Oh Shoot

  And a bargain. :)   - OS

Have said more than once, if I knew ahead which day America crashes, would buy at least 25 each of C9s and 995s to stash.   - OS

Back to original topic, something I've not heard anyone mention something about BATF org period lately on any of the sites I frequent.   I'm wondering if there aren't tangential factors going on with ATF in all this stuff, meaning, that there may be a bit of a shakeup if not some outright disorganization and/or terrible communication within the bureau right now.   Haven't seen anything issue from Earl Griffith in some time, or indeed from the "Firearms Technology Division" at all. And he hadn't been Chief of that Division all that long since the previous one, John Spencer, issued the first SIG brace approval in the first place. Max Kingery had "signed" the Bradley letter "for" Earl, too. Who knows exactly what that's about, did Earl become out of pocket for whatever reason after writing it or did Max actually write it, or ? If Max wrote it himself, as has been pointed out may times in various discussions, then two of his subsequent opinions have diametrically opposed that one, so I continue to opine that he did not.   Now you've got this "Firearms Technology Industrial Services Division" coming to the forefront on all this stuff, which I had never even heard of before, wherein Max Kingery surfaces as "Acting Chief", but not for long apparently, unless there is more than one "Acting Chief", as the latest seems to be Michael Curtis, writing the Shockwave opinion.   And tangentially the actual BATF Director has only been in place for 1.5 years now, first one since the official head position went unfilled in 2006. It is perhaps interesting (or not) that BHO did not choose the current acting director at that time, Kenneth Melsen, or any of the previous ones, but went outside the organization entirely to choose Todd Jones.   All which is to say not much of anything beyond wondering what really may be happening internally there, and almost certainly without any way to find out, of course.   - OS

Not at all. Simply having long gun over your shoulder walking around your neighborhood is unlawful, unless it's unloaded (and no ammo on person, or even on a companion's person), and not concealed.   That's likely assuming some liberties that are not certain. While it's generally opined that a hotel/motel (and perhaps even just a campsite) becomes your de facto "abode", it's quite gray about any part of the property qualifying for that except your room/tent. Other people's private property is probably safe enough assuming they are aware of it and don't object, as defense is "person's" place of residence/premises, and not the firearm "owner's".   Inside the state, you are correct, little practical difference for most folks most of the time. However, if you choose to carry an AR or AK pistol around on your person in public, you can with a permit. You might have occasion to do so, depending on life factors and special threat circumstances (let Dolo tell you his circumstances if you haven't read them). And can even do it discretely with like a tennis racquet case or whatever, hide in plain sight.   If they had round in chamber, before July of this year, they did so unlawfully, even with a permit. As far as "odds", most of us would never be hammered for having an illegal SBR as far as that goes. But that of course is not the ultimate point. - OS

  As far as long guns, toting one around at the shopping center or around town or your neighborhood, walking along a road, anywhere in "general public" without a qualifying exception/defense.   Even carrying one in a case that suggests rifle/shotgun is obviously inviting inquiry from a LEO to see if any ammo for it on you also.   - OS

  Again, those behaviors are covered by exceptions in TCA weapons sections. Lawful to do on your own property,  your business, incident to hunting, sport shooting, etc.   Pretty well covered for what you do with them I imagine.   - OS

  One Second After is the classic.   - OS

You are. It's in his quote of TCA section.     -  It's illegal to carry or even possess a firearm in TN with the intent to go armed (loaded gun or ammo in immediate vicinity of it is de facto "going armed" as per case law) - There are various exceptions and defenses to that, and one of them is having them inside privately owned vehicle as long as you are not prohibited from owning/possessing by state or federal law - There are no exceptions to carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun or "firearm" on the person in the general public. It's even illegal to carry one unloaded if it is concealed on the person. There are only some defenses for handgun, one of which is the HCP.     Using a firearm in justified self defense or defense of others exonerates you from any of the weapons laws in the entire section   Must say I'm quite surprised by you among all people on TGO asking about such.  The permit-less carry in vehicle was passed last legislative session but it has been unlawful to carry a loaded long gun in general public since like "forever", I guess the late 1800's AFAIK.   TCA 39-17-1301 through 1364   http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/   (for some reason it won't work in FireFox for me today, still okay in IE and Chrome)   - OS

  No worries. I do note some tiny pale emoticon in your post now, perhaps I should perceived the tone.   - OS

Here's the solution. A brace, but not shoulder fired. (does it come with ibuprofen for toothache and headache?)   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQe925DK6d8&feature=youtu.be   - OS

  To assuage the tinfoil hatters, I opine it was probably due to a new faster acting eBola strain.   - OS

That's about as acute a case of BRD I've ever heard of! ;)   - OS

  You're better at hitting 5x5 inch rapidly moving objects on full auto than semi-auto?     If it's a Fast Zed Apocalypse, we're done.   - OS

  You might want to read the letters, and the thread itself.   Currently, according to the various letter determinations, the SIG SB15 Stabilizing Brace is:   - not unlawful to sell or buy - not unlawful to attach to any firearm, UNLESS you did so with intent to make a shoulder fired weapon with a barrel of under 16" and/or an overall length of under 26" - except for the Black Aces "shotgun firearm" configuration, not unlawful to use against the shoulder with any firearm UNLESS you did so after intent to make a shoulder fired weapon with a barrel of under 16" and/or an overall length of under 26"'   Note, incidentally, that the SB47 and the SBX have not been mentioned in any letter I have seen to date.   Also note that the original approval letter for the "brace" was to the inventor for the prototype only, and didn't mention any brand or model designations at all, as they hadn't yet been named or produced   - OS

  The deal with the ATI lower was that they would reimburse my FFL fee up to $25 after the fact. Just so happened that the FFL I was using at the time charged exactly that, but of course I would still have lost another $10 with the TICS. This was all about a year ago now I guess.   Even though the new lower was a different design (strengthened in some places, metal thread insert in buffer tub channel, etc), by then I was pretty disenchanted with the whole thing, wound up simply selling the thing to the FFL himself without ever doing 4473. I had only bought it back during the panic because regular lowers were going for outrageous prices when you could even get them at all.   ATI guy told me that yeah, they knew it was legal to send the new one directly to me but their "policy" was to use FFL anymore for lower replacement, couldn't give me the "reasoning" behind that decision, though.   - OS

  Another problem with SBR is making one from a pistol and wanting to dispose of it as simple GCA fiream.  While you can take an SBR and put it into non-NFA rifle configuration and sell/transfer it as normal firearm, it seems you cannot go back to GCA pistol after SBRing it, as you can with a pistol that was never SBR'd in the first place, since as long it has a short barrel on it, even though the stock isn't, it's still under purview of NFA. In essence it's still an SBR, just without a stock.   - OS

  Unless of course it's legally 26" with a VFG on it. ;)   An equally interesting part of the Black Aces opinion is that the guy without even specifically mentioning it, allowed a buffer tube/brace to count as part of the ass end of a "firearm" that doesn't need such for operation.   To my knowledge that has never been allowed previously, as aside from a grip or stock, only the parts of the firearm that allow operation as designed by the manufacturer count on that end. Meaning of course a buffer tube counts on a direct impingement AR type pistol as it is necessary for operation, but wouldn't necessarily on an AK pistol.   Of course this is only significant federally since the 26"/VFG ruling on pistols, as hasn't mattered beforehand federally, since there is no OAL or barrel length contraints for classification of a handgun itself.   Dolo has a letter in for a while now specifically asking about the AK pistol/buffer tube thing, as whether it contributes to legal OAL, and if things stay consistent with the Black Aces opinion, I guess it will. And he'll be hero in AK pistol world! :)  If not, of course it will be just another inconsistent confusing continuation of ATF FUD, which is more the norm.   - OS

  If they actually want to quash it, all they have to do is change opinion and call it a stock. If they actually want to limit its sale to handicapped folks, they could require some documentation and license it, whatever.   But as long as they do anything short of proclaiming that its use against the shoulder is illegal on any firearm, period, the FUD continues. Not exactly sure why they won't in view of the last two decisions, both of which said exactly that in the case of the SIG Brace on the "shotgun firearm" config, and the Shockwave brace on any firearm.   But if they do, then I still see the ultimate battle once it ever hits the courts as whether usage can determine classification or whether config alone does.   But which ever of the above, I can't ever see this lame "intent" thing cutting it, impossible to really enforce either in practical or legal sense. I mean, c'mon, if you "intended" to fire it from the shoulder when you added the brace, it's an SBR whether you actually ever did fire it from the shoulder or not. But if you didn't "intend" to do that, then it's okay to fire it from the shoulder. Right, that'll fly with the legal system. Even though the USC uses "intended" in the definitional wording of rifle and handgun, I still think that ultimately will equate to "stock" if it continues to be opined on that level.   We'll see. Or actually I predict we won't, really -- unless folks are prosecuted.     - OS

  Oh course. A big *wink wink*. Just like current "intention" ruling from ATF, and what I expect them to stay with.   If ATF actually says "if you shoulder a SIG brace on a short barreled firearm, you have made an SBR", then the fur could actually get flying, although would probably still take an actual prosecution to get it cranking.    But again, I do not expect them to take an actual clear cut stand like that. Last time they did, it resulted in Thompson Center Arms decision, which loosened several long opined ATF restrictions on gun configuration and possession.   - OS

  Same as Alex Bosco, SIG has never claimed it was a stock, or even hinted that it should be used against the shoulder, Why on earth would they reverse that now?   - OS

  First, I would be interested in knowing just what precedents in law exist for that claim, as I don't know of any at all. The only thing I can even remotely think of is the arbitrary definition of "concealable" and it's relevance to AOW, but even that as I understand it was not a matter settled by law, but again only ATF opinion.   I predict if any of that is so,  they will still just stay with the intent part, not prohibiting actually using it against the shoulder.   Which will mean that the ATF tradition of FUD remains ongoing.   And if so, that means that hardly anyone could be prosecuted, as proving one's previous mindset is quite tough, even with blatent statements made on the web. Which means without an actual prosecution, there will be no settled case law, and perpetuation of the FUD.   I do believe that "intended to be fired from the shoulder", if ever litigated, will indeed be ultimately found by the court to necessitate involvement of a stock, as has been traditionally even held by ATF.   - OS

Even if a firearm is replaced with one with a new serial number, legal for manufacturer to ship the new one directly to you.   However,  at least a few won't, such as ATI when they replaced my OMNI AR15 lower, even though they admitted they could legally.   - OS

  One of mine jiggled out on its own, put it back in with some blue locktite.   I believe they're supposed to come out in one direction, left to right (with muzzle facing away from you).   - OS

  The day the courts uphold the idea that between two identically lawfully configured firearms, one is perfectly legal to possess and even to fire from the shoulder, while even possessing its twin is a felony, just because of what was in a person's mind when he constructed it, our Minority Report society wlll have truly arrived.   - OS

  Yeah, the "intent" factor has been applied to "explain" various rulings, but that's fairly shaky interpretative ground on either side of these things in general methinks.   Both the Black Aces and Shockwave letters address actual usage, period.  And note that absolutely no "intent" is necessary to be in violation of the "possessive construction" thang, and that's from SCOTUS. While intent can of course matter to an actual judge or jury, it is nonetheless not a required element for conviction.   So while the Black Aces deals with SIG brace and a firearm different from an AR, the Shockwave one deals with a different brace but on any firearm, it still seems clear to me it's all gonna eventually come down to  whether simple configuration is the only criterion for classification legality (as it heretofore has been) or whether method of usage also can determine the classification.   What I expect to happen is essentially nothing, at least for a long time. Just the occasional confusedly nuanced letter that often contradicts previous ones as always.   It is indicative of the ATF culture of promoting FUD that the 2011 official ruling regarding pistol/rifle/pistol and "possessive construction" was finally released 19 years after it was already settled law by SCOTUS.   It wasn't even really a ruling, but rather just a much belated and grudging acknowledgment of what already had been determined by the high court explaining the law to them, seemingly only released from pressure of various companies wanting the public to be more clearly informed that the products they offered were indeed lawful.   What could change that of course is when and if ATF actually prosecutes someone for it, but I'm betting the agency will be content to leave things in the gray limbo of FUD as has been their tradition.   - OS