ATF clarification about shoulder use of an AR pistol

[Bullz]

When Sig stops selling the SB15s, that will be a good indication that someone with influence has changed his/her position. Every AR type rifle Sig currently sells has the arm brace as an option with a short barrel now - pistol configuration from the factory. Sig's lawyers seem pretty confident in the legality of the product.

As it stands, the laws regarding SBRs and other NFA items are pretty clear, IMO. They regulate design and features sets, not use. If you somehow figured out a way to safely shoulder a revolver with a 10" barrel as it's designed, that doesn't make it an SBR. Similarly, if you use the mag well on a "normal" AR pistol as a vertical grip, that doesn't make it an SBR.

In any case - and for another thread - I would expect a more thorough review of the slidefire stocks before anyone bothers with the SB15s.

[ABNAK]

When Sig stops selling the SB15s, that will be a good indication that someone with influence has changed his/her position. Every AR type rifle Sig currently sells has the arm brace as an option with a short barrel now - pistol configuration from the factory. Sig's lawyers seem pretty confident in the legality of the product.

As it stands, the laws regarding SBRs and other NFA items are pretty clear, IMO. They regulate design and features sets, not use. If you somehow figured out a way to safely shoulder a revolver with a 10" barrel as it's designed, that doesn't make it an SBR. Similarly, if you use the mag well on a "normal" AR pistol as a vertical grip, that doesn't make it an SBR.

In any case - and for another thread - I would expect a more thorough review of the slidefire stocks before anyone bothers with the SB15s.

Spot on! Can't emphasize that enough.

[PatrioticDisorder]

Good stuff, sig SB-15 isn't a replacement for SBR, but the fact you can put it on a an AR PISTOL is useful. Here in FL that allows you to throw an SB-15 equipped AR pistol with law tactical folding adapter into a bag like the 5.11 sling bag and have the ability to conceal carry it... You cannot legally do that with an SBR.

[Leaveammoforme]

The SB-15 was designed for people with physical handicaps. Instead people use them to make wanna-be SBR's. About the same as an able bodied person parking in a handicap spot & limping into the store in my mind.

[PatrioticDisorder]

The SB-15 was designed for people with physical handicaps. Instead people use them to make wanna-be SBR's. About the same as an able bodied person parking in a handicap spot & limping into the store in my mind.

So you believe the NFA is good law and is not an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment as the founding fathers intended?

[Endur]

The SB-15 was designed for people with physical handicaps. Instead people use them to make wanna-be SBR's. About the same as an able bodied person parking in a handicap spot & limping into the store in my mind.

The difference is, one is a physical disability that legitimately limits the capabilities of a person and has a reason for that spot and the other is just a firearm, which shouldn't be limited at all. So why not find "ways" around these crony unconstitutional laws?

[Supergyro]

The SB-15 was designed for people with physical handicaps. Instead people use them to make wanna-be SBR's. About the same as an able bodied person parking in a handicap spot & limping into the store in my mind.

You say wannabe SBRs like that's a bad thing. If this is a legal work around the NFA, what does your moral high ground have to do with it?

Sent from my SCH-I500

[PatrioticDisorder]

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." - Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

The above is an excerpt from the majority opinion in Heller V. DC.

[Leaveammoforme]

So you believe the NFA is good law and is not an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment as the founding fathers intended?

The difference is, one is a physical disability that legitimately limits the capabilities of a person and has a reason for that spot and the other is just a firearm, which shouldn't be limited at all. So why not find "ways" around these crony unconstitutional laws?

You say wannabe SBRs like that's a bad thing. If this is a legal work around the NFA, what does your moral high ground have to do with it?

Sent from my SCH-I500

Yall can say what you want and put words in my mouth all you want. But, that will not change the fact that I will point and laugh when I see people rocking these bad boys. My opinion is what it is.

[Bullz]

Yall can say what you want and put words in my mouth all you want. But, that will not change the fact that I will point and laugh when I see people rocking these bad boys. My opinion is what it is.

I'm not sure why you'd be laughing. The major advantage of this setup is the lack of NFA classification. SBRs are cool, I don't think anyone would disagree. However, all things associated are inconvenient; e.g. interstate transit, carry parameters, engraving lower receivers, etc. The list goes on. You can carry around the functional equivalent (almost) as a pistol, under pistol regulations, if one elects to forgo NFA classification. I think that's significant.