Page 12 of 54 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 539

Thread: SIG Brace Declared Illegal to Shoulder By The ATF

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,597
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leaveammoforme View Post
    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.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    600
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    All 12 ga. shotguns are .50 diameter.
    Nominal bore diameter is .729".
    I'm an FFL/gunsmith, not the holster company. We specialize in subsonic ammunition and wholesale rifles.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    8,539
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Leaveammoforme View Post
    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?
    Last edited by ABNAK; 12-27-14 at 18:54.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,791
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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/201...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.
    "Those who do can't explain; those who don't can't understand"...

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,162
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    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.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,164
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by skydivr View Post
    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/201...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.
    Go in peace, but be prepared for violence.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    52
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryno12 View Post
    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.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,234
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by the 556 guy View Post
    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"?

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,870
    Feedback Score
    25 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by skydivr View Post
    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/201...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[italics added] 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, 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; [italics original] is assembled to a pistol and [underline original] used [italics mine] as a shoulder stock, 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"!

    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.
    Last edited by jerrysimons; 12-28-14 at 00:24.

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Great Basin
    Posts
    601
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    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.
    Last edited by Shiz; 12-28-14 at 01:06.

Page 12 of 54 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •