Originally Posted by
DWood
The point of starting this thread was that it is only through ATF letters that some accessories like the various braces are allowed on AR pistols in the first place. If Alex Bosco did not request the first approval, the Sig Brace would most likely be considered a stock and a pistol wearing one would be an unregistered SBR. And if a "maker" was going to r3egister one, why would he put a brace on lt rather than a stock?
The legality of AR 15 pistols in general does not seem to be defined by the NFA or GCA, but rather through opinion letters like the one I posted. According to the law a pistol is designed and intended to be fired with one hand. In my opinion, if the ATF letters are worthless, then AR piostols would not be legal. Therefore, the letters are an administrative interpretation clarifying the legality of a gun / accessory combo that is not clearly defined by the law. Sgt. Bradley only asked if shouldering an AR pistol is legal. It was the ATF that volunteered the information on misusing the Sig Brace in their opinion to him.
IMO, without the letters, AR pistols and braces would not be legal to own without going through the NFA process. And if you go through the NFA, then you would make an SBR. The problem is the letters don't get disseminated, can't be researched, and have now become so contradictory that none of it is clear.