Hell no, they would oppose so they don't loose their investment. They would be hailed as common sense gun owners that choose to register and regulate their firearms. Picture a libtard magazine with a lawyer holding a FA AR with a caption of "I registered mine."
And in my case you would be very wrong. The opportunity to buy NEW machine guns outweighs other considerations. Additionally, many pre 86 transferable's haven't been manufactured for a long time.
Do you really think original Colt Thompsons, vietnam era M-16s, M3 Grease Guns and the like are going to drop a thin penny just because the registry was reopened? Never happen, the only thing that would change is somebody could make really expensive new production Thompsons and prices would be pretty high.
People with $100,000 NFA collections don't have a collection of registered tube guns and a drawer full of lightning links.
Now the guy with ONE Mac 10 and a Lage upper might sweat his investment.
And in my case you would be very wrong. The opportunity to buy NEW machine guns outweighs other considerations. Additionally, many pre 86 transferable's haven't been manufactured for a long time.
Do you really think original Colt Thompsons, vietnam era M-16s, M3 Grease Guns and the like are going to drop a thin penny just because the registry was reopened? Never happen, the only thing that would change is somebody could make really expensive new production Thompsons and prices would be pretty high.
People with $100,000 NFA collections don't have a collection of registered tube guns and a drawer full of lightning links.
Now the guy with ONE Mac 10 and a Lage upper might sweat his investment.
For Sale: Colt AR-15 SP1 1970's Vintage MINT
http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2014/02/25/2737243_01_colt_ar_15_sp1_1970_s_vintage__640.jpg
Price:
$ 1,200
Seller:
Private Party
Account:
Registered on 2/12/2014
Listings by this user
Listed On:
Monday, February 24, 2014
Listed In:
Rifles
Location:
Parker, Denver, Colorado - Map
Manufacturer:
Colt
Caliber:
223/5.56 NATO
Action:
Semi-automatic
Firearm Type:
Rifle
For sale is a Colt AR-15 SP1 Rifle from the 1970's in 5.56/.223. Condition is excellent, and looks to be barely fired. Bore is mirror bright, and all internals function perfectly. All parts are original Colt, and this gun is from the estate of a long time collector. If you're looking for an all original, excellent condition AR with triangular handguard and original squirrel cage flash hider, this is the gun for you!
Price is 1200 + 20 background fee if you live in CO. Prefer to deal locally, but am happy to make shipping arrangements to an FFL if need be.
Will consider trades for German Lugers or Mauser Broomhandles only.
If this 1970's rifle was select-fire it would sell for about $15k to $20k more. I understand what you are saying with collectibles but I think that if the NFA was abolished and any law-abiding citizen could buy a select fire AR15, it would have some negative impact on the prices of fully auto pre-bans. Who knows how drastic an impact it would be but it certainly wouldn't boost prices. I think that new production SF weapons would command a higher price until production caught up with demand.
Edit: This ad from Armslist is no longer an active listing. The item has been sold and the listing discontinued. If this violates any rules I will take the defunct listing down immediately.
softorchestra
12-29-14, 02:04
[content removed]
Absolutely, but without going to court it can't be proven one way or the other. The bullet button was never contested until millions were in use, and it stood up. I agree completly that this is a frickin' letter from whoever is fielding questions for the BATFE.
I actually do believe there could be intent involved when it goes to court for someone, if it does, just that we can only see a very small piece of a court case in this type of response. They are planned out well in advance of the trial and typically much more involved
Until a case goes to court, nobody knows for certain, and even in that case it could depend on the attorney. OJ, case in point.
Lets hope a high-profile politically connected rich-guy gets charged first, Maybe a Koch Brother. With money and a good lawyer the charges would not stand a chance and we would all win.
"And the window licking on the bus starts at the drivers front window and works its way counter clockwise until you come to the the slide opening doors. You then have to skip a space to get into position to lick said door window. If you do not skip said space you will be drowned while being set on fire. Same penalty will be applied if you start in a clockwise motion. Any questions, et al, about using a brace I skip said space or lick windows in a clockwise motion should be sent to the BATF immediately for a ruling on how to have a device help you lick said windows."
Lets hope a high-profile politically connected rich-guy gets charged first, Maybe a Koch Brother. With money and a good lawyer the charges would not stand a chance and we would all win.
And this is the reason sales will plummet for the Sig Brace. Most will not want to be a test case, and go through the potential legal, and FINANCIAL issues of fighting this in court. The Feds have limitless funds confiscated from us, and can easily make our lives miserable over technicalities.
I was thinking of getting a Sig Brace to see if I liked an SBR type of rifle. Now, if I want to go this route, I will just pay the $200, and get the stamp.
Until the validity of the most recent alleged letter is confirmed or otherwise this is all moot. Even if it is valid just don't become the go pro retard sending DVDs of yourself shouldering the thing that goes up to the BATFE via registered mail with a photocopy of your ID.
BuzzinSATX
12-29-14, 07:47
Or not wanting to deal with paperwork.
Or wait.
Or being a single person in a household who can legally touch that thing, without going a trust route.
Or spending time and money on a trust.
Or in principle registering your gun with feds.
Or etching your name on a gun.
Or worrying about what state I can cross into with it.
Or letting BATFE know I wanna travel with my gun.
Two hundred bucks is, without exaggeration, of zero concern to me, and yet I don't have anything NFA.
I definitely agree with this. I don't live in a very 'firearm restrictive' state, and the $200 isn't the issue, it's pretty much everything in the quoted post above, or to sum it up, the BS requirements of an outdated NFA.
Lots of discussion about the inconsistency of the ATF letters, or "I told you so", or "surprised it was allowed in the first place", but the bottom line problem is that SBR's (and suppressors for that matter), have too many rules and bureaucracy attached to them, and firearms owners, gun rights organizations, and weapons makers alike should run a full court press on Congress to repeal and replace the NFA with something updated and MUCH less restrictive.
I'd be willing to concede UBCs in exchange for repealing damn near every firearm related restriction in existence. Afterall we were told UBCs were the end all be all to stopping violent crime involving firearms.... Chuckle chuckle...
evilblackrifle
12-29-14, 08:06
I'd be willing to concede UBCs in exchange for repealing damn near every firearm related restriction in existence. I wouldn't. The so-called universal background check is far more dangerous to gun rights than a ban on any particular firearm.
There is only one reason for .gov to put every firearms transaction on a government form, and that is to create a registry. And there's only one reason for a registry - to eventually disarm you - not by force, as many think, but by regulations and taxes.
Absent the 4473 nonsense obviously.
There's enough stupidity in this whole "Brace" thing to do a SouthPark episode. :sarcastic:
It's completely ridiculous.
Failure2Stop
12-29-14, 08:32
There's enough stupidity in this whole "Brace" thing to do a SouthPark episode. :sarcastic:
It's completely ridiculous.
That would be great.
There's enough stupidity in this whole "Brace" thing to do a SouthPark episode. :sarcastic:
It's completely ridiculous.
Do you like fishsticks?
Like when Sig makes this?
http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/29/ba6ee089db6dac74e42725aeb36a3f99.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
polymorpheous
12-29-14, 09:30
This thread is a prime example of why I rarely lurk this boards, and even more so post.
It sickens me how elitists here will throw fellow gun owners under the bus because they don't like what they have.
Sounds a lot like fudds don't it?
Do you like fishsticks?
"Luv em" in my best kanye voice.
Lol, could you imagine an nfa southpark episode..... oh lordy.
This thread is a prime example of why I rarely lurk this boards, and even more so post.
It sickens me how elitists here will throw fellow gun owners under the bus because they don't like what they have.
Sounds a lot like fudds don't it?
No it's actually the complete opposite of being a fudd.
It's about dipshit gun owners that constantly operate in the gray area of the law and bring down a bunch of regulations on the rest of us.
No it's actually the complete opposite of being a fudd.
It's about dipshit gun owners that constantly operate in the gray area of the law and bring down a bunch of regulations on the rest of us.
Say what? No...
Owning either registered NFA weapons and/or braced pistols for whatever reason does not a fudd one make. Not even remotely. Those qualities are entirely separate.
May as well just blame all gun owners for violent crimes committed with the aid of a firearm or rape victims themselves.
Kinda sounds like the GOP blaming libertarians for their own shortcomings in running perpetually sh***y candidates even.
heartbreakridge01
12-29-14, 09:58
You mean like this gem talking about skirting NFA and throwing it in the face of the ATF being a good thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhTw3Vq-cpk
Looks like we have a volunteer for the lucky SOB that gets to challenge this in court!
sevenhelmet
12-29-14, 09:58
I can't believe this thread is still alive!
Informational content is gone, and accusations are flying... this is really just entertainment now.
The way I read this letter is the question was asked "can I build a SBR using a Sig brace as a butt stalk and not register it as a SBR"
The way the idiot wrote the letter it states he plans on using it as a stock. <- Intent.
The last letter was asking if it was ok to shoulder SB15 brace on a pistol. This guy did not say anything about intent to use it as a rifle, just if using a pistol part in an improvised way against the shoulder occasionally. To me the key is using it in an improvised fashion, i.e. not what you it or you intended it for its fine.
This thing has always been a fine line, but as with so much NFA its about intent.
Now the interesting thing with intent, what if you never built it? Thats the issue with this letter, he built the gun and intended to use it as a stock. But what about When a company, say Sig, builds a pistol with it and only intended for it to be used one handed strapped in?
The letter says nothing about how you intend to to use a pistol after buying it. My impression is NFA ways in on constructive intent.
Yes the SB15 is ugly, lame and not nearly as cool looking as a stock, nor does it telescope. But you know whats even worse than the SB15?, states that do not allow NFA. So for me the SB15 is way better than nothing, it also works quite well using it in improvised shooting positions, like shouldering. Of corse I did not intend to use it this way when building my pistol, but in an improvised situation it works very well.
The way I read this letter is the question was asked "can I build a SBR using a Sig brace as a butt stalk and not register it as a SBR"
The way the idiot wrote the letter it states he plans on using it as a stock. <- Intent.
The last letter was asking if it was ok to shoulder SB15 brace on a pistol. This guy did not say anything about intent to use it as a rifle, just if using a pistol part in an improvised way against the shoulder occasionally. To me the key is using it in an improvised fashion, i.e. not what you it or you intended it for its fine.
This thing has always been a fine line, but as with so much NFA its about intent.
Now the interesting thing with intent, what if you never built it? Thats the issue with this letter, he built the gun and intended to use it as a stock. But what about When a company, say Sig, builds a pistol with it and only intended for it to be used one handed strapped in?
The letter says nothing about how you intend to to use a pistol after buying it. My impression is NFA ways in on constructive intent.
Yes the SB15 is ugly, lame and not nearly as cool looking as a stock, nor does it telescope. But you know whats even worse than the SB15?, states that do not allow NFA. So for me the SB15 is way better than nothing, it also works quite well using it in improvised shooting positions, like shouldering. Of corse I did not intend to use it this way when building my pistol, but in an improvised situation it works very well.
I see it this way if your building a lower from an other and you have 3 units in front of you including a CTR, Sopmod, and SB15 and you select the SB15 to use as a stock (irrespective of its classification as a brace, not a stock) then it is a stock due to its intended use and the resulting product thus being a SBR requiring registration..
If your building the firearm and select the sb15 with the intent of using it as a pistol than it is not a SBR and does not require registration because their is no intent.
It's all hearsay anyway until the validity of the latest letter is proven.
sellersrodshop
12-29-14, 10:20
No it's actually the complete opposite of being a fudd.
It's about dipshit gun owners that constantly operate in the gray area of the law and bring down a bunch of regulations on the rest of us.
I don't see how a ruling on the sig brace or pistols will affect you at all, just the 'bottom feeder dipshits", but my thinking is that the correct response should be "I'll stand with you & fight for whats right. If I don't, then they may come after something I own/approve of next". You stated earlier that "Anybody that owns or sells pistol versions of assault rifles is a bottom feeder". Do you own full auto M-16's? If not then you, along with 99.9% of the populace just own rifle length versions of a true assault rifle. With that logic, that would make almost everyone a bottom feeding, dipshit poser.
Haven't we all seen that divide & conquer is the game they play??
polymorpheous
12-29-14, 10:24
Time warp, December 2012:
Oh no!
Another AWB is coming!
Let work on getting semi automatic, detachable box feed rifles listed as NFA to avoid a ban!
Sound familiar?
What gun owners were skirting which law then?
It's ****ing disgusting!
Time warp, December 2012:
Oh no!
Another AWB is coming!
Let work on getting semi automatic, detachable box feed rifles listed as NFA to avoid a ban!
Sound familiar?
What gun owners were skirting which law then?
It's ****ing disgusting!
No kidding.. Bunch of self serving nonsense there... It'd be funny how some are so willing to cave like a house of cards when reality hits them in the face if it wasn't so abhorrent. Guess its no shock why some Jews ratted out others to try and save themselves.
I say not another inch. I doesn't matter if its a Sig brace, mag capacity limits, or mandating that all firearms be painted blaze orange as a warning... Any failure to hold the front against the anti-gunners infringes on everyone, fudd or not.
sevenhelmet
12-29-14, 10:48
^^^Agree 100%
^^^Agree 100%
I'm honestly almost surprised politicians don't come out proclaiming their constituents want their rights diminished.
softorchestra
12-29-14, 11:12
[content removed]
it's a shitty stock that costs almost as much as a stamp.
sorry ppl in bent states.
this was coming.
it's a shitty stock that costs almost as much as a stamp.
sorry ppl in bent states.
this was coming.
It's actually half the cost of a stamp and decent stock, but a stock is really a shitty brace. :cool:
skijunkie55
12-29-14, 15:28
Shouldn't this thread be in the AR pistol or handgun sub forum?? We are after all talking about pistols, not short barreled rifles... :D
Carry on.
it's a shitty stock that costs almost as much as a stamp.
sorry ppl in bent states.
this was coming.
You mean Arm brace right?
***almost, but really not $200
Plus a stock
Waiting time
Registration.
I own a SBR, but I'm not gonna hate on the SB15 for no apparent reason.
In fact I'm building a pistol that I INTEND to use as a arm brace once I have a SB15 (see what I did there...legal)
And then I will be SBR a completely separate lower when finished with the pistol.
They both have pros and cons.
If this 1970's rifle was select-fire it would sell for about $15k to $20k more. I understand what you are saying with collectibles but I think that if the NFA was abolished and any law-abiding citizen could buy a select fire AR15, it would have some negative impact on the prices of fully auto pre-bans. Who knows how drastic an impact it would be but it certainly wouldn't boost prices. I think that new production SF weapons would command a higher price until production caught up with demand.
Edit: This ad from Armslist is no longer an active listing. The item has been sold and the listing discontinued. If this violates any rules I will take the defunct listing down immediately.
Certain NFA items would completely lose their value like registered tube guns, sear conversions and lightning links.
But my point is collectors really don't put big money into those things. A "registered receiver" conversion AR-15 will have the bottom drop out even if it is a no longer produced SP1 variant. But a true M-16A1 will hold nearly all it's value regardless of any changes in the NFA law because there won't be anymore. You can add clones to the registry but the number of original "collectible" machine guns like M-16s, Thomspson, M3s, BARs and Lewis Guns will continue to only go up and up.
The guys who will sweat their investments are those who have sear conversions, registered tube guns, non collectible receiver conversions or things like MAC 10s simply because they were made in such large numbers.
WickedWillis
12-29-14, 18:04
This whole debacle that happened while I was away from M4C has pushed me firmly in the direction of the Tavor so I can travel to the three separate states close to me and enjoy firing my weapons without the worry or the hassle of losing said firearm over some ATF bullshit.
Here is a copy of a note posted by me and others on ARFCOM
[Jump To Reply]Originally Posted By 9mmstephen:
Originally Posted By OhShoot:
Originally Posted By 9mmstephen:
This new letter and the one written to Sgt. Bradley were written by the same guy.
No, they weren't. For a chronology:
Original SIG brace approval letter:
11/26/12 - John R. Spencer, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
Sgt. Bradley Letter:
3/5/14 - Earl Griffith, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
Black Aces Letter:
10/28/14 - Max M. Kingery, ACTING Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch
Current letter under discussion:
11/10/14 - Max M. Kingery, ACTING Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch
Shockwave Blade Letter:
12/15/14 - Michael R. Curtis, ACTING Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch
- OS
Look at the signatures. The same guy wrote both.
All the above is a quote
Now the questions.
The 3/14/14 letter was signed by Max Kingery for Earl Griffith, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
The 11/10/14 letter was written by Max Kingery, ACTING Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch
The 12/15/14 letter was written by Michael R. Curtis, ACTING Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch
BOLD added by me.
Did Earl leave and be replaced by Max?
Was Max replaced by Michael between 11/10/14 and 12/15/14?
Does this mean that Michael is friendlier to the whole brace idea?
Does this mean better opinions on the brace?
It appears there is a lot of internal turnover at the BATF.
Last edited by MarkB1; Today at 19:48.
edit: A full reading of the Shockwave letter basically says the same. It's legal to use as a brace but somehow, magically becomes illegal when fired from the shoulder. Same brace, same gun. Now they rule how you act!
Certain NFA items would completely lose their value like registered tube guns, sear conversions and lightning links.
But my point is collectors really don't put big money into those things. A "registered receiver" conversion AR-15 will have the bottom drop out even if it is a no longer produced SP1 variant. But a true M-16A1 will hold nearly all it's value regardless of any changes in the NFA law because there won't be anymore. You can add clones to the registry but the number of original "collectible" machine guns like M-16s, Thomspson, M3s, BARs and Lewis Guns will continue to only go up and up.
The guys who will sweat their investments are those who have sear conversions, registered tube guns, non collectible receiver conversions or things like MAC 10s simply because they were made in such large numbers.
That does make sense, thx for clarifying.
wildcard600
12-29-14, 21:05
Certain NFA items would completely lose their value like registered tube guns, sear conversions and lightning links.
But my point is collectors really don't put big money into those things. A "registered receiver" conversion AR-15 will have the bottom drop out even if it is a no longer produced SP1 variant. But a true M-16A1 will hold nearly all it's value regardless of any changes in the NFA law because there won't be anymore. You can add clones to the registry but the number of original "collectible" machine guns like M-16s, Thomspson, M3s, BARs and Lewis Guns will continue to only go up and up.
The guys who will sweat their investments are those who have sear conversions, registered tube guns, non collectible receiver conversions or things like MAC 10s simply because they were made in such large numbers.
Eventually the prices on the collector and museum pieces would rise again, but the reason they are so valuable is because they are transferrable. If "MG" ban went away tomorrow you can't tell me that all those dealer sample MG's hitting the market wouldn't be a giant blow to the value of a good portion of the MG market. Pre-may dealer samples sell for half or less than fully transferrable examples.
This just popped-up on another forum;
From a post by F3 Tactical Inc via Breach-Bang-Clear on social media...
Quote:
Word today from a very well respected member of our community, the Law Enforcement Community and the Firearms Industry. This is all I have been told. Thanks for the heads up brother!!
"Word from a local ATF Agent who reached out to the Firearms Tech Branch is that an official decision has been made on the Sig Brace issue:
They are reversing the earlier opinion and using established case law and precedent, stating a firearm may be classified based upon its use. Attorneys from Sig are on board, stating it was never intended to be used in a shoulder fired position.
They are in the process of producing an industry circular, and public bulletin which will address it shortly."
This just popped-up on another forum;
Well now this is really gonna make things interesting....can't wait to read it :sarcasm:
I'll be pissed if the ATF letter doesn't say at the end
"Thanks for all your concerning letters!"
So the established case law and earlier precedent they overlooked when formulating their previous opinion? I call BS about SIGs attorneys too but at any rate it's hearsay until something official comes out.
So the established case law and earlier precedent they overlooked when formulating their previous opinion? I call BS about SIGs attorneys too but at any rate it's hearsay until something official comes out.
Sig is covering their asses, they'll say the same as the ATF to continue selling it.
They know what it is and how it's being used, and how it'll continue to be used but it takes the responsibility off them. Yet unless you take pictures using it incorrectly, go anywhere public to shoot, or go on the local BATFE company picnic shoot, it'll be hard for them to nail you for using it incorrectly.
If true, it's easy to see why they'll be on board with the BATFE.
So the established case law and earlier precedent they overlooked when formulating their previous opinion? I call BS about SIGs attorneys too but at any rate it's hearsay until something official comes out.
I cant find that case law anywhere. Has anybody been able to locate this case law precedent?
I cant find that case law anywhere. Has anybody been able to locate this case law precedent?
That's because I'm betting there is none.
Maybe their just going to come out and say possession of a firearm suggests criminal intent because some crimes are committed with the aid of a firearm. [emoji19]
That's because I'm betting there is none.
Maybe their just going to come out and say possession of a firearm suggests criminal intent because some crimes are committed with the aid of a firearm. [emoji19]
There may be a bright side to this. This logic by the ATF should render any SBR a Pistol if I never shoulder the stock.
jerrysimons
12-29-14, 22:22
Sure does fit the precedent of other ATF absurdities, like illegally stockpiling Chore Boy because it could be used to manufacture an unregistered suppressor...
MountainRaven
12-29-14, 23:06
Seems like an ATF decision. Goes up there with the decision that a VFG is fine on a pistol, so long as it's OAL is at least 26 inches and it isn't being concealed.
Well great, thanks to all the people who made YouTube videos and writing letters for costing me $200+ when I was perfectly happy with the brace... way to go.
But I guess I should have known better, after the 7n6 ammo getting banned ect.
Eventually the prices on the collector and museum pieces would rise again, but the reason they are so valuable is because they are transferrable. If "MG" ban went away tomorrow you can't tell me that all those dealer sample MG's hitting the market wouldn't be a giant blow to the value of a good portion of the MG market. Pre-may dealer samples sell for half or less than fully transferrable examples.
The key is can it be made again.
An original Lewis gun - No. A current reproduction Lewis gun - Yes.
But the fact that you could once again make a Lewis gun really won't hurt the value of an original. This is why current production AK rifles really aren't destroying the value of pre 89 Import AK rifles. The fact that DSA makes what might actually be a superior FAL rifle (due to the forged receiver) hasn't dropped the value of original FN (cast receiver) pre 89 imports below $3k and it never will.
And premays only apply to imported guns so it isn't apples to apples. This is why there are no "premay" M-16s, BARs or Thomspons except in the rare case they went out of the country and were reimported. Also "premays" can only be owned by SOTs and that is why they don't cost more than "transferables" which can be owned by anyone.
You want to see really high prices? Track down pre 68 "transferable" imports like 1962 date HK G3s. They go for $50,000+ all day long. That is because they are the only TRUE HK G3 out there because nearly every "transferable" HK G3 began it's life as a HK91.
Additionally "transferables" as a category represent a LOT of guns. Some are factory original firearms, some are glorified paper clips and some are mass produced guns of recent vintages as far as the registry goes.
Original 1921 and 1928 Thomspsons won't even hit a bump in the road if they opened the registry. They are basically Ty Cobb baseball cards and they don't make them any more and they haven't made them for a long time. 1970s and 80s vintage West Hurley Thompsons would see some devaluation because they are less collectible, available in greater numbers and not really that different from what would be available if Thompson production was resumed by Auto Ordnance.
Tube gun stens, MP40s, Sterlings and the like made from parts kits would become essentially worthless. Same with lightning links, registered sears and the rest.
Off brand AR receiver conversions would be no more valuable than a semi auto plus stamp.
But again, the guys with the $100k museum collections really don't put their money into the latter stuff.
And if you got an open registry a lot of people would discover the Luger syndrome when they tried to start producing faithful copies of the old famous machine guns. In the 70s and 80s a few people tried to make quality Lugers and discovered it costs more to make them and you could buy originals for less so there really isn't a market.
And anyone who tried to make a Colt water jacket 1917 belt fed is going to find that out.
You have to understand the difference between "true collectible" and "artificial market collectible." Things that are WWII vintage, associated with the prohibition era, used in Vietnam and the like will retain a "true collectible" status even if the registry opened. But even the most desired HK sear like those from Qualified aren't really going to be "collectible" they are simply one of the higher grade options available on the registry. They have NO inherent "true collectible" value and the minute similar high grade HK sears are available for $500 or less all those Qualified, Fleming and Ciener sears will simply be "used sears."
And sure the guys sitting on those items will sweat the loss.
But just as there is a common belief that the guys with "thousands of dollars worth of machine guns will want to keep the registry closed" the truth of the matter is "the guys with a handful of very replaceable machine guns" are the ones who are most at risk. The guys with thousands of dollars worth of machine guns for the most part would love the opportunity to buy new machine guns in huge quantities.
IZinterrogator
12-30-14, 02:54
I wonder if Sig's cooperation on the brace has anything to do with a muzzle brake that looks a lot like the guts of a suppressor...
wildcard600
12-30-14, 07:48
The key is can it be made again.
snip..
Maybe my understanding of the law is flawed. Are you saying that if the registry opened tomorrow the only MG's to register would be currently manufactured domestically produced MG's ?
in other words, when the registry was closed there were no remaining MGs in the country that could have been registered ?
Maybe my understanding of the law is flawed. Are you saying that if the registry opened tomorrow the only MG's to register would be currently manufactured domestically produced MG's ?
If the machinegun ban was removed, the only new machineguns available for civilians would be domestically produced ones.
The 1968 ban on imported NFA weapons would still exist. That means you still would not be able to buy a real HK G36, SIG550, etc.
In order to get a G36, you would have to take a HK SL8 and convert it to a machinegun.
Word today from a very well respected member of our community, the Law Enforcement Community and the Firearms Industry. This is all I have been told. Thanks for the heads up brother!!
"Word from a local ATF Agent who reached out to the Firearms Tech Branch is that an official decision has been made on the Sig Brace issue:
They are reversing the earlier opinion and using established case law and precedent, stating a firearm may be classified based upon its use. Attorneys from Sig are on board, stating it was never intended to be used in a shoulder fired position.
They are in the process of producing an industry circular, and public bulletin which will address it shortly."
And here's the facebook response to that;
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=748520641894026&id=714210288658395#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=748520641894026&id=714210288658395
Jeff Zimba Not true guys. I can't reveal my sources in the industry but this simply isn't true. A firearm can't be defined by its use and SIG is not having talks about this, at all. A brace installed on an AR pistol is not a rifle. The problem with this is people are writing letters asking if they can build an SBR and ignore the NFA SBR rules and are being told NO. That doesn't mean you can't build a PISTOL and use it as you wish. Words mean things and this is where people are getting confused. If you build it as a pistol, intending to use it like a pistol, including occasionally firing it other than intended (from the hip, the shoulder, etc) everything is OK. If you want to build a SBR and not pay the tax because you are building it intending it to meet the definition of a rifle, short or otherwise, it's a no go. Intentions mean everything. Is this moronic and picky? He'll yeah, but like I said, words mean things. So, just build your PISTOL, and shoot it like you want. Just don't build a rifle. I hope this helps. Nothing has been overturned, and SIG is NOT in talks about this at this time. No idea where the rumor is coming from, but I went to the top and it isn't true.
The plot thickens.
It's actually half the cost of a stamp and decent stock, but a stock is really a shitty brace. :cool:
=]
touche'
My post was really just an ill-advised expression of my opinion that gobs of people are using it as what I consider a half-measure.
I understand that my opinion is not terribly significant and of zero demand. I'm normally much more successful at avoiding its expression haha.
If people are getting good use of these things then this newly-awarded legal ambiguity is most unfortunate.
Eurodriver
12-30-14, 08:35
If the machinegun ban was removed, the only new machineguns available for civilians would be domestically produced ones.
The 1968 ban on imported NFA weapons would still exist. That means you still would not be able to buy a real HK G36, SIG550, etc.
In order to get a G36, you would have to take a HK SL8 and convert it to a machinegun.
I read your post and got so excited - almost as if the registry had opened.
Then I got sad because imported NFA was still illegal.
Then I got sad even more because the registry hadn't really opened, and realized we are wasting our time debating this topic.
wildcard600
12-30-14, 08:49
If the machinegun ban was removed, the only new machineguns available for civilians would be domestically produced ones.
The 1968 ban on imported NFA weapons would still exist. That means you still would not be able to buy a real HK G36, SIG550, etc.
In order to get a G36, you would have to take a HK SL8 and convert it to a machinegun.
thats not what i was asking. please see my clarified post.
Eurodriver
12-30-14, 08:53
Interesting question wildcard. While I don't know the answer, I can't imagine how one would register a pre-1968 MG import. It isn't on a Form 4 anywhere and the only way to put it in the registry would be to Form 1 it, however, it's already a Machine Gun so that's illegal.
Looking forward to what scottryan says.
at the range i work at we don't allow people with these braces or even without to shoot their AR "pistols" shouldered. If it's a pistol their gunna shoot it as a pistol.
If you want a SBR then do the required paperwork the wait times for an SBR isn't that long.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Failure2Stop
12-30-14, 10:41
at the range i work at we don't allow people with these braces or even without to shoot their AR "pistols" shouldered. If it's a pistol their gunna shoot it as a pistol.
If you want a SBR then do the required paperwork the wait times for an SBR isn't that long.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Glad that you are out there making sure that people only use their legal personal property in a manner concurrent with your opinions.
Outlander Systems
12-30-14, 10:51
Glad that you are out there making sure that people only use their legal personal property in a manner concurrent with your opinions.
The range I'm a member at only allows one-handed firing of pistols, and hip-firing rifles is expressly forbidden.
Also there is a one-shot per three seconds rule, and blanks only for ammunition.
at the range i work at we don't allow people with these braces or even without to shoot their AR "pistols" shouldered. If it's a pistol their gunna shoot it as a pistol.
If you want a SBR then do the required paperwork the wait times for an SBR isn't that long.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Good to see you support gun control. I'd love to throw a sig brace on my sbr and visit your "range". Do you check for stamps at the door?
...and they're vs. their*. It's not that difficult. Or maybe it is.
The range I'm a member at only allows one-handed firing of pistols, and hip-firing rifles is expressly forbidden.
Also there is a one-shot per three seconds rule, and blanks only for ammunition.
Sounds like a shi**y range. I'd suggest finding a new one. There is a difference between doing something dumb and being unsafe.
Failure2Stop
12-30-14, 11:03
Sounds like a shi**y range. I'd suggest finding a new one. There is a difference between doing something dumb and being unsafe.
I think the "blank only ammo" is an indication of sarcasm.
Outlander Systems
12-30-14, 11:10
I think the "blank only ammo" is an indication of sarcasm.
That would be an affirmative.
; )
Good to see you support gun control. You're a real 2A "freedom fighter".
...and they're vs. their*. It's not that difficult. Or maybe it is.
1.) I do support the 2A I fought for it and getting ready to go back and fight for it.
2.) that rule is in place because that's what the intended use of a brace or any ar pistol, saying that, do I the range officer enforce it? What i don't see wont hurt me and even I do see it i probably won't say anything unless my boss is present .
3.)range is owned and ran by the police department the range master is a Leo And he along with the rest of the department isn't some anti gun department if they where I doubt they would allow the city public to use their range.
4.) it's just my belief you don't have to like it. I don't expect you to
5.) http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/30/7e4117c4bd343a4505a2033c4a5781d4.jpg
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
Glad that you are out there making sure that people only use their legal personal property in a manner concurrent with your opinions.
Not my rule it's the ranges rule. Do I agree with it yes and no. I just do my job,But I don't normally enforce the rule. But I do believe if a person wants a SBR then get one don't get a brace and the ruin it the whole thing for everyone else who actually use the race for what's it's actually intended for.
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
So glad that everyone on here is so friendly
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
1.) I do support the 2A I fought for it and getting ready to go back and fight for it.
2.) that rule is in place because that's what the intended use of a brace or any ar pistol, saying that, do I the range officer enforce it? What i don't see wont hurt me and even I do see it i probably won't say anything unless my boss is present .
3.)range is owned and ran by the police department the range master is a Leo And he along with the rest of the department isn't some anti gun department if they where I doubt they would allow the city public to use their range.
4.) it's just my belief you don't have to like it. I don't expect you to
5.) http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/30/7e4117c4bd343a4505a2033c4a5781d4.jpg
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
You're "following rules". I get it. As far as grammar goes, I feel you should know the simple difference between their and they're or were and where if you expect anybody to take you seriously. It's just my belief. You don't have to like it and I don't expect you to. Carry on gentlemen.
You're "following rules". I get it. But you should know the simple difference between their and they're if you expect anybody to take you seriously. It's just my belief. You don't have to like it and I don't expect you to. Carry on gentlemen.
But you knew what i meant. It's the same argument as magazine versus clip. I hate it when people say clip but I don't correct every single person because it don't do any good cause they're gunna say what they want.
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
You're "following rules". I get it. As far as grammar goes, I feel you should know the simple difference between their and they're or were and where, if you expect anybody to take you seriously. It's just my belief. You don't have to like it and I don't expect you to. Carry on gentlemen.
And looking back at my first statement I used the correct the term.
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
I think the "blank only ammo" is an indication of sarcasm.
That would be an affirmative.
; )
Duly noted.
And looking back at my first statement I used the correct the term.
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
No worries brotha. Lets get back on topic. Does your range allow the use of two hands for say a 1911, Glock etc.? Serious question. From what I understood, a "pistol" is a "pistol" whether it be an ar pistol or a 1911. If I'm wrong, someone school me, please.
No worries brotha. Lets get back on topic. Does your range allow the use of two hands for say a 1911, Glock etc.? Serious question. From what I understood, a "pistol" is a "pistol" whether it be an ar pistol or a 1911.
If they really "follow rules" they should require all pistols to be shot with one hand, as they were designed and intended. :cool:
at the range i work at we don't allow people with these braces or even without to shoot their AR "pistols" shouldered. If it's a pistol their gunna shoot it as a pistol.
If you want a SBR then do the required paperwork the wait times for an SBR isn't that long.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1.)
2.) that rule is in place because that's what the intended use of a brace or any ar pistol, saying that, do I the range officer enforce it? What i don't see wont hurt me and even I do see it i probably won't say anything unless my boss is present .
These two comments have completely different implications.
No worries brotha. Lets get back on topic. Does your range allow the use of two hands for say a 1911, Glock etc.? Serious question. From what I understood, a "pistol" is a "pistol" whether it be an ar pistol or a 1911. If I'm wrong, someone school me, please.
No your right, a pistol is a pistol. We allow two hands for ANY pistol.. Our range has two separate "ranges" for rifle and pistol that are separated by burms. That's why we have the rule of no shouldering of the a AR pistol.
People come and ask us which side do they shoot on the rifle or the pistol? We don't allow pistols on the rifle side and don't allow rifles on pistol side so where does the AR pistol stand? That's the dilemma for our range SOPs' were In. For right now we go off of how the weapon is intended to be fired so we put the AR pistols on the pistol side but we don't allow them to shoot our steel targets since there a maximum of 25 yardsaway and 556 that close is a no no.
But then ,me, I will allow them on the rifle side so they can shoot farther out and will let them shoulder it as long as the boss ain't there. I personally don't give a damn on how they fire it or on what range. But it is a "pistol" legally so that's how our SOP for that is setup for that's why our rules are the way they are. All the employees are in a dilemma over it. Which is why I say a pistol is a pistol and rifle is a rifle.
I never meant to start a big ole cluster **** argument over this I get enough of that with my employees and the stupid people that come to the range. I'm a veteran I don't handle stupid very well.
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
No your right, a pistol is a pistol. We allow two hands for ANY pistol.. Our range has two separate "ranges" for rifle and pistol that are separated by burms. That's why we have the rule of no shouldering of the a AR pistol.
People come and ask us which side do they shoot on the rifle or the pistol? We don't allow pistols on the rifle side and don't allow rifles on pistol side so where does the AR pistol stand? That's the dilemma for our range SOPs' were In. For right now we go off of how the weapon is intended to be fired so we put the AR pistols on the pistol side but we don't allow them to shoot our steel targets since there a maximum of 25 yardsaway and 556 that close is a no no.
But then ,me, I will allow them on the rifle side so they can shoot farther out and will let them shoulder it as long as the boss ain't there. I personally don't give a damn on how they fire it or on what range. But it is a "pistol" legally so that's how our SOP for that is setup for that's why our rules are the way they are. All the employees are in a dilemma over it. Which is why I say a pistol is a pistol and rifle is a rifle.
I never meant to start a big ole cluster **** argument over this I get enough of that with my employees and the stupid people that come to the range. I'm a veteran I don't handle stupid very well.
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
Fair enough. But as previously stated, if you really enforced the rules, you wouldn't allow two handed shooting of pistols such as 1911's etc. as thats not their "intended" use. You say you do so there is a contridiction there. If you're willing to skirt the rules and allow two handed shooting of 1911's etc., you should also be willing to allow shouldering of ar pistols on the "rifle" side of the range.
Fair enough. But as stated above, if you really enforced the rules, you wouldn't allow two handed shooting of pistols such as 1911's etc. as thats not their "intended" use. You say you do so there is a contridiction there. If you're willing to skirt the rules and allow two handed shooting of 1911's etc., you should also be willing to allow shouldering of ar pistols.
Well we should and I can't speak for me co workers but I do if my boss ain't there but he's usually is there. But I don't make the rules. Heck yes getting ready to make it where a child under 12 cant be on the range because of the Arizona range Uzi incident which I think is bullshit as well trust me I don't like some of our rules not much I can do.
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
Renegade04
12-30-14, 13:55
No your right, a pistol is a pistol. We allow two hands for ANY pistol.. Our range has two separate "ranges" for rifle and pistol that are separated by burms. That's why we have the rule of no shouldering of the a AR pistol.
People come and ask us which side do they shoot on the rifle or the pistol? We don't allow pistols on the rifle side and don't allow rifles on pistol side so where does the AR pistol stand? That's the dilemma for our range SOPs' were In. For right now we go off of how the weapon is intended to be fired so we put the AR pistols on the pistol side but we don't allow them to shoot our steel targets since there a maximum of 25 yardsaway and 556 that close is a no no.
But then ,me, I will allow them on the rifle side so they can shoot farther out and will let them shoulder it as long as the boss ain't there. I personally don't give a damn on how they fire it or on what range. But it is a "pistol" legally so that's how our SOP for that is setup for that's why our rules are the way they are. All the employees are in a dilemma over it. Which is why I say a pistol is a pistol and rifle is a rifle.
I never meant to start a big ole cluster **** argument over this I get enough of that with my employees and the stupid people that come to the range. I'm a veteran I don't handle stupid very well.
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
The range I go to, and have been going to for several years, has AR pistol shooters go to the rifle range to shoot. The reason is because of the type of round and the velocity associated with it. I do not have a problem with it, nor do others. There are 25 yard targets to use and for anyone who wants to be adventurous, they can try the 50 and 100 yard targets. They do not allow any other pistols on the rifle range. The only rifles allowed on the pistol range are .22s.
As far as this issue with the SB15 Stabilizing Brace, it was brought on by people with the desire to use it for a purpose for which it was not intended. Many have fallen prey to this and will now have to adjust the way their AR pistol is being shot. The ATF has no way to control what an individual does. They leave it up to the integrity of the individuals and trust they will do the right and lawful thing. Unfortunately for many, the ATF has now been alerted to what has been going on and has issued a new decision on the SB15. This decision, in no way, changes the legality of the SB15 Brace, but it does address the ill-intended use. I never had a desire to buy one of these because I knew, from experience, that somewhere along the way, people were going to exploit it. Well, it happened and now the fallout.
The range I go to, and have been going to for several years, has AR pistol shooter go to the rifle range to shoot. The reason is because of the type of round and the velocity associated with it. I do not have a problem with it, not do others. There are 25 yard targets to use and for anyone who wants to be adventurous, they can try the 50 and 100 yard targets. They do not allow any other pistols on the rifle range. The only rifles allowed on the pistol range are .22s.
As far as this issue with the SB15 Stabilizing Brace, it was brought on by people with the desire to use it for a purpose for which it was not intended. Many have fallen prey to this and will now have to adjust the way their AR pistol is being shot. The ATF has no way to control what an individual does. They leave it up to the integrity of the individuals and trust they will do the right and lawful thing. Unfortunately for many, the ATF has now been alerted to what has been going on and has issued a new decision on the SB15. This decision, in no way, changes the legality of the SB15 Brace, but it does address the ill-intended use. I never had a desire to buy one of these because I knew, from experience, that somewhere along the way, people were going to exploit it. Well, it happened and now the fallout.
I agree with this. My only question is, why the Sgt. Bradley letter stating that use of the firearm doesn't change the classification of the firearm? Once they "ok'd" it, they opened pandoras box, in my opinion. Forgive me if I'm being redundant.
Maybe my understanding of the law is flawed. Are you saying that if the registry opened tomorrow the only MG's to register would be currently manufactured domestically produced MG's ?
in other words, when the registry was closed there were no remaining MGs in the country that could have been registered ?
The only exception would be the handful of "amnesty" registered machine guns which were typically Vietnam war trophies. But otherwise you are correct, you could not register ANY machine gun after FOPA 86.
What most people don't realize is FOPA 86 was a ban on registering domestic machine guns because all foreign machine guns had already been banned as far back as the 1968 Gun Control Act and that is why only a SOT can own a "premay" foreign machine gun registered prior to FOPA 86s.
After FOPA 86 all machine guns became "post samples."
So here are your basic categories of machine guns.
Pre 1968 imports: These are ALL transferable if they were registered before the provisions of the 1968 GCA went into effect or if registered during an amnesty period. These include most WWII bring backs like MP40s, MG34s, etc.
Post 1968 imports: These are your "premay" dealer samples. They are the same class of foreign machine guns that were NOT registered until after the 1968 GCA went into effect and were never amnesty registered so they can only be purchased by SOTs, they can never be "transferable" to a private citizen.
Pre 1986 domestic machine guns: These are what most people mean when they talk about "transferables" even if some other classifications are technically also "transferable."
People need to remember the 1934 NFA didn't ban anything. All it did was regulate and tax the items.
The first BANS didn't happen until the 1968 Gun Control Act where foreign machine guns were BANNED from the registry and certain handguns like the Walther PPK were banned from further import.
The next BAN was part of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 and that BANNED the registry of domestic manufactured machine guns, this applied not only to items like factory produced M-16A2s but to all the registered sear, registered receiver or other registered conversion items that were popular at the time.
So to answer your first question. If the registry was opened tomorrow ONLY domestic machine guns could be manufactured. You could NOT import and register any foreign machine gun. But you could register an AK receiver and make a select fire AK variant domestically.
I agree with this. My only question is, why the Sgt. Bradley letter stating that use of the firearm doesn't change the classification of the firearm? Once they "ok'd" it, they opened pandoras box, in my opinion. Forgive me if I'm being redundant.
To me I'm gunna build what I want and shoot it how I want. The ATF rarely enforces this stuff. They seem like their more after businesses than individual persons.
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
The range I go to, and have been going to for several years, has AR pistol shooter go to the rifle range to shoot. The reason is because of the type of round and the velocity associated with it. I do not have a problem with it, not do others. There are 25 yard targets to use and for anyone who wants to be adventurous, they can try the 50 and 100 yard targets. They do not allow any other pistols on the rifle range. The only rifles allowed on the pistol range are .22s.
As far as this issue with the SB15 Stabilizing Brace, it was brought on by people with the desire to use it for a purpose for which it was not intended. Many have fallen prey to this and will now have to adjust the way their AR pistol is being shot. The ATF has no way to control what an individual does. They leave it up to the integrity of the individuals and trust they will do the right and lawful thing. Unfortunately for many, the ATF has now been alerted to what has been going on and has issued a new decision on the SB15. This decision, in no way, changes the legality of the SB15 Brace, but it does address the ill-intended use. I never had a desire to buy one of these because I knew, from experience, that somewhere along the way, people were going to exploit it. Well, it happened and now the fallout.
Pot meet kettle regarding the ATF and their Gestapo regulation nonsense.
Like Sig really didn't know what the fallout would be when they brought a brace, that looks conspicuously like a stock, to market? The fact that they marketed it from the standpoint of assisting disabled persons and it actually works well in that regard suggests a competently designed product so kudos for that.
What most people don't realize is FOPA 86 was a ban on registering domestic machine guns because all foreign machine guns had already been banned as far back as the 1968 Gun Control Act and that is why only a SOT can own a "premay" foreign machine gun registered prior to FOPA 86s.
An easier way to look at it is - FOPA made ALL machine guns illegal. Then it carved out two exceptions, LEO/MIL guns, and MGs legally owned prior to enactment.
To me I'm gunna build what I want and shoot it how I want. The ATF rarely enforces this stuff. They seem like their more after businesses than individual persons.
CPL/USMC
SEMPER FI
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." Maj. Gen. James Mattis USMC
This seems to be the overwhelming sentiment amongst most.
softorchestra
12-30-14, 14:43
[content removed]
wildcard600
12-30-14, 14:44
An easier way to look at it is - FOPA made ALL machine guns illegal. Then it carved out two exceptions, LEO/MIL guns, and MGs legally owned prior to enactment.
that does not answer the question of "if FOPA went away" ?
all machine guns not previously registered in 86 would still be posties ? Even ones that were manufactured prior to 86 or 68 and were not transferred to civilians ? I find it hard to believe that every machine gun in the US that could possibly be transferred was rounded up and put on the registry.
WickedWillis
12-30-14, 14:52
This seems to be the overwhelming sentiment amongst most.
Which I tried to give guys a heads up to be careful on another thread.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.