Page 9 of 54 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 539

Thread: SIG Brace Declared Illegal to Shoulder By The ATF

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,597
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by daddyusmaximus View Post
    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 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. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,597
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leaveammoforme View Post
    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.
    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

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    25,597
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JusticeM4 View Post
    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?!?
    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

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    8,539
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by daddyusmaximus View Post
    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?
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    8,539
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    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.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    323
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    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.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    19
    Feedback Score
    0
    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:

    Last edited by JHG556; 12-27-14 at 11:08.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,164
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Polymerhead View Post
    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?
    Last edited by DWood; 12-27-14 at 12:19.
    Go in peace, but be prepared for violence.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    3,190
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    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.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    5,427
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by B Cart View Post
    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.

    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.
    "Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm

Page 9 of 54 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •