Sig brace everyone cries...

[High Exposure 5,662]

Stick a fork in it, it's done. ATF just further clarified. You put it to your shoulder it's an SBR. Doesn't matter why you made it, which way the wind was blowing, day of the week, nothing.

Link bitte?

[vladtepes 1,060]

 

OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”

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.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.

The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or 

redesigned

, made or remade, 

and intended to be fired from the shoulder

….” (Emphasis added).

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, in Revenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously “muscle” this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.

In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol’s handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or 

redesigned

, made or 

remade, 

and

 intended to be fired from the shoulder

,” any person who 

redesigns

 a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

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.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at 

[email protected]

 or by phone at 

(304) 616-4300

.

Max M. Kingery

Acting Chief

Firearms Technology Criminal Branch

Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division

[mipafox 438]

Sorry HE, thanks Vlad

[vladtepes 1,060]

Sorry HE, thanks Vlad

 

np... most with any common sense knew this was coming...

 

scenario 1: we take that very first letter... we shut our mouths..  take the victory and smile..

scenario 2: we take that first letter.... make a 1000 you tube videos showing off our new non taxed SBR... and we flood the ATF with letters asking the same question over and over and over and over again..

 

most of the time.. we only have ourselves to blame..

[PK90 3,570]

I do not "intend" to use the brace against my shoulder, but it may slip there on occasion.

[High Exposure 5,662]

Sorry HE, thanks Vlad

Danke, both of you.

[mipafox 438]

I do not "intend" to use the brace against my shoulder, but it may slip there on occasion.

The update says it is not about intent. You shoulder it, you have just "redesigned" it.

[mipafox 438]

 

Danke, both of you.

 

 

Bittesh*t

[PK90 3,570]

The update says it is not about intent. You shoulder it, you have just "redesigned" it.

Then never shoot your handguns with two hands, your long guns with one, shoulder an AR receiver extension, etc., as that was not how they were designed.

[mipafox 438]

Then never shoot your handguns with two hands, your long guns with one, shoulder an AR receiver extension, etc., as that was not how they were designed.

Why are you telling me? I didn't write it.

[PK90 3,570]

Why are you telling me? I didn't write it.

Because you have an opinion about everything and like to tell everyone.

[mipafox 438]

Because you have an opinion about everything and like to tell everyone.

That's what it says. I saw what you said and it sounded like the prior letter, not this update, so I was trying to help. I would expect you to do the same. And I do, so if you have a different take, please let us know.

[JT Custom Guns 956]

Got this today:

 

OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”

 

 

 

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.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA. 

The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added). 

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, inRevenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”                                                                                                               

 

 

 

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

 

 

 

The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.
 

 

In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

 

 

 

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

 

 

 

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at [email protected] or by phone at (304) 616-4300.

 

 

 

 

 

Max M. Kingery

 

Acting Chief

 

Firearms Technology Criminal Branch

 

Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division

 

 

 

 

*This letter can also be found on http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry under the "News" tab.  

 

 

 

[Carcano 14]

ROLMFAO! revoke all previous determination letters on the Sig brace, way to go ATF

[The_Matrix 105]

As Vlads says, we only have ourselves to blame.

 

Fellow firearm owners are our worst enemies.

 

We will throw each other under the bus faster than all the dirty, corrupt politicians combined.  I see it all the time.

[Carcano 14]

As Vlads says, we only have ourselves to blame.

 

Fellow firearm owners are our worst enemies.

 

We will throw each other under the bus faster than all the dirty, corrupt politicians combined.  I see it all the time.

 

Too many letters being sent to ATF about the brace = THIS.

[PK90 3,570]

This guy was charged with a SBR.

 

https://www.turlockcitynews.com/crime/item/4515-ceres-swat-aids-in-the-arrest-of-three-for-turlock-home-invasion

 

Look at the pics.

[vladtepes 1,060]

it gets better..

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/atf-change-minds-brace-people-kept-sending-letters/

 

 

 

 

According to the ATF agent Alex spoke to (while B. Todd Jones was standing behind him listening intently, we hear), the reason why the ATF decided to reverse its original decision is because they received so many letters asking about the legality of using the pistol arm brace. As Alex said later, that statement is very troubling as it indicates that the ATF is basing their ruling and their decisions not on the law or the technology but instead on mob rule.

The ATF agent reportedly went on to say, in no uncertain terms, that the pistol arm brace Alex designed was not the only device impacted by this letter. Alex asked about other pistol devices like cane tips, padded buffer tubes, and cheek weld adapters. According to the ATF agent that he spoke to, all of those items are also subject to the same classification if used by placing the gun to the shooter’s shoulder.

 

paul was right.. lol

[High Exposure 5,662]

This guy was charged with a SBR.

 

https://www.turlockcitynews.com/crime/item/4515-ceres-swat-aids-in-the-arrest-of-three-for-turlock-home-invasion

 

Look at the pics.

I love it! One of the mopes was wearing a GPS monitor as terms of his probation!!' It led the cops right to them, that right there is a thing of beauty. It makes my heart soar like an eagle!

 

And the AR pistol (SBR) had no sights at all on it other than a reported laser sight. Rocket surgeons these three are.

[magnawing 5]

I went to a gun show here in Texas this morning and at least half a dozen dealers had these for sale...10-20 braces available at each table.

 

 

This signature is AWESOME!!!

[PK90 3,570]

The Sig Brace is still legal to own and use.

[vladtepes 1,060]

The Sig Brace is still legal to own and use.

 

 

they were never legal... OR illegal...  as you of all people know.. an ATF opinion letter is just that.. an opinion..

 

what if the state sees it.. and states.. that is a SBR.. do they HAVE to honor an ATF opinion letter? in the same breath the ATF letter could say "completely illegal" and you could shoot it every day for the rest of your life in "middle of nowhere arkansas" and no one would ever care...

 

it has from day one (and continues to be) a grey area... the ATF opinion letter one way or another might see its way to court (should you ever end up there).. as a piece of defensive evidence.. OR even against you.. but the letter in itself holds very minimal (if any) legal weight..

 

the only thing the ATF could do that would be of any consequence is if it actually became classified in the same way something like a suppressor is.. 

ATF opinion letters only really matter when things like federal assault weapon ban exists.. because in that situation those classifications matter relevant to that particular ban.. that is my understanding at least... I may be totally wrong?

[Jon 264]

http://teespring.com/sigbrace

[Dan 177]

Owning this Sig brace is akin to owning EBR's in NJ at the federal level.  You do so at your own legal "peril".

 

It seems if you get mixed up with the govt and they are looking for anything possible to snag you to get you in prison, they will simply slap the illegal SBR charge on and let you squirm in court. Let the judge and jury decide what it is.

 

Your defense would be that the ATF allows it to be sold, and they wrote an opinion letter about it. Pretty strong defense, but all the prosecution would need is some evidence that you once used it as a shoulder stock. All they need is a witness (perhaps one of those crooked "informants" they like to use) to testify they once saw you shoulder it.

[SJG 253]

 

BATFE REAFFIRMS PISTOL BRACE LEGAL TO OWN, INSTALL AND USE

Newington, N. H. (February 20, 2015) – SIG SAUER, Inc. has issued the following statement relative to the January 2015 open opinion letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding the SB15 and SBX Pistol Stabilizing Braces.

 

BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER®. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product “which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol.” SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter’s experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed.

[The_Matrix 105]

 I have seen the enemy, and he is the fellow gun owner.

[SJG 253]

"when used as designed"

[carl_g 568]

Interesting video on this topic.

[SJG 253]

Has Sig taken on the ATF in a lawsuit over this?