Sig Brace ILLEGAL to shoulder

[Fourtyfive]

The letter states used as a "should stock" therefore it is perfectly legal to shoulder.

Why the hell do people keep asking for permission when it was in writing it was ok ? jeeezzz

[Oh Shoot]

Only our government could come up with something so confusing. I've never understood why there is a thing called an SBR and why it's on the NFA list.

 

Al Capone and the like, basically.

 

- OS

Edited December 26, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Dolomite_supafly]

Here's an example of that, there are many more..
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_17/436565_M_16_trigger_group__in_an_AR_15.html

I have a buddy that has a RDIAS with several hosts, when he leaves the range he'll pull all the FCG except the host he decides to leave the rdias in, not worth getting caught..

 

Yeah, I NEVER would install any full auto FCG parts. Matter of fact I would never own anything other than a FA bolt carrier. Too much of a chance it might burst fire when the hammer follows, especially if you use soft primers. The stress of having an illegal anything would far outweigh the happiness it might bring.

 

The letter states used as a "should stock" therefore it is perfectly legal to shoulder.

Why the hell do people keep asking for permission when it was in writing it was ok ? jeeezzz

 Problem is you now cannot shoulder that "pistol" that you could before this opinion letter. As far as timing it takes a while to the ATF to respond to opinion letters. I have been waiting on one for several months now.

 

I will say they have already contradicted itself with USC. USC states a rifle is a "firearm that is designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder" then in this opinion they state a firearm with the Sig brace is not intended or designed to be fired from the shoulder. So if adding a Sig brace to a pistol means it is not "designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder" then it does not meet the USC definition of a "rifle".

 

What I find really, really confusing is the letters that are harmful to shouldering the Sig brace are coming from the Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch and those supporting the shouldering of the Sig brace are coming from the Firearms Technology Branch. The FTB has traditionally been the office to make rulings such as this but as of late it seems like the FTISB has stepped in with conflicting opinions. Before this year I had never heard of the FTISB.

[btq96r]

Yeah, saw this coming.  The poor man's SBR has an expatriation date it seems.

 

I feel for you guys that might be caught up in this, but when you leave yourself at the mercies of an agency like BAFTE, these are the results you get.  I bet even Sig knew what their product would be used for when they put it out on the market.  I've yet to see or read about one person who bought and shoots the brace as it is marketed by strapping it to the arm and securing it like it's some kind of cyborg enhancement.

 

 

 

Has the NRA made public their position on this?

 

The day the NRA starts a no-joke legislative initiative to repeal the NFA laws, they will have my attention and I'll open my checkbook.  Until then, they can take their "sky is falling, send money now to prevent Obama & Pelosi from taking your guns" talk and take a piss. 

 

There's a Republican Congress and a President who want's to have a functioning government until he leaves office.  The time is perfect for some deal making and riders to be on the day to day functioning of government and appropriations bills.  I think the President would cave on an issue like this as he did with the Wall Street stuff during the budget negotiations.

[mikegideon]

 Until then, they can take their "sky is falling, send money now to prevent Obama & Pelosi from taking your guns" talk and take a piss. 

 

 

That's Obama and Feinstein. Apparently, you missed the big gun grab after Sandy Hook. Me... I'll keep sending money to the NRA, so they can fight some of those gun hating commies that some people vote for. :)

[ProfEngr]

I suppose the bATFe will just *know* whether someone has put a Sig-bearing AR to their "should" in order to claim undocumented NFA weapon status? That's the idiocy that I see in this. I mean... unless someone has video or a pic for proof.

I'm sick & tired or bein sick & tired of these fools.

[crashgordan]

question:

 

WHY do people KEEP sending letters to the BATF on this...  seriously!!!!!!!

 

they ruled it fine, and now we have several more attempts to clarify what was a perfectly clear letter to basically everyone, except for three or so meatheads which have so far only resulted in further confusing and narrowing the scope of the intent of the BATF original statement...

 

keep poking the bear and it will wake up!

 

Probably too late, but 

LEAVE IT THE FU*K ALONE

Edited December 27, 2014 by crashgordan

[Dolomite_supafly]

question:

 

WHY do people KEEP sending letters to the BATF on this...  seriously!!!!!!!

 

they ruled it fine, and now we have several more attempts to clarify what was a perfectly clear letter to basically everyone, except for three or so meatheads which have so far only resulted in further confusing and narrowing the scope of the intent of the BATF original statement...

 

keep poking the bear and it will wake up!

 

Probably too late, but 

LEAVE IT THE FU*K ALONE

Like I said above, most of these letters may have been written early on and they finally ruled. it isn't like all these recent letters were written in the last 3 months.

[btq96r]

That's Obama and Feinstein. Apparently, you missed the big gun grab after Sandy Hook. Me... I'll keep sending money to the NRA, so they can fight some of those gun hating commies that some people vote for. :)

 

I couldn't miss what was never going to ever happen.  There was only 40 votes in a Democratic Senate for a new AWB, and regardless of what the Senate did a Republican House wasn't going to even bring up any gun control legislation for a vote.

 

 

I suppose the bATFe will just *know* whether someone has put a Sig-bearing AR to their "should" in order to claim undocumented NFA weapon status? That's the idiocy that I see in this. I mean... unless someone has video or a pic for proof.

 

Same train of thought that BATFE can only know if someone constructed an SBR after the fact.  Most of these laws are just to tack on to a list of charges when people get arrested for other things.  That being said, there are plenty of window lickers in the gun community that can't resist posting a video that starts with "What's up YouTube..." and displays how awesome they are. :rolleyes:

[Oh Shoot]

I suppose the bATFe will just *know* whether someone has put a Sig-bearing AR to their "should" in order to claim undocumented NFA weapon status? That's the idiocy that I see in this. I mean... unless someone has video or a pic for proof.

 

Well, if they want to enforce it, just takes a BATF field agent showing up at your local range and observing, eh?, and/or disseminating the word to local LEOs all over that it's now a crime.

 

They would only need to sting a few folks for the word to get around in a hurry in the firearm community. Though I feel it wouldn't stand in the courts as I've already indicated.

 

However, meanwhile, you gotta know some of these creeps in ATF are currently giggling at the confusion they've created.

 

- OS

Edited December 27, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[felinesNfreedom]

I was just about to order the brace for my new AR pistol...... looks like I might want to hold off. 

[bud]

. Edited August 5, 2015 by bud

[TGO David]

The problem with all of this boils down to stupidity.  The NFA laws are stupid and people who constantly write letters to the BATFE to scratch their guilty conscience or uncertainty are stupid for doing so.  If you ask the same question enough times, sooner or later you're going to get the answer you don't want.

[KKing]

The problem with all of this boils down to stupidity. The NFA laws are stupid and people who constantly write letters to the BATFE to scratch their guilty conscience or uncertainty are stupid for doing so. If you ask the same question enough times, sooner or later you're going to get the answer you don't want.

Conveys my feelings exactly

[Oh Shoot]

Well, in the realm of ATF's "administrative law", you've got diametrically opposing "letter determinations" to individuals -- and unless ATF actually decides to enforce any of them by actually prosecuting an end user, none of them mean jack in the real world.

 

I would think that before they had even a wobbly legal leg to stand on to do that, as long as these various braces, stabilizers, cheek risers and etc are allowed to be legally sold and attached, the agency would need to publish a general official ruling regarding the matter of actual usage.

 

While "ignorance of the law is no excuse", I can't imagine that any court would determine that I could be convicted on the basis of an individual letter the ATF sent to you. After all, those letters are not written for public dissemination -- and we only even know about some of  them because the recipients choose to share them.

 

Of course, ultimately, the case would have to be decided on the merits of interpreting the actual USC on the matter, as was US vs Thompson Center Arms. That one turned out well for the firearm community, significant lessening ATF power to selectively prosecute folks for nitpicking matters of firearm construction and parts possession, and I would expect similar results from a case arising from how one merely chooses to operate an otherwise lawfully constructed firearm.

 

The only clear cut thing the ATF could do that might stand muster is to reverse it's original decision on these braces period -- and declare them stocks. But pretty hard to put that cat back in the bag, what with SIG being such a big player if nothing else, plus there's still the "disabled person" issue, however rare in actual practice that sort of usage may be.

 

- OS

Edited December 27, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Fourtyfive]

But now somewhere in cyber space is proof you have read this letter , commented on it's existence , and have been informed that YOU can not SHOULD a Sig Brace ! :)

should
SHo͝od,SHəd/
verb
1.
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
"he should have been careful"
used to give or ask advice or suggestions.
"you should go back to bed"
used to give advice.
"I should hold out if I were you"
2.
used to indicate what is probable.
"$348 million should be enough to buy him out"

Maybe I SHOULD not have bought my Sig Brace ......I may have to turn it over to the authorities ... Edited December 27, 2014 by Fourtyfive

[Oh Shoot]

But now somewhere in cyber space is proof you have read this letter , commented on it's existence , and have been informed that YOU can not SHOULD a Sig Brace ! :)

 

I quit SHOULDing most stuff years ago, so no worries there. ;)

 

- OS

Edited December 27, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Dolomite_supafly]

But now somewhere in cyber space is proof you have read this letter , commented on it's existence , and have been informed that YOU can not SHOULD a Sig Brace ! :)

should
SHo͝od,SHəd/
verb
1.
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.
"he should have been careful"
used to give or ask advice or suggestions.
"you should go back to bed"
used to give advice.
"I should hold out if I were you"
2.
used to indicate what is probable.
"$348 million should be enough to buy him out"

Maybe I SHOULD not have bought my Sig Brace ......I may have to turn it over to the authorities ...

 

Now that has to be the biggest post, with explanation, I have ever seen based on a typo. I can understand forgetting the "er" at the end of "should" but to post the definition of "should" when it should have been "shoulder" is something I have never seen.

[Keyless]

What proof is there that the letter is an official letter. I have no proof that this letter is real . I do have a copy of a letter by a company who sells the product that says it is OK .

 

This could be someone just doing an early April fools joke . But I always said as soon as I buy one they will change everything . I bought 2 and a Slide Fire . I guess that will be next . 

[Oh Shoot]

What proof is there that the letter is an official letter. I have no proof that this letter is real . I do have a copy of a letter by a company who sells the product that says it is OK .

 

This could be someone just doing an early April fools joke . But I always said as soon as I buy one they will change everything . I bought 2 and a Slide Fire . I guess that will be next . 

 

Without a public ruling referenced on ATF site, one of them letters addressed directly to yours truly, or notice someone actually prosecuted for it, not gonna worry about it myself.

 

- OS

Edited December 28, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Garufa]

I'm sure there will be a flurry of letters in the next few months. 

[TGO David]

I'm sure there will be a flurry of letters in the next few months. 

 

Yeah, that's what will sink this for sure.

[Dustbuster]

I really liked this:

2. Sgt. Bradley Letter:
3/5/14 - Max M. Kingery "signing for" Earl Griffith, Chief, Firearms Technology Branch (whatever that exactly means)

 

Using brace "improperly" in way not intended by manufacturer does NOT change classification of firearm

 

In all reality, most of the letters show determination or an answer based on opinion, and are not being validated w any hard quotation of statue or laws regarding the brace SPECIFICALLY as there are none.It seems like the more they are prodded for an answer, for the same question, the variety of opinions grow w every published letter we are shown.They are real specific on the handgrip/magpul afg item.They should do the same w the sig brace or any item that reasonably increases the ability to handle a weapon w better stability.

I remember reading something about a pistol is defined as a weapon fired w one hand. The sig brace doesn't change that either so.......

[KKing]

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

[Oh Shoot]

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

 

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

Edited December 28, 2014 by Oh Shoot