Sig arm brace -- important legal update

[JRWhit]

"delete"

 

[rodinal220]

BATFE has once again proven that common sense,logic and reasoning does not apply to gun owners rights or gun laws.

BATFE's FTB has stated that the SB15 is not a stock,they still do.The earlier March letter to a CO LE states shouldering is A-OK. The latest Nov dated letter says that actually shouldering an AR-pistol with a SB15 is subject to the NFA and creates a SBR. Where in the NFA does it regulate shooting technique or style/position.

This just reeks of the anointed ones handy work(Chicago-method).This will have to go to the courts and settled by a friendly judge and not a shill judge. I guess an Executive order banning weapons will not be a big surprise.

I think since many gun owners have been on the offensive,its time to repeal the NFA or many parts of it. The concept of regulating barrel length is completely asinine.

I guess for now you can keep your SB15 in close proximity to your clavicle but not touch.

 

[Tirod]

The issue with making your own determination is that the ATF is doing exactly that - it's a one by one decision, not broad application of policy.

We keep making that mistake - these letters are not the writ of law, since they almost never come into the court for review. They are regulatory interpretation, and the ATF is getting them addressed on a case by case basis. Not blanket interpretation.

If that were so, they would simply point to existing written policy and we wouldn't be writing letters at all.

Therefore saying the brace was legal across the board was the first mistake, and saying that it now applies to you is another. It's not your name on the reply.

This all goes to the intent of the brace in the first place - a wrist support for the paraplegic. If YOU weren't missing an arm and THEN used it in a way contrary to it's purpose, filmed yourself doing so, and then asked further questions in a letter for clarification after someone already got an answer, who is to blame? Mostly brace owners. Brought it on yourselves.

It was never intended to be a shoulder stock and the ATF is simply saying that, again. They didn't say before that it was legal, their position was that it was misuse, and now they are on paper as to further stating that it creates the issue of it becoming an SBR if so used.

Why is this so difficult to understand? A pistol does not have a stock for shoulder use. It's the shooters who deliberately misuse the item who created the issue, NOT those who avoided purchasing them.

For those who were applying for a stamp, or who never intended to purchase a brace, there's no problem at all.

For those attempting to circumvent the ATF and rub their face in it, too, what were you thinking? I'm beginning to see the point so many have made - why poke the bear?

Because they don't have enough self discipline to stop themselves and have to test boundaries over and over to see what their limits are.

SBR and pistol users aren't suffering from the flip flops in interpretation about brace use. They are sticking to a considered plan that included this type of problem and avoided the complications - just like the guys who first avoided slide fire type stocks, or even shoe strings. They aren't the ones who can't see why it's a bad idea - they did, and they made better decisions.

It's the fake SBR/brace owner who is now in a pickle about it. What lessons are being taken away by this?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

The ATF has had zero issues with opening cans of worms in the past. I don't know why this would be different. As for the proof phase, that would undoubtedly come at the time of trial. There are plenty of convictions that come as a result of people posting illegal activity on Youtube/FB/Vimeo, etc. Even if the ATF loses, how much is it going to cost the Youtuber?

We keep making that mistake - these letters are not the writ of law, since they almost never come into the court for review.

Right, but they do seem to reflect the ATF's intent to enforce current laws via their interpretation. So basically, they are saying that if misused, they will perceive it as an illegal (not properly papered) weapon and proceed accordingly. No cases have resulted, yet, but who wants to be the test case(s)?

 

[rodinal220]

Today, 09:22 AM #253
Tirod
Member

Join Date: May 24, 2008
Location: SW MO
Posts: 2,903

"The issue with making your own determination is that the ATF is doing exactly that - it's a one by one decision, not broad application of policy."

"We keep making that mistake - these letters are not the writ of law, since they almost never come into the court for review. They are regulatory interpretation, and the ATF is getting them addressed on a case by case basis. Not blanket interpretation."


Rodinal220:Actually they are:Congress gave that authority(illegally IMHO) to BATF(E) in 1968.Only Congress shall make law.The letter cannot apply to just one individual,that would be a bill of attainder.


"If that were so, they would simply point to existing written policy and we wouldn't be writing letters at all."

"Therefore saying the brace was legal across the board was the first mistake, and saying that it now applies to you is another. It's not your name on the reply."


Rodinal220:BATFE has stated and still does that the SB15 IS NOT A STOCK,hence it CANNOT be a SBR.They have issued CONFLICTING rulings.



"This all goes to the intent of the brace in the first place - a wrist support for the paraplegic. If YOU weren't missing an arm and THEN used it in a way contrary to it's purpose, filmed yourself doing so, and then asked further questions in a letter for clarification after someone already got an answer, who is to blame? Mostly brace owners. Brought it on yourselves. "


Rodinal220:Gun owners are to blame???? Really for fighting for their RIGHTS??? Whos side are you on??? This is the current Admins WAR on the American way of life and Civil Liberties.



"It was never intended to be a shoulder stock and the ATF is simply saying that, again. They didn't say before that it was legal, their position was that it was misuse, and now they are on paper as to further stating that it creates the issue of it becoming an SBR if so used."


Rodinal220:The argument is whether the SB15 is a stock or not not use.Either you are pregnant or you are not.


"Why is this so difficult to understand? A pistol does not have a stock for shoulder use. It's the shooters who deliberately misuse the item who created the issue, NOT those who avoided purchasing them. "


Rodinal220:How about fighting for the Second Amendment,who created this issue??? Certainly not SB15 owners,it was The Anointed One and his BATFE appointee. The NFA needs to go away PERIOD so we do not have to have discussions for the obtuse to spew their pablum.


"For those who were applying for a stamp, or who never intended to purchase a brace, there's no problem at all."


Rodinal220There is still a problem.


"For those attempting to circumvent the ATF and rub their face in it, too, what were you thinking? I'm beginning to see the point so many have made - why poke the bear? "


Rodinal220:Its your DUTY as a citizen to fight injustice thats why.You do realize many have sacrificed life and limb to provide us freedom. Its your job to "poke the bear" otherwise many would still drink from different water fountains or ride the back of the bus.


"Because they don't have enough self discipline to stop themselves and have to test boundaries over and over to see what their limits are."


Rodinal220:Unreal


"SBR and pistol users aren't suffering from the flip flops in interpretation about brace use. They are sticking to a considered plan that included this type of problem and avoided the complications - just like the guys who first avoided slide fire type stocks, or even shoe strings. They aren't the ones who can't see why it's a bad idea - they did, and they made better decisions. "



Rodinal220:Fighting for freedom is a bad idea???



"It's the fake SBR/brace owner who is now in a pickle about it. What lessons are being taken away by this? "



Rodinal220:Oh no, the I HAVE A REAL SBR I'M SPECIAL you don't nah nah nah.You do realize you paid a TAX for a RIGHT.
The lessons learned is that MANY gun owners worst enemies are fellow gun owners who are fence sitters,un-patriotic and obtuse. They are "fake" patriots and sportsman.

If you do not like the gun laws and enjoy playing power games and restricting others,move to North Korea.

 

[dogtown tom]

rodinal220 BATFE has once again proven that common sense,logic and reasoning does not apply to gun owners rights or gun laws.

I disagree. "Common sense" had many in the firearms community say "That's a shoulder stock!" the first time they saw the Sig Brace. I did. Yeah it was neat that it was designed to "brace" but nearly no one actually planned to use it that way.

I think ATF's original determination letter was a bit surprising to nearly everyone in America.....and we know why. It's a crappy shoulder stock that allows you to attach it to your forearm.

Where in the NFA does it regulate shooting technique or style/position.

In the "definitions"
The NFA and GCA both clearly define what is a rifle and what is a handgun.

This just reeks of the anointed ones handy work(Chicago-method).

No it doesn't.
If "the anointed one" actually had anything to do with it the original determination letter would never have been issued.

I guess an Executive order banning weapons will not be a big surprise.

It will be a huge surprise since that is outside the Presidents authority. Post more facts, less paranoid political nonsense.



rodinal220..........please learn how to use the "Quote" feature. It will make your posts easily readable. Simply highlight the text you want to quote, then click the little "Quote" button on the toolbar.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think ATF's original determination letter was a bit surprising to nearly everyone in America.....and we know why.

That's correct. What's happening now is predictable. The surprising thing was the initial ruling.

Fighting for freedom is a bad idea???

Of course not. However, the SIG Brace, in my opinion, amounted to "poking the stupid bag" to see what was going to come out, not "fighting for freedom". I see too many people doing things that are ill-advised and calling it "fighting for freedom" to try to justify their actions.

 

[HOOfan_1]

That's correct. What's happening now is predictable. The surprising thing was the initial ruling.Of course not. However, the SIG Brace, in my opinion, amounted to "poking the stupid bag" to see what was going to come out, not "fighting for freedom".

Surprising or not, the original ruling came out....so how is taking the ATF at their word "poking the stupid bag"?

Sometimes doing thing which are ill-advised ends up with desirable consequences and sometimes undesirable.

 

[Ron James]

No longer owning any NFA Items I have no irons in the fire, so I'm just passing on what I've read ( I believe the Gun Boards ). If you use the arm brace as intended, all well and good, but if you place it up to your shoulder it then becomes a SBR ( per BATFE ), because of this , I believe the boys in suits will be changing the rules against the arm brace, Why, because people are placing it up to their shoulder and using it as a SBR. Just passing the info on, as stated I have no irons in this fire so no flames or rocks please. I have fired a friends AR pistol and agree that it makes a world of difference in controlling the firearm and accuracy, it turns something useless into something useful { JMHO } but?

 

[JohnKSa]

Surprising or not, the original ruling came out...

The whole point of this thread is that two contradictory rulings came out and the combination of the two rulings results in such stupidity as:

1. If you posted an online video of yourself shooting your AR pistol from the shoulder with a SIG brace back when many people thought that was legal, it now appears that you posted evidence of yourself committing a felony.

2. If you take your AR pistol with a SIG brace to a public range and someone asks to shoot it, if you don't tell them up front not to shoulder it, they might do so instinctively and end up committing a felony in public.

...so how is taking the ATF at their word "poking the stupid bag"?

After the Akins fiasco, everyone should understand that a letter from the ATF isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Going forward based on a letter from the ATF even when common sense and a straightforward interpretation of the law says that there will be problems isn't all that smart.

Sometimes doing thing which are ill-advised ends up with desirable consequences and sometimes undesirable.

Of course. Sometimes being really well-informed, thinking things through and getting good advice and then taking the best option still results in a fiasco. The best laid plans, and all that...

And, similarly, sometimes being stupid and doing stupid things actually turns out well.

That said, one of those two courses of actions is WAY more likely to turn out well than the other.

 

[HOOfan_1]

The whole point of this thread is that two contradictory rulings came out and the combination of the two rulings results in such stupidity as:

1. If you posted an online video of yourself shooting your AR pistol from the shoulder with a SIG brace back when many people thought that was legal, it now appears that you posted evidence of yourself committing a felony.

2. If you take your AR pistol with a SIG brace to a public range and someone asks to shoot it, if you don't tell them up front not to shoulder it, they might do so instinctively and end up committing a felony in public.After the Akins fiasco, everyone should understand that a letter from the ATF isn't worth the paper it's printed on. .

Has anyone been prosecuted for using the Akins Accelerator, before the ATF declared it illegal?

 

[JohnKSa]

Has anyone been prosecuted for using the Akins Accelerator, before the ATF declared it illegal?

One would hope not. Of course the fact that it was only a medium-small fiasco instead of a massive fiasco doesn't really alter the overall scenario or the underlying facts.

Also, only one of the examples that you quoted from my post dealt with occurrences from before the second ruling on the SB15.

 

[RX-178]

I would just like to point out, that by this display of 'logic', using a two handed grip of any sort on a pistol means you have also just created an unregistered AOW, since a pistol must be 'intended for use with a single hand'.

 

[Fishbed77]

I suppose that when I hold my Glock with two hands instead of one, I have just turned it into an SBR.

 

[Tirod]

It's all about intent.

Don't need to argue with me about it, argue with the ATF. They are judging intent of the firearm's use.

First letter was "I intend to use it as a wrist brace." Approved.
Second letter was "Can it be misused?" "We still see the original intent was a pistol."

Now this letter is all about "Can I build an SBR, not apply for a tax stamp, and rub it in your face?" "No, and our agents are circling in a pattern waiting to parachute down and arrest you."

Here's a better informed point of view: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/calm-pistol-brace-ruling-hasnt-changed/

Again, you can argue with me all you want, the ATF makes the final decision. If you are asking about "is this a pistol" and it conforms, then it's a pistol. If you are asking "can I add a flat vertical surface to use it as an SBR?" then what did you expect?

Again, it's not a problem for those either seeking an SBR stamp, or who plan to exercise it as a pistol.

IT'S A PROBLEM FOR THOSE WHO PLAN TO USE IT AS A SBR AND CORRUPT THE DEFINITION OF WHAT THE FIREARM IS.

You can't change the intent of my use with somebody else's letter and force that application on me. I intend to finish building my pistol and exercise it legally under the laws as they are written.

Can you?

Did you ever put a rifle barrel on that lower first?

Intent.

Do you possess a completed pistol with carbine buffer, a compatible stock, and loaded magazines all together in one container?

Constructive intent.

I'm aware of only one Immaculate Conception, I fully understand what intent is otherwise. And none of us qualify as the progeny. Therefore we are not to be trusted with pure intentions. Hence, the ATF, who's intent keeps us on the straight and narrow.

Not everything they decide is done fast and furious.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I disagree. "Common sense" had many in the firearms community say "That's a shoulder stock!" the first time they saw the Sig Brace. I did. Yeah it was neat that it was designed to "brace" but nearly no one actually planned to use it that way.

I think ATF's original determination letter was a bit surprising to nearly everyone in America.....and we know why. It's a crappy shoulder stock that allows you to attach it to your forearm.

This ^^^

I suppose that when I hold my Glock with two hands instead of one, I have just turned it into an SBR.

Not unless you attach a vertical foregrip to it.

 

[Sam1911]

Not unless you attach a vertical foregrip to it.

No, that would be an "AOW." Can't be an SBR if it isn't set up with a shoulder stock.


And I think his point was, if the ATF is going to try to broadly define classes and categories of NFA firearms based on how you hold them, then they might have to consider that pistols are supposedly designed to be fired with ONE hand. By (rather wild) extension, holding your pistol with TWO hands would then risk redefining it as a concealable NFA "Firearm."

 

[Styx]

Can BATFE wake up tomorrow and with only a piece of paper, Microsoft Word, and a stamp rule that all AR and AK pistols are now SBRs OR all AR15s and AKs now have the same classification as full autos OR

 

[MErl]

No they cannot change classes like that as the definitions are written into law. They could rule that if you shoulder your AR pistol using the buffer tube as a stock it is a SBR made to be fired from the shoulder. (That is essentially what the recent letter says)

 

[Styx]

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.

Um, I'm not sure how everyone could take this opinion as being set in stone. By the text of the law as I read it, the arm brace has NOT be designed OR redesigned to be fired for the shoulder end of story.

The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

I come from a programing background. So when evaluating an expression, if any one of the boolean values are FALSE, then the entire expression is FALSE. If it's a rule that to make the color Brown, you'll have to add equal parts of Red, Yellow, and Blue, then Red (TRUE) AND Yellow (TRUE) AND Blue (TRUE) = Brown. When evaluating if an expression equal brown, and we use three variables, Red (TRUE), Yellow (TRUE), and (insert any color other than Blue here FALSE), then we would NOT meet the aforementioned rule/requirements to equal Brown. With that said and according to the wording of the law, at least 1 of the boolean values that need to be met for a firearm to be classified as a rifle are in fact not met. While it's arguable that the arm brace can be "made" (not manufactured) to be fired from the shoulder by the end user, there is no question that it is NOT intended to be fired from the shoulder....

If in this case they're almost hamstrung BY the law itself, wouldn't the prior ruling be the more correct ruling according to the letter of the law? Do you not agree?

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.

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.

Not only does the current NFA opinion not coincide with the wording of the law IMHO, isn't there not more precedent with regards to firearms that also goes against the current opinion letter from the ATF? Wouldn't the fact that an AR pistol, for example, is also manufactured with a pistol grip AND heatguard (so that you can place a second hand on the weapon) be more illegal than the arm brace itself?

 

[jerkface11]

Does it stop being an SBR when you take it off your shoulder? Or is it an NFA item forever if someone shoulders it? What if someone shoulders it and you don't know about it?

 

[Styx]

Does it stop being an SBR when you take it off your shoulder? Or is it an NFA item forever if someone shoulders it? What if someone shoulders it and you don't know about it?

The lone opinion and interpretation from Mr. Kingery won't stand up against a legal challenge IMHO, but others on the board know more than I do. At least not with the current wording of the law and the current policies of the ATF. They'll be opening a complicated can of worms and more headaches than it's worth if they try to start making how end users hold a firearm a felony.

 

[Sam1911]

Um, I'm not sure how everyone could take this opinion as being set in stone. By the text of the law as I read it, the arm brace has NOT be designed OR redesigned to be fired for the shoulder end of story.

Anyone who says anything about gun laws and the BATFE, and concludes with the expression, "end of story," is producing all smoke and no fire. LOL.

In this case, it isn't the BRACE that would be "designed or redesigned" but the FIREARM. If you add something to a firearm so that it can be shouldered, the BATFE would certainly be within their precedent and authority to consider that "redesigned" to be fired from the shoulder.

As other said, if you whittled a doohicky out of oak and stuck it on your AR pistol and shouldered it, the BATFE would say you just made a short barreled rifle. You can shout until you are blue that you made a "doohicky," you didn't make a "stock," but they're going to smile indulgently while they throw you in the clink.

In this case, SIG calls this a "brace" and that's fine. The ATF is saying it is fine. AS A BRACE. When you shoulder it...well, what it is doing for you? It isn't bracing your pistol on your arm then, is it?

Now, I don't like this new ruling, and I think the NFA should be abolished completely, but you can't say "it isn't a stock...end of story" and pretend that your statement means anything at all.

 

[Sam1911]

Not only does the current NFA opinion not coincide with the wording of the law IMHO, isn't there not more precedent with regards to firearms that also goes against the current opinion letter from the ATF?

I don't see why you would think so. The opinion letter from before, saying you could add the brace and shoulder it, seemed to be the only outlier in conflict with the traditional trends.

Wouldn't the fact that an AR pistol, for example, is also manufactured with a pistol grip AND heatguard (so that you can place a second hand on the weapon) be more illegal than the arm brace itself?

Doesn't seem so. Their long-standing interpretation is that to get into "AOW" territory, a forward grip must be vertical. So even the angled grips are ok.

And, again, they aren't saying that brace is illegal at all.

 

[Styx]

Consequently, the attachment of the SB-15 to an AR-type pistol alone; would not change the classification of the pistol to an SBR. However, if this device, un-modified or modified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock, thus designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a weapon design to be fired from the shoulder; this assembly would constitute the making of a "rifle" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(7).

Okay, now I get the logic behind what Mr Kingery is saying. What this letter really states and what I believe is logically true and inline with the current law, is that if you add an arm brace to a AR pistol or the like with the intent of shooting it from the shoulder, then you've assembled/made a SBR. An important thing to note is that his logic would not apply to pistols sold with the arm brase already attached and then used as a stock. Under his logic, shooting the arm brace from the shoulder isn't illegal per se, it's the creation of a SBR (modifying/assembling a AR15 pistol by adding the arm brace to the pistol with the intent to use it as a a stock) is what the issue would be.