Elkins45
Member
Wow, who could have predicted this? <----- said with as much sarcasm as I can possibly muster
Will 1965 do?Does anyone have a 1968 edition of the Webster Dictionary?
I don't think it's realistic to assume that if no one had asked, the issue would never have arisen or that the BATF's final stance on the brace would be different than it now is.They had to ask.
Ask a stupid question and you might get an answer you don't want to get.
Doesn't the term "sleeping dogs" mean anything?
Well said.Wow, who could have predicted this? <----- said with as much sarcasm as I can possibly muster
Yes, they are in violation if they shoulder it, and no, they don't have a permission slip. From the latest letter:Also, those who have a letter stating their previous opinion, are they in violation? Or do they have a permission slip?
The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
So don't go and do something silly like blame the users, as so many currently are. I don't suppose you intend to use your influence with the NRA (voting powers) to pressure them to take up this issue the "right way" in the legislature? Because the NFA folks don't have the numbers to effect change apart from workarounds and random court cases.
Wonder if we'll hear that when the ATF clamps down on two handed gripping of pistols of any sort
Hyperbole like this isn't helpful. The law doesn't say designed to be fired exclusively with one hand.
"The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.”
They had to ask.
Ask a stupid question and you might get an answer you don't want to get.
Doesn't the term "sleeping dogs" mean anything?
The stupidity of our own "community" never ceases to amaze me.
Willie
.
Wow, who could have predicted this? <----- said with as much sarcasm as I can possibly muster
Do you understand why?dogmush ....This letter says the act of using the gun in the prohibited fashion is the redesign.
Attaching the Sig Arm Brace with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock is the illegal act.Pistol with brace is OK. Shouldering brace redesigns it.
Sheer and utter nonsense.Similarly, pistol is OK. Two hands on it has redesigned it into an AOW. Because it can't be designed to shoot with two hands. If it could, a VFG would be legal.
It's a pretty straight line of reading comprehension. Because you fail to understand the NFA definition of pistol, rifle, SBR, etc your "logic" is faulty.It's a pretty straight line of logic. If the mere use* of a firearm is enough to redesign it, then you can't redesign a pistol into a two handed weapon.
Please post the citation to Federal law or ATF regulation that states anything remotely close.*There's precedent on the use thing. Those Birds head gripped 14" barrel shotguns are legal, until you conceal one, then they are instantly an AOW.
They had to ask.
Ask a stupid question and you might get an answer you don't want to get.
Doesn't the term "sleeping dogs" mean anything?
The stupidity of our own "community" never ceases to amaze me.
Wasn't that the thread where we were accused of trying to prop up the NFA because we wanted to artificially maintain the value of the tax stamps?Heh yeah once upon a time I actually got flamed on here for suggesting that the Sig brace / SBR thing was a dark and uncertain road to travel....
But, being the High Road, I'll keep the 'Told Ya so's' to myself (for now.)
ETA: I will say that the premise of all of this is ridiculous; SBR's should not even be "a thing" that is regulated to begin with. And, judging by the NRA's recent facebook post this issue is clearly and certainly on their radar.
Tom, you and I went several rounds over this a couple weeks back, but you didn't have an answer then.Please post the citation to Federal law or ATF regulation that states anything remotely close.
But they're saying specifically two things there about classifying that weapon as an AOW:
"...if its overall length is less than 26" ..."
OR <--- (Boolean operator that signifies that either of the preceding and following conditions create the specified effect.)
"... it is actually concealed on the person."
If its length is over 26" it is not an AOW. It is a GCA other "firearm" at that point. And a GCA other "firearm" can be any of several types of things, as you know. (PGO "shotgun-like object", semi-auto M1919 with no stock, bare AR receiver, etc.)
However ... and my whole reason for pointing this out ... if that other "firearm" is "actually concealed on the person," it is then an AOW. They say so RIGHT THERE.
If in their eyes, concealing an other "firearm" (like a 27" stockless weapon with a forward vertical grip) didn't create a Title II AOW, why did they write that?
That entire last clause is pointless and extraneous if they are not illustrating by it a second manner in which some thing that is not an AOW becomes an AOW.
Then there was no reason to list TWO qualifying features: 1) Under 26" and 2) actually concealed on the person.Because the letter wasn't written asking about a 27" firearm......the determination request asked about a PISTOL.
I completely agree with you that there the phrase "actually concealed on the person" does not appear in the law.
It does appear in this letter. With the word "or" behind it.
The sentence can be broken into two parts because of the "or."
"A firearm of this type is properly classified an AOW if its overall length is less than 26 inches ..." (Totally agree. No confusion. The corollary to that is, a firearm of this type is NOT classified an AOW if its overall length is greater than 26".)
And:
"A firearm of this type is properly classified an AOW if ... it is actually concealed on the person."
If the firearm of this type is less than 26 inches overall, concealing it on the person is completely irrelevant. It is an AOW, period. There is no point in specifying a further qualification.
But they do. And they use "or," which illustrates that being less than 26 inches is not the only way such a firearm would become an AOW.
The only logical way to read that is, "if the firearm is GREATER than 26 inches overall, it can also be an AOW if it is actually concealed on the person."
That's not the law, precisely, but it is what they wrote.
...I keep re-reading this to see where my logic or comprehension of their clauses is flawed, and I don't see it. How do you dissect this paragraph and interpret the clause after "...OR if ..."?
Can we just repeal the NFA already...? This is getting ridiculous.
Haha....NO!
People were too busy flooding the ATF with a question that had already been answered.....instead of mailing their representitives to repeal some NFA provisions.
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).
And again, that isn't a citation from any federal law or ATF regulation. It's a response to a question and must be taken in it's entirety.Sam1911Quote:
Please post the citation to Federal law or ATF regulation that states anything remotely close.
Tom, you and I went several rounds over this a couple weeks back, but you didn't have an answer then.
the installation with "the intent" to use it as a shoulder stock.
Nothing in that says that occasional use of the brace as a stock is the problem. The problem is the intent to skirt the NFA by installing a product designed for one use for another.
Seems to me as long as a person was circumspect, it wouldn't be an issue if in a situation, one used their brace as a stock.
use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item
Yes.dogtown tom said:Do you understand why?
dogtown tom said:Attaching the Sig Arm Brace with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock is the illegal act.
The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.
dogtown tom said:Sheer and utter nonsense.
What did you redesign on the handgun?
Not a darn thing.
dogtown tom said:Please post the citation to Federal law or ATF regulation that states anything remotely close.
Please note that if the submitted firearm is concealed on a person, the following classification may change
(it's at the top of page 2)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
I do think that the gun community at large will not benefit from attempts to see how close to the NFA line it's possible to get without actually stepping over it.Wonder if we'll hear that when the ATF clamps down on two handed gripping of pistols of any sort, after this latest ruling has soaked in and become accepted. Even though past ATF rulings carry no legal precedent, they still cited them in support for this one, if you notice.
Apparently not.dogmushQuote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Do you understand why?
Yes.
Try reading the ACTUAL LAW.Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Attaching the Sig Arm Brace with the intent to use it as a shoulder stock is the illegal act.
Nope. That's not what that letter says.
I have disturbing news for you......that is an ATF Open Letter not the law. Again, try reading the National Firearms Act. It ain't that difficult to understand.Quote:
The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.
Nothing in those two paragraphs says a thing at all about installing the brace.
"Shouldering" a pistol is not an illegal act in the NFA or GCA, but installing a stock is.If you buy a factory pistol with a SB-15 and shoulder it, you have created an SBR. The act of shouldering the pistol is what made it an SBR. It's pretty clear.
Obfuscate much?Which brings us back to my point. An factory AR pistol with a SIG brace is a "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)."
Because it isn't an arm brace but a shoulder stock.......and Sig submitted a request for a determination letter for....wait for it.......an ARM BRACE. That's what ATF approved, not a shoulder stock.If shouldering it, without changing any parts, redesigns it to an SBR, how, logically, does using two hands on a different pistol not redesign it?
Because using two hands on a pistol is not a violation of the NFA. redesigning a pistol by adding a second vertical grip or a shoulder stock brings it under the purview of the NFA.Especially since the BATFE has explicitly said that adding a part to that pistol to use two hands is forbidden.
Read the law first, then this letter will make sense.This letter says, clearly, that the use of a firearm constitutes a redesign of that firearm to whatever use it is being put to.
As said ad nauseum, the Sig Arm Brace was approved as an arm brace. Your mistake was believing the internet experts who said it could be used as a shoulder stock. Note that SIG has NEVER COME CLOSE to putting anything in writing about the legality of shouldering the Sig Arm Brace. Don't you think it odd that the manufacturer gracefully sidesteps that little tidbit?Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Sheer and utter nonsense.
What did you redesign on the handgun?
Not a darn thing.
I didn't redesign a darn thing on a Sig P516 7.5" either. But the ATF says I did.
Then it shouldn't be too difficult to post the cite from Federal law should it?Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom
Please post the citation to Federal law or ATF regulation that states anything remotely close.
Really? This is not new news.
Sorry, that isn't a citation. Keep looking.Here is the kind of shotgun I'm talking about: http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=88
Here is one ATF letter about it:http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/testttt20001.pdf
Note the last line of the second paragraph:
Quote:
Please note that if the submitted firearm is concealed on a person, the following classification may change
See the bolded text?Another:http://s33.photobucket.com/user/rust...edPg1.jpg.html
Page 2: http://s33.photobucket.com/user/rust...edPg2.jpg.html
Money quote:
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
(it's at the top of page 2)
Sorry, those letters don't support your argument.Two (three if you count this one) different letters where the ATF explicitly says that you can change the NFA classification of a firearm just by your use of it, without a material change in the firearm itself.
It isn't.Tell me again how gripping a Glock wrong is different, in the law, than gripping an AR pistol wrong?