deadin
Member
Give that man a cigar!!!
Sig arm brace -- important legal update
- Thread starter kimberkid
- Start date
- Status
Give that man a cigar!!!
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Theo -- you're stepping smack-dab into the middle of the potholed swamp the BATFE finds itself in, trying to apply the NFA to an infinitely varied set of items that rarely make a whole lot of sense when shoe-horned into the odd categories defined by the NFA.
There is a deeply flawed logic that underlies any of the length-based and/or "concealable" definitions (or the stupid vertical foregrip issue), especially as handguns were removed from the NFA's purview before passage. More and more often folks are identifying spots where two practically identical -- and in some cases COMPLETELY identical -- items "have" to be regulated in drastically different ways, and with astonishingly harsh penalties applied.
Seems like the whole mess is getting about ready to be challenged in the courts and thrown out wholesale. But we just aren't QUITE there yet. I'd be willing to put money on it in the next decade, though.
There is a deeply flawed logic that underlies any of the length-based and/or "concealable" definitions (or the stupid vertical foregrip issue), especially as handguns were removed from the NFA's purview before passage. More and more often folks are identifying spots where two practically identical -- and in some cases COMPLETELY identical -- items "have" to be regulated in drastically different ways, and with astonishingly harsh penalties applied.
Seems like the whole mess is getting about ready to be challenged in the courts and thrown out wholesale. But we just aren't QUITE there yet. I'd be willing to put money on it in the next decade, though.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"More and more often folks are identifying spots where two practically identical -- and in some cases COMPLETELY identical -- items "have" to be regulated in drastically different ways, and with astonishingly harsh penalties applied."
I believe the applicable terms are "arbitrary" and "capricious," though it's more the fault of the NFA writers than the ATF, who to be honest weren't given much of an option besides running an ad hoc regulatory system based in doublethink. They are literally the enforcers of the proverbial Catch 22 statute, and must therefore submit to its unknowable peculiarities themselves if they wish to uphold it
My dad practically had a stroke trying to make sense of this "NFA thing" when I first gave him the run down. He's an engineer, so like me, he couldn't stop himself from trying to logic his way through this problem. That's a good way to break your brain and end up in a ward, in my opinion. He concluded, as have I, that the only 'safe' solution is to unquestioningly follow the ATF's directives as best as you can, while maintaining as low a profile on their RADAR as possible. So yeah, pretty much abiding jack-booted tyranny
TCB
I believe the applicable terms are "arbitrary" and "capricious," though it's more the fault of the NFA writers than the ATF, who to be honest weren't given much of an option besides running an ad hoc regulatory system based in doublethink. They are literally the enforcers of the proverbial Catch 22 statute, and must therefore submit to its unknowable peculiarities themselves if they wish to uphold it
My dad practically had a stroke trying to make sense of this "NFA thing" when I first gave him the run down. He's an engineer, so like me, he couldn't stop himself from trying to logic his way through this problem. That's a good way to break your brain and end up in a ward, in my opinion. He concluded, as have I, that the only 'safe' solution is to unquestioningly follow the ATF's directives as best as you can, while maintaining as low a profile on their RADAR as possible. So yeah, pretty much abiding jack-booted tyranny
TCB
Quiet
Member
The Black Ace Tactical submitted firearm seeking classification clarification was a chambered in 12Gague, was semi-auto, used detachable magazines, had a vertical forward grip, had a less than 16" smoothbore barrel, had a greater than 26" overall length, and did not have a shoulder stock but had an arm brace installed.
This firearm is classified as a Title 1 Other firearm.
Because it has a less than 16" barrel, greater than 26" overall length, and no shoulder stock.
The BATFE FTB letter seems to confirms that the firearm:
1. is not a Title 1 Shotgun
2. is not a Title 1 Handgun
3. is not a Title 2 AOW
4. when the arm brace is used as designed, remains a Title 1 Other
5. when the arm brace is shouldered, becomes a Title 2 SBS
Since "this classification pertains only to this type of firearm and its classification under Federal law", that would mean it also effects other types of Title 1 Other firearms and does not effect Title 1 Handguns.
This firearm is classified as a Title 1 Other firearm.
Because it has a less than 16" barrel, greater than 26" overall length, and no shoulder stock.
The BATFE FTB letter seems to confirms that the firearm:
1. is not a Title 1 Shotgun
2. is not a Title 1 Handgun
3. is not a Title 2 AOW
4. when the arm brace is used as designed, remains a Title 1 Other
5. when the arm brace is shouldered, becomes a Title 2 SBS
Since "this classification pertains only to this type of firearm and its classification under Federal law", that would mean it also effects other types of Title 1 Other firearms and does not effect Title 1 Handguns.
george burns
Member
I fear this will change again in a short time. My question is will it affect owners who have the grip prior to whatever letter comes next or will they be grandfathered in should the item become restricted. I thought the thread was closed, but as it's not, I pose the question.
Also if you make something legal, what right do you have to enforce how it is to be held?
That is a court case away. It's too particular to tell someone that they are holding the gun wrong, therefore they are going to jail.
Maybe the ATF is that peculiar, but no jury would convict a person knowing that they bought this thing and were then asked to hold it a certain way.
That's why I believe it may be banned altogether.
Also if you make something legal, what right do you have to enforce how it is to be held?
That is a court case away. It's too particular to tell someone that they are holding the gun wrong, therefore they are going to jail.
Maybe the ATF is that peculiar, but no jury would convict a person knowing that they bought this thing and were then asked to hold it a certain way.
That's why I believe it may be banned altogether.
CoRoMo
Member
Yep. Google the Akins Accelerator.
Nope. Google the Akins Accelerator.
I have almost no idea what you are trying to ask here. Who is 'you' in that question?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'll repeat my answer to George when he asked me via PM:
Well, all I can do is speculate, of course, but making the brace illegal would be a REALLY big problem for the ATF. For however scared we all are about the big bad BATFE coming to throw us in jail and confiscate our guns, they've never really had a situation where they were trying to confiscate or force registration of MANY TENS of THOUSANDS of something already in use.
With the old Akins accelerator, the owners had to turn them in. But there weren't ever very many sold to begin with and the political climate was very different and much more restrictive. Prosecuting and "rounding up" all the many, many, many SIG brace users and trying to find out if they shoulder their guns or not is just a logistical impossibility. BATFE wants no part of that. Besides, it would raise a political storm they (and the administration) do not want flaring up right now.
So in my opinion, the SIG brace is perfectly safe when used on AR-15 "pistols" as intended.
If your read the BATFE opinion letter carefully, it says they are talking about using one on something that is NOT a pistol, but an "other firearm" (in this case a pistol-grip only shotgun over 26" long) and that changes everything. In fact, they say that this ruling ONLY applies to that one specific type of firearm. NOT to anything classified as a "handgun."
george burns said:
Well, all I can do is speculate, of course, but making the brace illegal would be a REALLY big problem for the ATF. For however scared we all are about the big bad BATFE coming to throw us in jail and confiscate our guns, they've never really had a situation where they were trying to confiscate or force registration of MANY TENS of THOUSANDS of something already in use.
With the old Akins accelerator, the owners had to turn them in. But there weren't ever very many sold to begin with and the political climate was very different and much more restrictive. Prosecuting and "rounding up" all the many, many, many SIG brace users and trying to find out if they shoulder their guns or not is just a logistical impossibility. BATFE wants no part of that. Besides, it would raise a political storm they (and the administration) do not want flaring up right now.
So in my opinion, the SIG brace is perfectly safe when used on AR-15 "pistols" as intended.
If your read the BATFE opinion letter carefully, it says they are talking about using one on something that is NOT a pistol, but an "other firearm" (in this case a pistol-grip only shotgun over 26" long) and that changes everything. In fact, they say that this ruling ONLY applies to that one specific type of firearm. NOT to anything classified as a "handgun."
tyeo098
Member
You might want to do the same.
The reason the Akins was shut down was because he modified the design after getting ATF approval.
This required reexamination by the FTB, which Akins did not do since he already had the other letter in hand, and set out on production.
It wasn't a change of heart from the ATF that everyone is touting, the design changed and Akins did not seek reexamination of the new design.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/mr-bill-akins-and-the-akins-accelerator/
You check each step when you walk a fine line.
Last edited:
B!ngoFuelUSN
Member
I guess I feel less optimistic than others. From a NFA and gun-regulation-crowd perspective, the BATF opened Pandora's box when they allowed the brace. Now they are stuck with the dichotomy of SBR's and tax stamps, and SBR-like uses and no stamp or regulation. It does of course underscore the inconsistency and thoughtlessness of part or all of the NFA, but that is not likely to be the subject of a BATF review.
So could the BATF halt the shipment of new braces for use with new or previously owned pistols? You bet.
Could the BATF leave the brace legal but regulate HOW you hold a gun when firing it? Doubt it. It would surely cause a groundswell of lawsuits due to the precedent it would set.
Could the BATF make them all illegal and force their return? I suspect that ship has sailed.
Does this recent letter from the BATF demonstrate that their evaluation will be limited only to the firm asking for a ruling? Not even close. It is just a convenient opportunity to begin taking steps to close Pandora's box. Or at least (and hopefully in the worst case) not open it any further.
But as I said in a prior post, the more the members of the firearm community overtly claim that the only or likely use of the brace is as a faux-stock, despite the error of that statement, the more gasoline we will be pouring on the BATF fire.
B
So could the BATF halt the shipment of new braces for use with new or previously owned pistols? You bet.
Could the BATF leave the brace legal but regulate HOW you hold a gun when firing it? Doubt it. It would surely cause a groundswell of lawsuits due to the precedent it would set.
Could the BATF make them all illegal and force their return? I suspect that ship has sailed.
Does this recent letter from the BATF demonstrate that their evaluation will be limited only to the firm asking for a ruling? Not even close. It is just a convenient opportunity to begin taking steps to close Pandora's box. Or at least (and hopefully in the worst case) not open it any further.
But as I said in a prior post, the more the members of the firearm community overtly claim that the only or likely use of the brace is as a faux-stock, despite the error of that statement, the more gasoline we will be pouring on the BATF fire.
B
justice06rr
Member
Good points Sam.
I think for now we are safe with the SB15/SB47.
But all it takes is someone or some company stupid enough to try to push the limits and get the attention of the BATFE. We don't need that right now, and I hope the Sig braces remain legal for a long time.
As Sam said, its a logistical nightmare for the BATFE to go after each arm brace owner to confiscate them. Not that they can't do it, but it will face hard resistance. They would most likely not try to confiscate the sig brace if they retract their original ruling, but issue a recall to try to force current owners to turn in their sig braces.
Also, its almost impossible to find out all the people who bought a Sig brace. The ATF would have to go through people's financial transactions if they bought the brace with a credit card (which is another issue on its own). If someone bought a sig brace cash e.g. from another person or a gun show, there is no real record of that sale and it'll be impossible to track.
Anyway, hopefully nothing else will come out of that last ruling with the shotgun
I think for now we are safe with the SB15/SB47.
But all it takes is someone or some company stupid enough to try to push the limits and get the attention of the BATFE. We don't need that right now, and I hope the Sig braces remain legal for a long time.
As Sam said, its a logistical nightmare for the BATFE to go after each arm brace owner to confiscate them. Not that they can't do it, but it will face hard resistance. They would most likely not try to confiscate the sig brace if they retract their original ruling, but issue a recall to try to force current owners to turn in their sig braces.
Also, its almost impossible to find out all the people who bought a Sig brace. The ATF would have to go through people's financial transactions if they bought the brace with a credit card (which is another issue on its own). If someone bought a sig brace cash e.g. from another person or a gun show, there is no real record of that sale and it'll be impossible to track.
Anyway, hopefully nothing else will come out of that last ruling with the shotgun
USAF_Vet
Member
ATF doesn't have to track down the people who purchased it. They can declare it NFA, open an amnesty period for (hopefully) no fee registration to get your NFA stamp, then rely on attrition for the rest of them.
I'm pretty sure there are many thousands of pre Hughes/ pre NFA machine guns out there quietly sitting in safes. Owners can't take them out and shoot them without running the risk of a prison term. The Sig brace, if regulated as NFA by ATF, wouldn't be the logistical nightmare involved in rounding up thousands and thousands of foam rubber pieces. They leave it to you to turn it in, register it, or hide it and potentially become a felon.
I'm pretty sure there are many thousands of pre Hughes/ pre NFA machine guns out there quietly sitting in safes. Owners can't take them out and shoot them without running the risk of a prison term. The Sig brace, if regulated as NFA by ATF, wouldn't be the logistical nightmare involved in rounding up thousands and thousands of foam rubber pieces. They leave it to you to turn it in, register it, or hide it and potentially become a felon.
justice06rr
Member
That's what I meant.
They won't go after the Sig brace owners, they'll just make it illegal for personal use. Anyone caught will be arrested or whatever punishment they wish to come up with.
So I guess now is a good time to buy more SB15's...
They won't go after the Sig brace owners, they'll just make it illegal for personal use. Anyone caught will be arrested or whatever punishment they wish to come up with.
So I guess now is a good time to buy more SB15's...
Carl N. Brown
Member
Post #220 Question: "Is it illegal to put a vertical grip on a regular shotgun??"
No. Since a "regular shotgun" is designed as a non-concealable long gun and originally designed to be fired with two hands, adding a vertical handgrip is not a "change" in legal status at the federal level (local laws may vary).
Title I handgun and other firearm (PGO) and Title II AOW, SBS and SBR federal regulation classifications were intended to control concealable firearms. Converting a handgun or AOW shotshell pistol to two-handed operation or shoulder-fired is a change in federal legal status.
No. Since a "regular shotgun" is designed as a non-concealable long gun and originally designed to be fired with two hands, adding a vertical handgrip is not a "change" in legal status at the federal level (local laws may vary).
Title I handgun and other firearm (PGO) and Title II AOW, SBS and SBR federal regulation classifications were intended to control concealable firearms. Converting a handgun or AOW shotshell pistol to two-handed operation or shoulder-fired is a change in federal legal status.
rodinal220
Member
"Post #220 Question: "Is it illegal to put a vertical grip on a regular shotgun??"
Not according to Federal law or BATFE.They have been selling those things for 30+ years without BATFE getting their panties in a bunch.
http://www.tacstar.com/home/shotgun-grips-ind.php
BATFE could reclassify AR/AK pistols with the SIG Brace like they did with the Striker 12/StreetSweeper,USAS12 shotguns.They did offer a lengthy tax free Amnesty period.
I hope they do not and the SIG brace leads to the NFA going the way of the Do-Do bird.
The whole idea of regulating barrel length on ANY firearm is ridiculous. It serves no purpose.
Not according to Federal law or BATFE.They have been selling those things for 30+ years without BATFE getting their panties in a bunch.
http://www.tacstar.com/home/shotgun-grips-ind.php
BATFE could reclassify AR/AK pistols with the SIG Brace like they did with the Striker 12/StreetSweeper,USAS12 shotguns.They did offer a lengthy tax free Amnesty period.
I hope they do not and the SIG brace leads to the NFA going the way of the Do-Do bird.
The whole idea of regulating barrel length on ANY firearm is ridiculous. It serves no purpose.
Last edited:
Quiet
Member
arm brace on handgun and shouldered = illegal SBR
BATFE FTB has new leadership.
The old FTB director issued the previous letters regarding the SB15 arm brace.
The new FTB director is now issuing letters reversing the previous letters.
According to the new spate of FTB letters...
Arm brace installed on a Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other = legal.
Arm brace installed on a Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other and used as designed (strapped to forearm of shooting hand) = legal.
Arm brace installed on Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other and shouldered = illegal SBR/SBS.
BATFE FTB has new leadership.
The old FTB director issued the previous letters regarding the SB15 arm brace.
The new FTB director is now issuing letters reversing the previous letters.
According to the new spate of FTB letters...
Arm brace installed on a Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other = legal.
Arm brace installed on a Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other and used as designed (strapped to forearm of shooting hand) = legal.
Arm brace installed on Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other and shouldered = illegal SBR/SBS.
ApacheCoTodd
member
I really looked at the braces for the first time last month.
The fella next to me at the Small Arms Review show in Phoenix was kickin' butt selling them. The whopping number of people that IMMEDIATELY put it to their shoulders blew me away. Couldn't help themselves.
As far as the "letters" of clarifications form the BATFE... they're generally worth less than the paper they're printed on as they represent no truly firm position on the part of the BATFE nor the Federal Government in general not to mention; municipal, county or state governments.
Buck an' a half for a SIG "brace"... I always thought of it as a $150.00 down payment on a potential legal defense bill down the road.
I'll take the cost, wait, etc... of the firm legal position of SBR registration.
Todd.
The fella next to me at the Small Arms Review show in Phoenix was kickin' butt selling them. The whopping number of people that IMMEDIATELY put it to their shoulders blew me away. Couldn't help themselves.
As far as the "letters" of clarifications form the BATFE... they're generally worth less than the paper they're printed on as they represent no truly firm position on the part of the BATFE nor the Federal Government in general not to mention; municipal, county or state governments.
Buck an' a half for a SIG "brace"... I always thought of it as a $150.00 down payment on a potential legal defense bill down the road.
I'll take the cost, wait, etc... of the firm legal position of SBR registration.
Todd.
justice06rr
Member
Interesting.
There is still yet to be a test case of someone being prosecuted for shouldering an AR pistol with the Sigbrace. The reversal letter is disconcerting, but we will have to see what weight of the law it holds.
The SB15 itself is still legal when used as intended.
There is still yet to be a test case of someone being prosecuted for shouldering an AR pistol with the Sigbrace. The reversal letter is disconcerting, but we will have to see what weight of the law it holds.
The SB15 itself is still legal when used as intended.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Ha. Good luck enforcing that ruling. ATF is picking their battles poorly these days.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
They will get plenty of people via youtube videos.
SIG Brace now makes it an SBR?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ig-brace-as-shoulder-stock-without-nfa-stamp/
It seems that the ATF answered another letter about the SIG Brace and things aren't as clear cut as it seemed.
For those who planned to get the SBR stamp or were avoiding the Brace, nothing has changed.
It was the large number of newer short barrel shooters who have an issue about braces, grips, and usage. If you still have a question, then write a letter to the ATF. They will clear it up for you.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ig-brace-as-shoulder-stock-without-nfa-stamp/
It seems that the ATF answered another letter about the SIG Brace and things aren't as clear cut as it seemed.
For those who planned to get the SBR stamp or were avoiding the Brace, nothing has changed.
It was the large number of newer short barrel shooters who have an issue about braces, grips, and usage. If you still have a question, then write a letter to the ATF. They will clear it up for you.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Even with a Youtube video of somebody using a SIG brace as a stock, you've got some problems - how do you prove the firearm in the video wasn't a registered SBR? Or conversely, how do you prove the firearm in the video is the same AR pistol a person now possesses?
And ATF is opening a giant can of worms if they do try to enforce it.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,302
What's the difference in using the arm brace as a shoulder stock vs using the buffer tube as a shoulder stock? Either they can make the arm brace legal or illegal. Do they have any power to say how an admittedly legal part to a firearm is "used" is illegal w/o any government regulation?BATFE FTB has new leadership.
The old FTB director issued the previous letters regarding the SB15 arm brace.
The new FTB director is now issuing letters reversing the previous letters.
According to the new spate of FTB letters...
Arm brace installed on a Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other = legal.
Arm brace installed on a Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other and used as designed (strapped to forearm of shooting hand) = legal.
Arm brace installed on Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other and shouldered = illegal SBR/SBS.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Very good question. If it is "designed or re-designed to be fired from the shoulder" then it becomes a rife, by the text of the law. So does the fact that the object IS fired from the shoulder, in fact, "redesigning" it to be so? If so, then any AR pistol COULD be. And I suppose the only way to tell is seeing the act of DOING so? Messy business, this.
Well, no, there's lots of precedent out in the world for items which are legal to own, but not to USE a certain way. In this case, there is clearly A legal way to use it. And, now, perhaps an illegal one as well.
They do have very broad powers to interpret/administer the text of the law. In this case they're almost hamstrung BY the law itself. The text of the NFA does seem to say that if you're shouldering the item, it IS a rifle. They've been skirting/ignoring this for several years now, though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
