Atf open letter on the redesign of “stabilizing braces”
- Thread starter dogtown tom
- Start date
- Status
Question: What are two things that don't really serve a purpose for 99% of people?
Answer:
Answer:
OP
OP
dogtown tom
Member
The moment you attach and intend to use the Sig Arm Brace as a shoulder stock.
Again, there is no federal law or ATF regulation that mentions "shouldering".
No they don't.
Your quote:
a firearm measureing greater than 16" in length may properly be classified as an "AOW" if it otherwise satisfies the definition of AOW and there is evidence that the firearm in question was actually concealed on a person
Note "if it otherwise satisfies the definition of AOW". The firearms you linked to are not AOW's as assembled.
Even the first link you provided disagrees with you:
http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=88
The fourth paragraph of that link says:
PGO firearms that remain longer than 26″ in overall length also can’t be defined as AOWs. That’s because the term “any other weapon” (AOW) means “any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person…” And ATF maintains that to be concealed, the firearm needs to be shorter than 26″......
dogtown tom said:
You still aren't reading. No where in that letter is the verb attach or install used. The ATF doesn't care who attached the pistol brace. They say, again clearly, the act of putting it to your shoulder is the redesign. The letter uses the word "use" as the defining moment of redesign.
dogtown tom said:
Again, read closer. the 26" limit is an arbitrary number that ATF uses to measure concealability. The weapons I linked aren't AOW's sitting on a table because they are longer than 26". If you conceal one on your body, the length no longer matters because it is de facto "capable of being concealed on the person". So again, the act of concealing it will take it from being a shotgun-like weapon (on your table) to an AOW (under your coat) with no mechanical change to the weapon.
I understand that ATF Determination letters aren't law, but they ARE written notice of how the regulatory agency intends to interpret and enforce the law. And as such are binding to everyone that does not want to be a test case.
I don't understand why you are so willfully blind to plain language of how the ATF intends to enforce this part of the law.
I will agree that the pistol situation I brought up isn't plain language. As far as I know no one has asked the ATF that question. That's why I used the Sig Brace and the AOW/not AOW shotgun as examples where use reclassifies the weapon. I brought it up as a question not an example.
The other two cases are pretty clear to everyone that can read.
Again, what the letter YOU posted SAYS, not what people assumed it would say, is that the use of a brace as a shoulder stock is the moment of redesign. Who installed it, the intentions of the installer, or your intentions when you pick it up don't matter. The act of shouldering it is the creation of the SBR. Note that is different from a normal stock when it's the moment of installation of the stock that creates an SBR. One can only assume that because of the dual nature of a Sig Brace the ATF is giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and assuming you will use it legally until you don't.
Willie Sutton
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,025
"Again, what the letter YOU posted SAYS, not what people assumed it would say, is that the use of a brace as a shoulder stock is the moment of redesign."
Enjoying the discussion between the two champions here, who are cheerfully engaged in single combat for the benefit of all...
Here's Willie's observation on the points being made by our heros, both of whom I respect and read with interest, and noting that I am without a dog in either side of the fight (I'd never buy one of these stupid "braces", as I'm not terribly worried about sending in yet another $200 for a real stock).
The statement above ^^^ does seem like what the BATmen have enscribed into their latest screed. Hate to say it, but they *are* regulating behaviour, not hardware. You can hold it like "A" and it's OK but if you hold it like "B" you're in violation of the NFA. And I guess you *could* argue ad-absurdium that they could write a similar letter abut handguns. In a different universe . So both of you are right in your own way.
My feeling is that the largest real world outcome here will be a lessening of the number of stupid YouTube videos of camo-clad neckbeards shouldering their "braces", and very little else. What you do in the privacy of your own gravel pit is hard to regulate. Sort of like every other law that attempts to regulate behaviour.
Willie
.
Enjoying the discussion between the two champions here, who are cheerfully engaged in single combat for the benefit of all...
Here's Willie's observation on the points being made by our heros, both of whom I respect and read with interest, and noting that I am without a dog in either side of the fight (I'd never buy one of these stupid "braces", as I'm not terribly worried about sending in yet another $200 for a real stock).
The statement above ^^^ does seem like what the BATmen have enscribed into their latest screed. Hate to say it, but they *are* regulating behaviour, not hardware. You can hold it like "A" and it's OK but if you hold it like "B" you're in violation of the NFA. And I guess you *could* argue ad-absurdium that they could write a similar letter abut handguns. In a different universe . So both of you are right in your own way.
My feeling is that the largest real world outcome here will be a lessening of the number of stupid YouTube videos of camo-clad neckbeards shouldering their "braces", and very little else. What you do in the privacy of your own gravel pit is hard to regulate. Sort of like every other law that attempts to regulate behaviour.
Willie
.
OilyPablo
Member
SO did everyone read the "Faux SBR" build your own article in Shotgun News?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
im having a really hard time with how hard you're working to NOT read what they clearly wrote. Youu say "ATF maintains that to be concealed, the firearm needs to be shorter than 26"," but they utterly explicitly used the words, "or is actually concealed on the person."
If you conceal it, it is thus proved to be CONCEALABLE. How could this be so confusing to you?
Jim Watson
Member
"SO did everyone read the "Faux SBR" build your own article in Shotgun News?"
No, but it sure sounds like what is going on here.
I think some genius at SIG thought he could find a loophole for the fantasists and the feds are telling him he hasn't. It is only going to get worse. I await the "brace" being found to comprise a stock in any sense and banned from use on a "pistol."
If you are the test case, better ask for a bench trial and hope the judge likes parsing definitions, because all the prosecution would have to do is to show one of these gadgets to a jury and it would be all over.
No, but it sure sounds like what is going on here.
I think some genius at SIG thought he could find a loophole for the fantasists and the feds are telling him he hasn't. It is only going to get worse. I await the "brace" being found to comprise a stock in any sense and banned from use on a "pistol."
If you are the test case, better ask for a bench trial and hope the judge likes parsing definitions, because all the prosecution would have to do is to show one of these gadgets to a jury and it would be all over.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I don't see a need for such angry sounding denigration of (seemingly) all those who have explored this idea in text and deed and video over the last couple of years. It isn't a bad idea, devoid of real benefit. Sure there are silly and ignorant shooters who've worked with these but a lot of pretty smart and knowledgable people have too.
Let's not paint with too broad and black a brush.
Zerodefect
member
Meh. I'm keeping one AR pistol. Pistol pistol, no brace.
And I'm just grabbing a lawyer to form a trust and SBRing 2 carbines and a PS90. I think in east Ohio there is a NFA lawyer that owns a LGS.
http://www.molonlabearmory.com/
The ATF kinda just made a ton of money. Get a bunch of people to invest in SBR's legally, then change their minds. Although the law still remains the same. I don't expect anyone to get in trouble that isn't flaunting their Sig brace, or already committing some sort of other felony.
And I'm just grabbing a lawyer to form a trust and SBRing 2 carbines and a PS90. I think in east Ohio there is a NFA lawyer that owns a LGS.
http://www.molonlabearmory.com/
The ATF kinda just made a ton of money. Get a bunch of people to invest in SBR's legally, then change their minds. Although the law still remains the same. I don't expect anyone to get in trouble that isn't flaunting their Sig brace, or already committing some sort of other felony.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Careful, because a massive number (vast majority?) of people form trusts solely for the purposes of evading oversight (local LEO approval and fingerprints) or tax payments (by transferring possession, not ownership, between trustees). ATF or more likely, the IRS could arbitrarily set some ground rules, ya'know. Lot of flaky e-net form trusts out there, that wouldn't likely hold up well in court if tested.
"Question: What are two things that don't really serve a purpose for 99% of people?"
Neither do combine harvesters, machine tools, or welding equipment. Glad to see your lawful behavior may be governed by popular utility, though. I'm sure it will be comforting to you if semiautos are banned in the future, that 99% of people were polled and wanted them gone (unlikely the near future, yes)
"I think some genius at SIG thought he could find a loophole"
That's because they did. The ATF had long held that behavior could not be regulated (even the concealing AOW statute is seen as shaky ground by many, but at least the concealment statute is not formed around weapons designed/intended/configured to be concealed, but rather those actually concealed. I don't even know if a case of lawful possession and lawful concealment of a firearm being prosecuted as unlawful manufacture has occurred). The ATF then held the brace, as designed, was not a stock. Since words mean things, and not our feelings, this meant the brace could be attached (and not being a stock, this act itself carried no intent of shoulder fired redesign, contrary to the second to latest ruling), and subsequently shouldered, since at that point no configuration changes were needed. The same would be the case if the ATF had ruled a wooden BAR replacement stock to be a boat oar instead of a butt stock; a short barrel BAR pistol could have the thing attached and remain a pistol. The ATF screwed up, that's all, and ruled the brace not a stock. That's where the loophole came from, and the only way to properly close it is to reverse that first ruling. This latest move is akin to chopping a huge chunk out of the fabric and putting on an ugly patch, instead of stitching a small tear closed.
The only way the repositioning alone of a weapon could change its design or function, is if the shooter is considered part of the firearm mechanism/assembly. Because they are all that's changed. That's why this precedent is dangerous for bump fire, rapid fire, two hand grips, and all large pistols with bipods or forearms. Would a Russian shooter then count as a foriegn made part for 922R? If not, how does their holding the gun a certain way change its configuration?
Well, unless we take the ATF ruling for granted because it came from the ATF. A reputation for violent injustice and corruption has that effect on a lot of people (yours truly included). Why doesn't the Bureau just start publishing a list of approved firearms and their uses? It's already gotten just about that restrictive with regards to gun building (another of those useless things 99% find useless, just like hunting)
TCB
"Question: What are two things that don't really serve a purpose for 99% of people?"
Neither do combine harvesters, machine tools, or welding equipment. Glad to see your lawful behavior may be governed by popular utility, though. I'm sure it will be comforting to you if semiautos are banned in the future, that 99% of people were polled and wanted them gone (unlikely the near future, yes)
"I think some genius at SIG thought he could find a loophole"
That's because they did. The ATF had long held that behavior could not be regulated (even the concealing AOW statute is seen as shaky ground by many, but at least the concealment statute is not formed around weapons designed/intended/configured to be concealed, but rather those actually concealed. I don't even know if a case of lawful possession and lawful concealment of a firearm being prosecuted as unlawful manufacture has occurred). The ATF then held the brace, as designed, was not a stock. Since words mean things, and not our feelings, this meant the brace could be attached (and not being a stock, this act itself carried no intent of shoulder fired redesign, contrary to the second to latest ruling), and subsequently shouldered, since at that point no configuration changes were needed. The same would be the case if the ATF had ruled a wooden BAR replacement stock to be a boat oar instead of a butt stock; a short barrel BAR pistol could have the thing attached and remain a pistol. The ATF screwed up, that's all, and ruled the brace not a stock. That's where the loophole came from, and the only way to properly close it is to reverse that first ruling. This latest move is akin to chopping a huge chunk out of the fabric and putting on an ugly patch, instead of stitching a small tear closed.
The only way the repositioning alone of a weapon could change its design or function, is if the shooter is considered part of the firearm mechanism/assembly. Because they are all that's changed. That's why this precedent is dangerous for bump fire, rapid fire, two hand grips, and all large pistols with bipods or forearms. Would a Russian shooter then count as a foriegn made part for 922R? If not, how does their holding the gun a certain way change its configuration?
Well, unless we take the ATF ruling for granted because it came from the ATF. A reputation for violent injustice and corruption has that effect on a lot of people (yours truly included). Why doesn't the Bureau just start publishing a list of approved firearms and their uses? It's already gotten just about that restrictive with regards to gun building (another of those useless things 99% find useless, just like hunting)
TCB
Do you want to know what my feeling about you is?
I legitimately don't know what to say to a person who thinks 99% of people never eat food that was harvested with a combine or use any products that were manufactured using machine tools or welding equipment. That kind of claim is beyond mind-boggling, and surely cannot be intended as serious.
S
Honestly it seems like some people are absolutely giddy that the ATF is saying the act of shouldering a pistol makes it an SBR.
Not sure if it is schadenfreude, smugness over already having gone through the NFA hurdles, agrrement with NFA laws or just pure curmugeoness.
Honestly it seems like some people are absolutely giddy that the ATF is saying the act of shouldering a pistol makes it an SBR.
Not sure if it is schadenfreude, smugness over already having gone through the NFA hurdles, agrrement with NFA laws or just pure curmugeoness.
Elkins45
Member
You left out the sheer joy of saying "I told you so" to all of the people who called me an enemy of freedom because I didn't show what they considered to be the proper amount of enthusiasm for their crappy faux stock. I got a little tired of posting in that other thread only to be told that I was siding with ATF against 'the people' because I wasn't crowing with delight about bing able to stick it to the man by paying $130 for a crappy fake stock instead of paying for a $200 tax stamp that let me not have to worry about the legalities.
People were acting like anyone with a legitimate SBR were supposed to scrap it for a braced pistol just to spite ATF. When I pointed out how an AR arm brace didn't help my 10/22 SBR build people actually suggested I should spend $300 on a 10/22 pistol and another $100 for an AR style stock and another $130 on a Sig brace. That way I could have a 10/22 faux SBR without having to pay the $200 tax stamp. Hey, spending $530 on a new gun sure sounds like a better idea than simply paying the tax and chopping the barrel on a gun I already own...not.
I think it's a stupid ruling and I think the NFA is a stupid law, and I would happily "lose the value" of my tax stamps if it goes away. But I will also confess I don't feel much sympathy for all of the people who called me a fool for not jumping on the arm brace bandwagon.
There's an old saying that has been reinforced millions of times, and now one more time in regards to this whole topic: if it seems too good to be true then it probably is.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I believe it was an in-kind response to your ... confusing, at best ... comment here:
Since what "99% or people" do or don't know or think about those topics can hardly be considered important or compelling it (probably mistakenly) came off as an ignorant denigration of folks who do know and care about those products.
And I'm sure that wasn't your intent ... at all.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Honestly it seems like some people are absolutely giddy that the ATF is saying the act of shouldering a pistol makes it an SBR."
Of course. A lot of folks (myself included) have said this was the case all along, and a subset of those people are now crowing "I told you so." My personal view is this latest ruling is hardly a reversal of the initial approval, since it applies to far more potential scenarios than the SIG brace approval letter. That to me is the unacceptable part.
"I legitimately don't know what to say to a person who thinks 99% of people never eat food that was harvested with a combine or use any products that were manufactured using machine tools or welding equipment. That kind of claim is beyond mind-boggling, and surely cannot be intended as serious."
What about those who enjoy freedom defended with machine guns and bombs? Totally different, I'm sure. My first point is the vast majority of Americans do not use these tools themselves. The second point is that the fact the vast majority of Americans do enjoy the benefits of the limited use of these tools, is not a justification for their restriction. Which is why few here endorse AWBs, and why I do not endorse the idea of putting the thousands of SIG brace owners in such proximity to a very serious crime for the sake of a Bureau's convenience.
If shouldering the brace is wrong, it follows the brace is indistinguishable from a shoulder stock. If so, then all the previously ATF-approved braced pistols out there are in reality short barrel rifles, which must be dealt with. In keeping with reasonable enforcement (and historical precedent for other such clamp-downs) the ATF must declare a grace period for SIG brace use/attachment, during which time they can contact all the owners they can, and either confiscate the braces or register the attached firearms as SBRs tax-free (because this whole fracas is the result of their screw up in the first place, and not the legal gun owners who followed their direction)
"People were acting like anyone with a legitimate SBR were supposed to scrap it for a braced pistol just to spite ATF"
A) There are states that disallow NFA items, and the brace was the only close option
B) There are locales where LEO will not sign off NFA forms, so the only option is the nearly-equally-legally-dubious NFA trust
C) Until quite recently, the ATF version of an ACA Exchange had so damaged the approvals process, that Form 1 approval times were exceeding 1.5 years. Yes, 1.5 years is worth more than a couple hundred bucks to a lot of people.
D) Until a few days ago, the brace was a fantastic tool for explaining the illogic of the NFA, and the ATF's regulatory discretion in particular (which is why they are now hurriedly trying to cover their mistake in a way that admits no fault)
TCB
Of course. A lot of folks (myself included) have said this was the case all along, and a subset of those people are now crowing "I told you so." My personal view is this latest ruling is hardly a reversal of the initial approval, since it applies to far more potential scenarios than the SIG brace approval letter. That to me is the unacceptable part.
"I legitimately don't know what to say to a person who thinks 99% of people never eat food that was harvested with a combine or use any products that were manufactured using machine tools or welding equipment. That kind of claim is beyond mind-boggling, and surely cannot be intended as serious."
What about those who enjoy freedom defended with machine guns and bombs? Totally different, I'm sure. My first point is the vast majority of Americans do not use these tools themselves. The second point is that the fact the vast majority of Americans do enjoy the benefits of the limited use of these tools, is not a justification for their restriction. Which is why few here endorse AWBs, and why I do not endorse the idea of putting the thousands of SIG brace owners in such proximity to a very serious crime for the sake of a Bureau's convenience.
If shouldering the brace is wrong, it follows the brace is indistinguishable from a shoulder stock. If so, then all the previously ATF-approved braced pistols out there are in reality short barrel rifles, which must be dealt with. In keeping with reasonable enforcement (and historical precedent for other such clamp-downs) the ATF must declare a grace period for SIG brace use/attachment, during which time they can contact all the owners they can, and either confiscate the braces or register the attached firearms as SBRs tax-free (because this whole fracas is the result of their screw up in the first place, and not the legal gun owners who followed their direction)
"People were acting like anyone with a legitimate SBR were supposed to scrap it for a braced pistol just to spite ATF"
A) There are states that disallow NFA items, and the brace was the only close option
B) There are locales where LEO will not sign off NFA forms, so the only option is the nearly-equally-legally-dubious NFA trust
C) Until quite recently, the ATF version of an ACA Exchange had so damaged the approvals process, that Form 1 approval times were exceeding 1.5 years. Yes, 1.5 years is worth more than a couple hundred bucks to a lot of people.
D) Until a few days ago, the brace was a fantastic tool for explaining the illogic of the NFA, and the ATF's regulatory discretion in particular (which is why they are now hurriedly trying to cover their mistake in a way that admits no fault)
TCB
Last edited:
No, it doesn't follow. The fact that shouldering the brace is illegal only means that the brace is close enough to being a shoulder stock that the BATF says it becomes a shoulder stock if you use it that way. That's not the same thing as saying that the brace is actually "indistinguishable" from a shoulder stock.
Is the following item connected to the back of the AK "indistinguishable" from a shoulder stock? Clearly it's distinguishable from any other shoulder stock you'll ever see, but it's still a shoulder stock for the purposes of the law because of the way it's being used.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
SBRs and SBSs are unique in the NFA world in that swapping out the short barrel makes them no longer NFA items, even absent any notification for removal from the registry. According to ATF policy, "unmaking" your SBR does make it NOT an NFA item.
Now, the act of making an unregistered NFA item is not erased, necessarily, by unmaking it, so there is certainly a grey area here.
I'm pretty certain their attitude on this specific matter will be a "go forth and sin no more" kind of policy. In not so many words, 'we'll apply a bit of prosecutorial discretion and not bother folks about what they did in the past few years when this was so confusing, but don't get caught doing it going forward.."
I think I'm getting confused.
The point I intended to make was that for ~99% of people (even 99% of shooters) there is no purpose to a Sig Brace or an 80% lower...therefore I don't know why everybody should go out and buy one of each.
OP
OP
dogtown tom
Member
For one, I wasn't quoting anything in that letter....just using plain English.
Two, there are five instances in that letter where the words "attached", "attachable" or "attaching" are used.
Again, you seem to be relying solely on this latest letter for your argument. Once again I beg you to read the NFA.
Sorry sir, the letter does not say that. It makes no reference to "the act of putting it to your shoulder".
Why?
You haven't read a shred of ATF regulations or the NFA.
Even the link to the Shockwave gun disagrees with you.
Again, post the federal law or ATF regulation that supports this.
The letter uses the word "use" as the defining moment of redesign.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"The point I intended to make was that for ~99% of people (even 99% of shooters) there is no purpose to a Sig Brace or an 80% lower...therefore I don't know why everybody should go out and buy one of each."
I'll agree with that. I also will say that nearly all of people buy the things thinking they will use them, but never get around to it. Can't really criticize them too much on that front. I think the "Stick it to the man" line is just a justification they use for a silly/unnecessary purchase, rather than the sole reason driving their actions
"The letter uses the word "use" as the defining moment of redesign."
Man, we need the Patent Office to weigh in at times like these. I feel like the semantics of invention are far more their domain than the ATF's, ergo the endless confusion and contradiction
The NFA gives the ability to tax production, not usage. Even this limited power was fiercely debated at the time of passage, and was only ever 'decided' once in court, under very odd circumstances, before becoming precedent thereafter. Should we really accept that they can conflate usage with production in order to regulate both? I'm not denying what the letter says, nor that we shouldn't abide by it ourselves as law-abiding citizens; just that this decision needs to be opposed by those prepared to do so (again, I think SIG is a very good candidate. They even have standing, since the marketability of their braces have been irreparably damaged, now that every buyer can become a felon at a moment's notice)
TCB
I'll agree with that. I also will say that nearly all of people buy the things thinking they will use them, but never get around to it. Can't really criticize them too much on that front. I think the "Stick it to the man" line is just a justification they use for a silly/unnecessary purchase, rather than the sole reason driving their actions
"The letter uses the word "use" as the defining moment of redesign."
Man, we need the Patent Office to weigh in at times like these. I feel like the semantics of invention are far more their domain than the ATF's, ergo the endless confusion and contradiction
The NFA gives the ability to tax production, not usage. Even this limited power was fiercely debated at the time of passage, and was only ever 'decided' once in court, under very odd circumstances, before becoming precedent thereafter. Should we really accept that they can conflate usage with production in order to regulate both? I'm not denying what the letter says, nor that we shouldn't abide by it ourselves as law-abiding citizens; just that this decision needs to be opposed by those prepared to do so (again, I think SIG is a very good candidate. They even have standing, since the marketability of their braces have been irreparably damaged, now that every buyer can become a felon at a moment's notice)
TCB
OP
OP
dogtown tom
Member
Are you kidding?
Standing for what? As Sig has never claimed that the Arm Brace is anything but an arm brace, it's pretty unlikely that they could recover damages. The "marketability" had precious little to do with it being an arm brace and everything to do with being used as a crappy shoulder stock.
Sig made a ton o'bucks off this silly thing. They've been laughing all the way to the bank. They'll need those bucks to finish out their battle with ATF over the MPX...........and that ain't going very well either.
It would be interesting if arm brace buyers filed lawsuits against all those internet NFA experts who said it was a great way around a tax stamp.
OilyPablo
Member
So I take it no one here reads Shotgun News (the weekly paper). Cover story.
- Status
