New Twist in the SIG Brace Debate

[btq96r]

I direct your attention to paragraph four of the attached letter.  We all knew the possibility of something like this happening.  I wanted to post this as I saw it for the usual suspects to start debate on.  Right now it seems contained to short barrel shotguns, but I think it's only a matter of time before this opinion makes its way to SBR's.  Too many people are getting around having to pay the $200 for Uncle Sugar to not notice.

 

http://www.shootingsportsretailer.com/2014/11/19/could-this-mean-the-end-of-the-sig-brace/

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2014 by btq96r

[mikegideon]

Gotta love those guys

[Tobashadow]

Your missing the part about them installing a vertical grip which disqualifys it as a pistol regardless of the sig brace and since it's no longer a pistol the sig brace serves no purpose other than to use as a stock in that design.

If they had left off the vertical grip they might have gotten away with it.

[Dolomite_supafly]

The sample gun is not, and never was, a "pistol". It was a pistol gripped shotgun and from production it was never a "pistol", or a "shotgun" for that matter. The sample IS a "firearm" by definition because it does not meet the definition of any of the other types of weapons. If a weapon does not fall into the category of "pistol", "rifle" or "shotgun" it is a "firearm". And in this case the same gun sent to the ATF was not a" pistol", "rifle" or "shotgun" so it defaulted into the definition of "firearm" and the ATF has NEVER said the Sig brace is legal on a "firearm". There are a lot of people who have added a VFG to their AR pistol and I suspect this opinion will eventually corral those "firearms" into this ruling as well.
 
A "pistol" with the Sig brace will remain perfectly legal to shoulder and this ruling will not change that. Now once you add a VFG that "pistol" becomes a "firearm" and I believe this ruling would then apply to that "firearm". A "firearm" is a "firearm" regardless of what type of weapon it is. 
 
BTW, that is the Firearms Technology Services Branch, not the Firearms Technology Branch. They are two different entities with two different jobs but I have always said that just because the ATF says it will not prosecute does not mean another agency will follow suit. Another agency might view adding a Sig brace to a pistol as a redesign to allow shoulder fire. And even as far as the ATF is concerned they have said that if the opinion letter does not have your name on top then it does not apply to you. But it would likely be used to easily defend yourself. Legality would be determined in a criminal case but, and as I said, another agency could arrest someone based on the federal definition of a "rifle" then leave you with the responsibility of proving they are wrong.
 
Federal Regulations state

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.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Even without a VFG the sample gun would not be allowed to be shouldered because, even without the VFG, it is still a "firearm". The VFG changes a "pistol" to a "firearm", if it is over 26", but adding a VFG to a "firearm" does not change its definition to anything other than "firearm".

[runco]

I hope I am wrong, but the trap has been set, and some unsuspecting soul will shoot their pistol from the shoulder amongst strangers, and a lurking stranger will take a picture or simply turn to him and say let me see your papers for the SBR, while holding the handcuffs in one hand.  Again, hope I am wrong. 

[Dolomite_supafly]

I hope I am wrong, but the trap has been set, and some unsuspecting soul will shoot their pistol from the shoulder amongst strangers, and a lurking stranger will take a picture or simply turn to him and say let me see your papers for the SBR, while holding the handcuffs in one hand.  Again, hope I am wrong. 

 

There is no trap that has been set. There are NO conflicting opinions. It IS legal to shoulder your "pistol". There is even an opinion that specifically addresses shouldering a "pistol".

 

Now if you do not follow the law and get arrested it is only one person's fault and that is not the arresting officer.

 

It is pretty simple really, shouldering a "pistol" is legal while shouldering a "firearm" is not.

[runco]

There is no trap that has been set. There are NO conflicting opinions. It IS legal to shoulder your "pistol". There is even an opinion that specifically addresses shouldering a "pistol".

 

Now if you do not follow the law and get arrested it is only one person's fault and that is not the arresting officer.

 

It is pretty simple really, shouldering a "pistol" is legal while shouldering a "firearm" is not.

Like I said I hope I am wrong.  Hope you are right. 

[Junkstack]

I hope I am wrong, but the trap has been set, and some unsuspecting soul will shoot their pistol from the shoulder amongst strangers, and a lurking stranger will take a picture or simply [b]turn to him and say let me see your papers for the SBR[/b], while holding the handcuffs in one hand.  Again, hope I am wrong. 

to which he should say, "no". the only person that sees my papers are ATF agents, and then police if they're nice about it.

[Oh Shoot]

This has been kicking around for over a week now, but I'm reserving opinion on just it means and any crossover effect on other rulings.

 

One, I really want to see the first two pages of the opinion, to get a better handle on reasoning behind the decision and which is likely therein also a more complete picture of it.

 

A few things are worth noting though right off the bat.

 

- this letter is to a manufacturer, Black Aces Tactical, not an end user, from the Industry Services sub-department, and not the head of the FTB overall

- also from "acting" director, which makes you wonder, do these guys talk?

 

I am at heart wondering if the ruling isn't really basically saying that the company can not market the configuration with any intimation of it being fired from the shoulder, simple as that. We already have a clear ruling that "improperly using" the brace by an individual does not change its determination as "not a stock" into "a stock" and in no way even suggests that the "improper use" is unlawful.  You will note however,  that even after the second ruling on the brace itself, neither Alex at SB Tactical nor SIG have any advertising at all regarding shouldering the thing.

 

Indeed, one ARFCOMer who received a lot of flack has written for an opinion as to whether making a pistol with SB with "intent" to use it from the shoulder constitutes in fact making an SBR. His reasoning being that both the definition of a pistol and a rifle include the phrase "intended to be fired...". Of course, even though the language of the USC includes the "intent" thing, and even if ATF agrees, doesn't mean that it's constitutional, but more so is clearly unenforceable as far as the individual is concerned (the prior intent thing). But of course fairly clear cut if a company advertizes it as such as part of the reason for the configuration.

 

Meaning, ATF may, just to be compliant with the wording in the USC, contend that while it's not unlawful to use a brace against the shoulder, it's unlawful to make a firearm with the brace with the intent to do so. Just the kind of BS non-real-world nitpicking that you generally expect, and completely unenforceable for an end user even if constitutional, at least until we have a Minority Report type law enforcement system.

 

Another factor is, I don't fully understand just what the configuration really is, except that this cat Max agrees it's 26" or more in OAL. Now, if this is the actual configuration,

 

 

then it's pretty clear he is granting that the buffer tube and/or brace is contributing to that OAL. Which is actually another issue, and Dolo has a letter into ATF about that very thing, ie does a buffer tube or whatever on an AK pistol contribute to its legal overall length same as it does with a firearm which requires it for operation, ie an AR direct impingement pistol. This has never been an issue before with handguns until the niche 26"/VFG decision, but so far all we know for sure is that ATF says OAL is measured to the end of the stock or firearm, so what constitutes counting as part of the firearm? So far, the only thing we know is that a direct impingement AR pistol is of course able to count its receiver extension into that.

 

We'll just have to see how this sorts out, and if there is any kind of clarifying ruling that comes out, or whether ATF will just leave it in state of FUD as is their cultural tendency.

 

I don't understand why Black Aces Tactical seems unwilling to post the first two pages of the letter. At any rate, whatever the hell the thang is, they are indeed apparently releasing it:

 

 

 

 

- OS

Edited November 22, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Dolomite_supafly]

I do not believe ANY weapons should be illegal. Anyone who can own a single shot 22 should be able to own a full auto 50 BMG.

 

But as it stands some guns are considered illegal and, whether you agree with it or not, anyone caught breaking the law by shooting an illegal weapon should go to jail. Being ignorant of the law, refusing to accept the law or believing the law is unlawful does not mean a person did not break the law. If a person chooses not to follow the law, or does not understand the law, there is but one person to blame and that is the same person they see in the mirror. I would also be less concerned with the ATF, who do know firearm laws, and more concerned with the average officer you might run into who has no clue about NFA laws. I have had more officers try to convince me SBRs, silencers and machine guns are illegal for civilians to own. And those same officers would be the ones to arrest you for having one even though it would later be thrown out in court once a "valid defense" was presented. And even if the officer is 100% wrong and you are 100% right you must allow yourself to be arrested then use the courts later to address the unlawful arrest. You cannot legally resist arrest no matter the circumstances.

 

The ATF has, as plainly as anyone can, said that shouldering a "pistol", with or without a Sig brace, is perfectly legal. So adding a Sig brace to a "pistol" does not make it an illegal SBR, even if you shoulder it. The ATF has not reversed anything, this is a NEW ruling that addresses "firearms", not "pistols", with a Sig brace. 

 

And as far as this opinion goes I find it hard to believe they came up with that. The reason is because it is perfectly legal to shoulder this "firearm" without the Sig brace just like any other "firearm". And because the ATF has said the Sig brace does not change the classification of the host weapon I find it hard to imagine how this would stand up. If it is legal to shoulder this "firearm" without a Sig brace how can it be illegal when the ATF has said the Sig brace does not change the classification of the weapon?

[btq96r]

The ATF has, as plainly as anyone can, said that shouldering a "pistol", with or without a Sig brace, is perfectly legal. So adding a Sig brace to a "pistol" does not make it an illegal SBR, even if you shoulder it. The ATF has not reversed anything, this is a NEW ruling that addresses "firearms", not "pistols", with a Sig brace. 

 

And as far as this opinion goes I find it hard to believe they came up with that. The reason is because it is perfectly legal to shoulder this "firearm" without the Sig brace just like any other "firearm". And because the ATF has said the Sig brace does not change the classification of the host weapon I find it hard to imagine how this would stand up. If it is legal to shoulder this "firearm" without a Sig brace how can it be illegal when the ATF has said the Sig brace does not change the classification of the weapon?

 

The real danger is in the ATF contradicting itself like it has.  An opinion is just that, and can be rescinded at a whim it seems.

 

I truly think the ATF will make the change on AR pistols with a SIG Brace sooner or later.  They wouldn't say adding one makes it an SBR, but they could extend the language about anybody firing it from the shoulder, and then everybody with a picture or video up of them doing just that is now in violation of federal law, having uploaded the evidence themselves. 

 

I just simply don't trust something so flimsy as their opinions to give me legal protection in these instances.

[runco]

I just simply don't trust something so flimsy as their opinions to give me legal protection in these instances.

Well said, and I 100% agree. 

[Dolomite_supafly]

The real danger is in the ATF contradicting itself like it has.  An opinion is just that, and can be rescinded at a whim it seems.

 

I truly think the ATF will make the change on AR pistols with a SIG Brace sooner or later.  They wouldn't say adding one makes it an SBR, but they could extend the language about anybody firing it from the shoulder, and then everybody with a picture or video up of them doing just that is now in violation of federal law, having uploaded the evidence themselves. 

 

I just simply don't trust something so flimsy as their opinions to give me legal protection in these instances.

 

What have they contradicted in this decision?

[btq96r]

What have they contradicted in this decision?

 

That using the brace to fire from the shoulder represents a change in the weapons classification.  With an AR pistol, that isn't true...yet.

[Oh Shoot]

That using the brace to fire from the shoulder represents a change in the weapons classification.  With an AR pistol, that isn't true...yet.

 

Well, again, we'll just have to see. These seem like close enough to two diametrically opposed opinions that something may have to give with a revision or something, who knows. First opinion I've ever seen from this "sub division".

 

Again, I wonder if these guys actually consult or what, surely must be in same damn building.  Could be Earl Griffith has already handed Max's Acting Director ass to him for all we know.

 

- OS

[btq96r]

Again, I wonder if these guys actually consult or what, surely must be in same damn building.

- OS

I don't assume for a second that ATF operates as one coherent entity.

[hipower]

I don't assume for a second that ATF operates as a coherent entity.

 

I think this is what you meant to say.

[btq96r]

I think this is what you meant to say.

 

Same difference.  The 4th floor doesn't know what the 6th floor is doing, and you can get an opinion from either one at any time.

[Oh Shoot]

Well, ole Max has surfaced again, now as acting director of the "Firearms Technology Criminal Branch" with this new "open letter". (oddly undated)

 

"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."
 

Seems to finally draw a definite line in the sand regarding shoulder firing any brace. Still words written on the wind until someone is prosecuted, but sounds like that may be forthcoming?

 

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces.pdf

 

- OS

[Dolomite_supafly]

And with that there will be a flood of super cheap arm braces for sale.

[KKing]

So basically if you use it as intended you're fine. Put it against your shoulder and you're a felon.

Freedom, eh?

[Oh Shoot]

And with that there will be a flood of super cheap arm braces for sale.

 

Well, of course I hope it ain't me that's the test case ;), but I'm all for having this get into the courts ASAP.  And unless they do mass arrests, I imagine the first victim will have plenty of free legal support, all the way to the top if necessary.

 

I still think the judicial distinction will be exactly what constitutes "intent" to fire from the shoulder as per the USC definiton.  And I believe that will ultimately come down to simply whether there is a stock or not on the firearm, as has always been previously maintained by ATF, who has only been concerned with how a firearm is configured, not how it is used.

 

I just cannot see the courts ultimately agreeing that how one fires an otherwise legally configured firearm as magically changing its status. Otherwise you're right back to the completely identical argument that firing a pistol with two hands makes it an AOW and similar.

 

I do believe that the only thing ATF will eventually be able to do is simply to declare all the "braces" as "stocks" to limit how they are used.

 

- OS

Edited January 16, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[Mark A]

So, for the time being it continues to be legal to have one attached to a pistol. That is fine with me as I will continue carry (in a vehicle when I travel) my 5.56 pistol anywhere that any of my other pistols are legal. It just means that I won't attend any training classes (which I have not done as I didn't want any pictures of me shooting it from the shoulder when this inevitably went as it is) with it. For training classes I will continue to use a standard carbine or my SBR assuming I had enough notice to get the paperwork returned for where I want to take it. 

 

I hope it never gets classified by the  ATF as a stock but I think it is inevitable once they lose the first court case. Once that happens it will be discarded.

 

Once it is classified as a stock I will put my single point sling back on. I can get a decent cheek weld on it. Not as good as a regular stock but still good enough to shoot very accurately at what I would call normal self defense distances.

 

In the meantime if I ever have to use that 5.56 pistol in defense of my life I guess I will deal with the fallout at that time.

 

Mark

[Dolomite_supafly]

If they are going to say use determines status then I will drop some full auto parts in my guns, so long as I only fire in semi auto I should be fine right?

 

I really wish Tennessee would pass a rifle carry bill but if they do we will get overrun by Carry Tennessee buffoons like Texas. I have been sending emails to representatives asking for legal rifle carry for HCP holders.