Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: ATF Rulings, Letters, Opinions.......... and NFA Classifications

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,791
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I know about the letters. I will see if I can get the case info on the actual suits. Not related.
    Last edited by skydivr; 12-29-14 at 15:48.
    "Those who do can't explain; those who don't can't understand"...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    In a van by a California river
    Posts
    86
    Feedback Score
    0
    [content removed]
    Last edited by softorchestra; 01-05-15 at 22:39.
    so

    I refuse to participate in online forums which do not show respect to the members or their freedom of speech.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    99
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DWood View Post
    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.
    So the AR pistol should be defined as an AOW vice a pistol or rifle in your opinion? That is only a $5 tax stamp right?

    Maybe we should write a letter! <kidding lol

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,164
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by heartbreakridge01 View Post
    So the AR pistol should be defined as an AOW vice a pistol or rifle in your opinion? That is only a $5 tax stamp right?

    Maybe we should write a letter! <kidding lol
    no, it is not an NFA item because it was foubd not to be in a determination letter. That is, unless you believe it was designed and intended to be shot with one hand, in which case the letter was unnecessary. I do not.
    Last edited by DWood; 12-29-14 at 16:21.
    Go in peace, but be prepared for violence.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,827
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DWood View Post
    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.
    You are saying ATF would have different opinions based upon whether Bosco asked for an opinion before making it available? I doubt it. ATF would have the same opinion whether they first saw it as part of an opinion letter or first saw it a gun show on a table.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,164
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    You are saying ATF would have different opinions based upon whether Bosco asked for an opinion before making it available? I doubt it. ATF would have the same opinion whether they first saw it as part of an opinion letter or first saw it a gun show on a table.
    I absolutely believe it would have been considered a stock without the letter. Same with the Shockwave Blade.
    Go in peace, but be prepared for violence.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    8,539
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DWood View Post
    I absolutely believe it would have been considered a stock without the letter. Same with the Shockwave Blade.
    Someone wanting to bring a new product to market that may be questionable would no doubt want clarification by ATF before proceeding with production and sinking a shit ton of money into it. So I can see an inventor wanting to see if it's "kosher". These subsequent, pestering, "Are you really really really sure this is okay?" letters are a detriment. So are YouTube videos showing the product being used in a way that flaunts it in ATF's face. The Sig Brace was okayed by ATF for use on an AR pistol and it should have been left at that. But nooooo, that wasn't good enough.

    As far as this internet horseshit about an ATF letter only being good for the specific person it was written to, well I think Renegade addressed that point: it's a fallacy. Quit repeating it. (not you DWood, the others who keep saying it over and over)
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    5,427
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    Someone wanting to bring a new product to market that may be questionable would no doubt want clarification by ATF before proceeding with production and sinking a shit ton of money into it. So I can see an inventor wanting to see if it's "kosher". These subsequent, pestering, "Are you really really really sure this is okay?" letters are a detriment. So are YouTube videos showing the product being used in a way that flaunts it in ATF's face. The Sig Brace was okayed by ATF for use on an AR pistol and it should have been left at that. But nooooo, that wasn't good enough.

    As far as this internet horseshit about an ATF letter only being good for the specific person it was written to, well I think Renegade addressed that point: it's a fallacy. Quit repeating it. (not you DWood, the others who keep saying it over and over)

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

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    In a van by a California river
    Posts
    86
    Feedback Score
    0
    [content removed]
    Last edited by softorchestra; 01-05-15 at 22:39.
    so

    I refuse to participate in online forums which do not show respect to the members or their freedom of speech.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,164
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Last edited by DWood; 12-29-14 at 19:36.
    Go in peace, but be prepared for violence.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •