Pistol Brace Reversal?

[MacGyver]

A reversal of a reversal.  Seems y'all can give your cheeks a needed break.

http://www.recoilweb.com/reason-prevails-atf-reverses-stance-on-sb-tactical-braces-127810.html

Here's the letter:

http://2ht1mik98ka4dogie28vqc4y.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Barnes_ATF_letter.pdf

[nightrunner]

If you aren't the type of person to really keep up with the current law on a daily basis, you could very easily be either within the law or breaking it depending on what day of the week it is. It's getting a bit ridiculous.

 

Just be easier to legalize SBRs and be done with it. That's all they really are anyways.

[Oh Shoot]

Yeah, saw that referenced on arfcom, a bit difficult to pick apart in with all the wiggle wording but does get rather specific about needing a "modifying" of the brace itself to count as part of "modifying" it to fire from the shoulder, and does say that shoulder firing alone is not the criterion, which is 180 from Mad Max's Open Letter.

Sounds to me like at least a partial reversal if for no other reason to justify why there's been no enforcement of the dictates of the previous missive.

- OS

Edited April 25, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[Omega]

I'm glad you followed that, seemed to me that it kept flip flopping whether shouldering was legal or not.  If I follow it correctly,  using spacers may be construed as modifying the brace.

[DWARREN123]

As HRC states, what does it matter? It does not make the round more dangerous maybe a little more accurate to fire.

[Erik88]

This is good news! 

I wonder how many folks they caught

[LawVol]

"reversal" may be too strong of a word...

I agree with Oh Shoot on the "wiggle wording".  

 

[shotgunshooter]

Isn't it still all about intent? If they weren't going to enforce this ruling before then why even keep SBRs on the registry? I want to see Cheeto Jesus and Congress get SBRs and silencers off of the NFA. I wonder what is next to come from F Troop. Maybe rubber bands will no longer be considered machine guns. 

[shotgunshooter]

Is this ruling only for the SB Tactical braces or will it also cover the Shockwave?

[Capbyrd]

21 hours ago, shotgunshooter said:

Is this ruling only for the SB Tactical braces or will it also cover the Shockwave?

Like all ATF "Letters," it only applies to the person that it is written to, and only for what is discussed in the letter.  

[Omega]

5 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

Like all ATF "Letters," it only applies to the person that it is written to, and only for what is discussed in the letter.  

While your statement is true, this one does sort of applies to all braces in so far as their interpretation of  "use" and "makes" and "redesign".  The shockwave, and most braces have their own ATF letter authorizing them as a brace, or at least as a non-stock. The original open letter never mentioned the Sig brace, although it described it so if it stood, I bet any brace fired from the shoulder would have fallen under that interpretation.

[rugerla1]

 

[KKing]

Is this ruling only for the SB Tactical braces or will it also cover the Shockwave?

Apparently there is another letter en route to the producers of the shockwave blade. Second entry on this page
http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?m=201704


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shotgunshooter]

1 minute ago, KKing said:

 

Apparently there is another letter en route to the producers of the shockwave blade. Second entry on this page
http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?m=201704


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Thanks for the heads up. I would have treated the Shockwave just the same as the SB but it's nice to have confirmation.