Sig brace everyone cries...

[vladtepes 1,060]

If you didnt see this coming.. you know all those people that thought they could skirt NFA rule by buying an ugly arm brace and using it as a stock?

 

doesn't look like thats going to work out well..

 

 

http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industry/breaking-atf-issues-new-opinion-letter-stating-that-shouldering-sig-brace-is-illegal/

[High Exposure 5,664]

:| <- my shocked face.

[vladtepes 1,060]

:| <- my shocked face.

 

 

seriously.. I mean... when they first made them.. and got the ATF to kind of agree it was OK.. people should have just shut up and been excited at that point.. but nope.. everyone wanted their own letter.. and everyone wanted to put the arm brace on everything.. and get an opinion letter on that as well.. sometimes we wonder why we get screwed so bad.. maybe its partially because we don't know when to just accept a win and move on..

 

I imagine the market will be flooded with these things now that they are headed in the direction of not solving a problem..

 

I do admit that this IS only a SINGLE ATF opinion letter.. and we all know that they can change at a moment.. but ive been saying since day one with the obnoxiousness that these were being used .. that there would ultimately be push back.

[Vlad G 345]

:| <- my shocked face.

Yup. No kidding. I don't know why everyone thought the SBR rules would be out the window all of a sudden. On the other hand this is one of those "did you see me do it?" kind of things.

[mipafox 438]

Stop writing letters you homos!

[High Exposure 5,664]

seriously.. I mean... when they first made them.. and got the ATF to kind of agree it was OK.. people should have just shut up and been excited at that point.. but nope.. everyone wanted their own letter.. and everyone wanted to put the arm brace on everything.. and get an opinion letter on that as well.. sometimes we wonder why we get screwed so bad.. maybe its partially because we don't know when to just accept a win and move on..

Precisely, and don't forget everyone and their mom taking photos of the brace used as a stock and posting them on Facebook and every retard with a Gun Channel on YouTube making an instructional vid or doing a review on them and telling how "it's an SBR without the wait!"

 

This is why we can't have nice things....

[vladtepes 1,060]

Precisely, and don't forget everyone and their mom taking photos of the brace used as a stock and posting them on Facebook and every retard with a Gun Channel on YouTube making an instructional vid or doing a review on them and telling how "it's an SBR without the wait!"

 

This is why we can't have nice things....

 

 

LOL

[PK90 3,570]

Both response letters were signed by the same person. It is business as usual in free states. No laws were changed.

[JT Custom Guns 957]

And a new "Is this Legal in NJ" thread in.........3,2,1

[djg0770 481]

Wait...

 

Is or is not a shoelace a machine gun?

[PK90 3,570]

Can you use two hands when firing a handgun, as it was designed to be fired with one hand?

[carl_g 568]

IMO this is a better option compared to the sig brace..

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/07/15/thorsden-customs-ar-pistol-buffer-tube/

[mipafox 438]

&nbsp;

Can you use two hands when firing a handgun, as it was designed to be fired with one hand?

&nbsp;

 

Why don't you and ten of your closest friends write them letters and ask them? Keep writing until we get the answer we don't want, those seem to be final.

 

I still want my XMG-34 in full auto!!!! You MFers!!!!

 

Then there's the Gemtax, on and on it goes...

[vladtepes 1,060]

Both response letters were signed by the same person. It is business as usual in free states. No laws were changed.

 

for once.. I am not sure I am with you on this one...

in some peoples opinion... Sig made a brace that can be used to support your gun when shooting a heavier larger pistol...

but in the opinion of some other people.. Sig made a stock.. so people could get around needing a stamp...

so at the end of the day.. you could make a full normal AR stock and call it the "AR 15 pistol counter weight" and claim that its not a stock at all.. it is simply a counterweight for the gun since its kind of front heavy and unbalanced.. does that make it not a stock? I think if the gov really wanted to push it... they would simply push a case or two.. get some footage of the individual using it as a stock.. and then insert several thousand youtube videos of idiots talking about how they beat the tax stamp rules.. with videos of them shooting it from a shouldered position.. while I am not a fan of having to pay a stamp to build a smaller than normal carbine.. I kind of expected this for a while now..

 

I think that the argument they are making is somewhat valid in the following way..

 

you are taking a pistol.. and adding a block of plastic to the back of it.. if you then use that block of plastic as a stock to shoulder the gun.. you are essentially changing the gun into a SBR.. because it doesn't really matter what we call things.. if they serve the functional purpose of shouldering.. then could they not be considered a stock?

[PK90 3,570]

What about the bare receiver extensions? If one were to place it against one's shoulder, does it make the pistol an NFA firearm now?

 

AFAIK, both response letters, one stating that shouldering the SB-15 Brace dated 03/05/2014 (see the attached), the second from above dated 11/10/2014, were written by the same person, Max Kingery.

 

ATF_SBR.pdf

[High Exposure 5,664]

IANAL

 

ATF letters are for THE PERSON WHO INQUIRES, not the general public which is quite odd (to be kind).

 

Excellent legal explanation for the layman on this current letter:

http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/26/cinderella-and-atfs-determination-the-fairy-tale-of-an-ar-pistol-to-sbr-through-magic/

 

http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/26/whoops-we-atf-did-it-again-arbitrary-determinations-over-the-sig-brace/

[vladtepes 1,060]

What about the bare receiver extensions? If one were to place it against one's shoulder, does it make the pistol an NFA firearm now?

 

AFAIK, both response letters, one stating that shouldering the SB-15 Brace dated 03/05/2014 (see the attached), the second from above dated 11/10/2014, were written by the same person, Max Kingery.

 

ATF_SBR.pdf

 

 

I agree completely..  but I think one of the biggest differences is in most cases the buffer tube is necessary to the workings of the weapon.. and this is one of those situations where "intention" does matter..

 

the intention of the buffer tube.. is without question.. to contain the buffer.. the intention is crystal clear..  so shouldering it against that is somewhat less of an issue because the intention of the part would never really come in to question as the gun needs it to work..

 

the intention of an "arm brace" shaped almost exactly like a stock is somewhat more suspect.. especially when you have 500,000 videos titled "I beat the ATF tax stamp laws!!!!!!!!!!!!1111" "new legal SBR work around"... the intention of the item gets a little less clear.. I think I could find 200 videos of the brace being shouldered to every one where it is actually being used as a brace..

[carl_g 568]

The ATF is now determining the classification of a gun by the way you decide to hold it.... that is basically what the latest letter says. This directly contradicts their first letter..both signed by the same guy. It makes no sense.

 

I still think the brace is ugly and the CAA saddle (linked in my previous post) which allows you a good cheek weld is a better option.

[vladtepes 1,060]

The ATF is now determining the classification of a gun by the way you decide to hold it.... that is basically what the latest letter says. This directly contradicts their first letter..both signed by the same guy. It makes no sense.

 

I still think the brace is ugly and the CAA saddle (linked in my previous post) which allows you a good cheek weld is a better option.

 

 

I think that the point they are making is this..

 

the top curved padding of a crutch is NOT a gun stock.. but if you use it in such a way on a gun to create a stock.. then the gun now has a stock.. and is no longer a pistol.. just because the brace is not intended to be one from the factory.. if you misuse it and apply it to a pistol so that you can use it as a stock.. then it IS a stock.. "intended use" appears to be the issue..

[carl_g 568]

good read..

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/calm-pistol-brace-ruling-hasnt-changed/

[Blacksmythe 71]

Constructive intent.....

[vladtepes 1,060]

good read..

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/calm-pistol-brace-ruling-hasnt-changed/

 

 

good read if what was said was valid.. but its just a bunch of wishful thinking..  the breakdown of what they said is not even close to accurate..

 

 

You asked if building an AR pistol with a SB-15 brace required a Form 1 as a Short Barreled Rifle. If you build the pistol as described and intend to use it as a pistol, then it does not require a From 1 and is just a pistol. If you intend to build a pistol and it is improperly used from time to time, that’s OK. If you intend to build the firearm to be a Short Barreled Rifle and use the pistol brace as a stock, then you intend to build an SBR and that requires a Form 1 and a tax stamp. If you intend to build a small gun designed to be fired from the shoulder, that is an SBR no matter what parts you use.

 

they did not in any way say anything in that opinion letter about using it sometimes and that being OK..

 

they said the following..

 

if you are putting a sig brace on your gun to use it as it is intended.. then there is nothing wrong with the item.. its an arm brace.. and arm braces are not illegal..

if you are buying the sig brace and attempting to use that part as a stock.. essentially redesigning the gun from a pistol to a SBR.. it would require a stamp..

 

the letter is fairly clear.. it is touching on intent.. if the intent it to use it as it is designed.. then it is OK.. but if you are using it as a stock it is not... in the same way that duct taping an old shoe to the buffer tube and using that as a shoulder stock would require a stamp... people are getting hung up on the fact that the ATF is discussing use... but it really has nothing to do with that.. when you make a Sbr you are essentially getting a form for manufacturing a firearm.... the stance they are taking is that the AR pistol is a pistol... and if you add parts to it with the intention of shooting off the shoulder.. you are essentially manufacturing a SBR.. in the same way that a 16in carbine is not a SBR.. but if you put a 10in barrel on there it becomes one.. and requires a stamp.. an AR pistol is not a SBR.. but if you alter it to have a stock.. with the intention of being shouldered.. then you are again making a SBR.. and that requires a stamp..

[mipafox 438]

 

What about the bare receiver extensions? If one were to place it against one's shoulder, does it make the pistol an NFA firearm now?

 

AFAIK, both response letters, one stating that shouldering the SB-15 Brace dated 03/05/2014 (see the attached), the second from above dated 11/10/2014, were written by the same person, Max Kingery.

 

ATF_SBR.pdf

 

 

First letter goes on internet, ol' Max gets a phone call from the White House or the political wing, the IRS.

[RS1200XL 4]

So if I decide to bump fire my AR, is the ATF going to come after me because of the way I am holding it allows for "auto fire"(I know it's not but humor me).

[Polak 3]

They said before there is no wrong way to fire a pistol, and now they're saying there is?

[mipafox 438]

They said before there is no wrong way to fire a pistol, and now they're saying there is?

It's still good if you hold it sideways and shoot at a cop or border agent.

[vladtepes 1,060]

So if I decide to bump fire my AR, is the ATF going to come after me because of the way I am holding it allows for "auto fire"(I know it's not but humor me).

 

probably not?

 

but if you make some modification to the gun.. that causes it to fire more than one round per trigger pull.. then yeah.. probably..

 

just like if you put an arm brace on a gun and use it as an arm brace.. you will likely be fine.. but if you put an arm brace on a gun to use as a stock.. then yeah.. you may have issues..

 

 

its funny that people are so annoyed and shocked by this... a company made a device to blatantly buck the system.. its not an arm brace.. we all know it.. its a stock.. made to look like something else.. and shortly there after the ATF gets a million letters asking over and over again if its legal.. coupled with the five hundred million videos on youtube with people showing how they screwed the tax stamp system.. and made SBRs... is any of this really a surprise.. the best part is a lot of these people live in free states.. if you really want a SBR.. just pay the stamp and use whatever stock you want.. its not like the brace is exactly cheap.. the "retail" price is listed as like $100 - $150... tax stamp is $200..

[PK90 3,570]

.. if you really want a SBR.. just pay the stamp and use whatever stock you want.. its not like the brace is exactly cheap.. the "retail" price is listed as like $100 - $150... tax stamp is $200..

 

It is more like >

 

$120 for SB-15 Brace and instant gratification verses $350 for Tax Stamp, engraving, stock and an 8 months wait.

 

You mention "intent". Is not the Sig Brace's "intent" to be used as an arm brace? The government thinks so with every response letter. Just like a receiver extension. It's intended use is for a specific reason; the brace to be an arm brace, the extension to hold the recoil mechanism.

 

Now, are you saying that using something for a different purpose than what it was intended to do is illegal, ie shouldering the brace? Can we not say that shouldering the extension is also illegal, because that is not what it is intended for.

 

Perhaps you are saying that it is an individual's intent, and not the item's intended use that matters here. If I were to install a brace for the sole purpose of using it to shoulder a pistol, then that would be illegal? Hmmm. Okay.

 

BUT, the 11/10/14 letter is saying that the mear shouldering of the brace is illegal. It mentions nothing about the intended use (paragraph 5 of the above). Can not the same be said for the extension?

[1LtCAP 4,262]

why, again is the atf so anal about this?

[vladtepes 1,060]

It is more like >

 

$120 for SB-15 Brace and instant gratification verses $350 for Tax Stamp, engraving, stock and an 8 months wait.

 

You mention "intent". Is not the Sig Brace's "intent" to be used as an arm brace? The government thinks so with every response letter. Just like a receiver extension. It's intended use is for a specific reason; the brace to be an arm brace, the extension to hold the recoil mechanism.

 

Now, are you saying that using something for a different purpose than what it was intended to do is illegal, ie shouldering the brace? Can we not say that shouldering the extension is also illegal, because that is not what it is intended for.

 

Perhaps you are saying that it is an individual's intent, and not the item's intended use that matters here. If I were to install a brace for the sole purpose of using it to shoulder a pistol, then that would be illegal? Hmmm. Okay.

 

BUT, the 11/10/14 letter is saying that the mear shouldering of the brace is illegal. It mentions nothing about the intended use (paragraph 5 of the above). Can not the same be said for the extension?

 

 

i think this is the clarity they are trying to create..

 

the intention of the buffer tube in every instance is to house the buffer... no one could make the case that the design of the buffer tube is to function as a stock.. because it has a clearly defined purpose beyond that.. which is required to make the gun work...

 

if you take a sig arm brace.. and add it to an AR pistol to serve as a stock.. then you have created a SBR.. if you take the top crutch pad and duct tape it to the receiver tube in the back you are essentially creating a stock.. neither of these items are sold as a stock.. but you are installing them on the weapon to function as a stock.. and that is where the issue becomes... ANY item that exists in the world that is not a stock.. that is made into a stock.. is going to cause issue.. because you are putting it on a gun that can not have a stock without a stamp.. they are likely making this clarification due to the masses screaming in the streets "look I got a stock and no tax stamp".. just like if you made a stock in your house.. out of raw materials.. those materials were never intended to be a stock.. they were not sold as a stock.. but you took them and added them to the gun to serve as a stock.. once you do that you create a SBR..

 

as silly as it sounds.. its all about intent.. so it would be a hard case to prove.. unless of course you make 700 hours of video talking about how you got over on the ATF..

 

shouldering a buffer tube is different because the end user has a simple argument that is not disputable.. "the intended function of the tube is to allow the gun to work" so that is and will always be the intended primary function of the buffer tube...