Sig Brace ILLEGAL to shoulder

[TGO David]

Based on several things I've read from reputable industry sources on a mailing list I subscribe to, it sounds like the BATFE might have come to a "conclusion" on this matter and will be releasing a statement on it soon.  What I have read indicates that they are going to reverse their previous opinion and use established case law to state that a firearm can be classified according to its use rather than its configuration.  Reportedly SIG's own legal team is on board with this and are stating that the SIG Brace was never intended to be used in a shoulder fired position.

 

The other statement I saw stated that the BATFE is preparing an "industry brief" as well as a public bulletin to address all of this.

 

If these things are true, this is essentially the nail in the coffin for the idea of a tax-free SBR and we can all thank the clueless fuckwits who kept peppering the BATFE with requests for an official opinion.

[Guest tangojuliet]

if we are gonna start using nfa definition a pistol is a s follows a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels WHEN HELD IN ONE HAND , and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).                    Question then when was the last time you saw someone shoot a pistol one handed  and also so now shooting a pistol with two hands become a aow ( hypothetical i mind you )  ???  when will this nfa madness and political double talk end !

[Oh Shoot]

....What I have read indicates that they are going to reverse their previous opinion and use established case law to state that a firearm can be classified according to its use rather than its configuration.

 
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.
 

The other statement I saw stated that the BATFE is preparing an "industry brief" as well as a public bulletin to address all of this.

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

Edited December 30, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Hershmeister]

Of course sig would be on board - to stand otherwise would open them up to bigtime liability in consumer lawsuits.

Sad to see this happen.

[mikegideon]

Of course sig would be on board - to stand otherwise would open them up to bigtime liability in consumer lawsuits.

Sad to see this happen.

 

I dare them to say it wasn't designed as a stock. That would be an Obama quality lie.

[Oh Shoot]

I dare them to say it wasn't designed as a stock. That would be an Obama quality lie.

 

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

[TrickyNicky]

I dare them to say it wasn't designed as a stock. That would be an Obama quality lie.

Yup. The Gen 1 models have a pretty distinct cheek weld built in for a wrist strap. ;$

[mikegideon]

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

 

Of course they didn't claim it. They didn't deny it either. Sure looks like a stock to me. First thing I thought. It's the first thing everybody thought when they saw it.

Edited December 30, 2014 by mikegideon

[Oh Shoot]

Of coarse they didn't claim it. They didn't deny it either. Sure looks like a stock to me. First thing I thought. It's the first thing everybody thought when they saw it.

 

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

Edited December 30, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[TGO David]

All I know is that there are a lot of people who aren't lawyers talking about what-ifs, and a government agency doing what government agencies do best and confusing the hell out of people and leaving just enough rope for them to hang you with later if it becomes profitable and/or politically prudent for them to do so.

 

Also consider that the SIG Brace has undoubtedly taken money away from one of the most profitable government agencies in terms of lost NFA tax stamp revenue. If you believe that Big Government has an insatiable appetite for taxpayer money (see: duh) then it stands to reason that the BATFE has a vested interest in squashing this.  The very fact that they've allowed it to continue this long frankly dumbfounds me.

[Troutburger]

[btq96r]

I gotta hand it to Sig.  They made a pretty penny from this whole thing.  The brace retails for what, $125 or thereabouts?  That's only $75, give or take, from what people would have to pay anyway to get the NFA tax stamp.  By offering a cheaply produced piece of plastic for just enough less than a gun owner would have to spend anyways to go through the SBR process, they have made a killing off of folks who want to cut a corner, save time and some coin.  I concur fully with Dolomite that there is no reason any use of the SigBrace should be illegal.  But I'd ask anybody who bought one to think if that extra $75 might have been better spent on just filing a Form 1, trust or no trust.

 

David is spot on with his assessments.  Taking money from the self licking ice cream cone that is the BAFTE was bound to draw negative attention.  The only answer to his question of how they let it go on this long I can think of, is maybe they had this in mind all along, and are now hoping a lot of those guys who bought a brace will panic and drop a Form 1 riki tik.  Who knows.

Edited December 30, 2014 by btq96r

[Dolomite_supafly]

My reason for using the Sig brace has zero to do with an SBR. I already have 3 SBRs so another would have not been an issue. For me it is the ability to carry a "rifle" with me anywhere I carry my sidearm. If I SBR my Sig braced equipped gun I can no longer carry it in a bag with me when I get out of the vehicle. I can no longer carry it in the woods or anywhere else really.

 

I have even wrote representatives asking for rifle carry to be addressed in this state. I have had this discussion with several members here before settling on the Sig brace for the AK I carry every day. If I could rifle carry in this state there is no way in hell I would have bought the Sig brace.

[TGO David]

My reason for using the Sig brace has zero to do with an SBR. I already have 3 SBRs so another would have not been an issue. For me it is the ability to carry a "rifle" with me anywhere I carry my sidearm. If I SBR my Sig braced equipped gun I can no longer carry it in a bag with me when I get out of the vehicle. I can no longer carry it in the woods or anywhere else really.

 

That's precisely the only reason why the brace held any interest for me as well.  Currently I cannot take my SBR out of state unless I file for a permission slip from the BATFE.  Only people named in my trust can legally be in possession of it.  The $200 spent for a tax stamp is and never has been an obstacle for me, but the baggage that goes with it is absurd.  The freedom that comes with owning an AR pistol is very enticing and it would make a fantastic "truck gun".

 

I've stayed on the sidelines and haven't made any moves to own a SIG Brace up to this point and now likely won't.  And perhaps the most preposterous part of this is that if the act of shouldering a SIG Brace is somehow made illegal, it sets up a very slippery slope for those who have been shouldering AR pistols with buffer tubes shod in closed cell foam.  Are those suddenly SBR's if they are shouldered?

 

The real problem to all of this is that we have a non-legislative government agency interpreting the law.  That's not how this is supposed to work.

[Oh Shoot]

.... If you believe that Big Government has an insatiable appetite for taxpayer money (see: duh) then it stands to reason that the BATFE has a vested interest in squashing this.  ..

 

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

Edited December 30, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[mikegideon]

My reason for using the Sig brace has zero to do with an SBR. I already have 3 SBRs so another would have not been an issue. For me it is the ability to carry a "rifle" with me anywhere I carry my sidearm. If I SBR my Sig braced equipped gun I can no longer carry it in a bag with me when I get out of the vehicle. I can no longer carry it in the woods or anywhere else really.

 

I have even wrote representatives asking for rifle carry to be addressed in this state. I have had this discussion with several members here before settling on the Sig brace for the AK I carry every day. If I could rifle carry in this state there is no way in hell I would have bought the Sig brace.

 

No matter what they do to spoil the fun, it's still gonna be a pistol. That's their whole point.

[Oh Shoot]

No matter what they do to spoil the fun, it's still gonna be a pistol. That's their whole point.

 

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

Edited December 30, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[btq96r]

For me it is the ability to carry a "rifle" with me anywhere I carry my sidearm.

 

That's a good point.  Hopefully the GA might make some headway on it, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

 

The real problem to all of this is that we have a non-legislative government agency interpreting the law.  That's not how this is supposed to work.

 

The system isn't broke, it's working just as intended.  Legislatures love to vest power in agencies and they have done so in alarming fashion.  Less time executing the functions of government, means more time raising money, which they're all about.  When a politically charged issue presents itself, no matter what decisions are made by these agencies, one side can say government is looking out for the people, while the other can say they either grabbed power they shouldn't have or won't use their authority for the interest of the people.  Both sides get to rally their base and the cycle begins anew.

 

Legislators, federal ones especially, don't want to be held accountable for what happens with agencies like BAFTE, they want the buffer they provide.  To actually take part in the decisions they make would do things like interrupt their three day work schedule and that dog won't hunt.

 

BAFTE has become the perfect case example of how legislatures have absconded their oversight roles and gun owners are on the thrusting end of the shaft.

[Oh Shoot]

My reason for using the Sig brace has zero to do with an SBR. I already have 3 SBRs so another would have not been an issue. For me it is the ability to carry a "rifle" with me anywhere I carry my sidearm. If I SBR my Sig braced equipped gun I can no longer carry it in a bag with me when I get out of the vehicle. I can no longer carry it in the woods or anywhere else really.

 

 

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

Edited December 30, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[btq96r]

Hard to imagine the whole situation has come to a head with guys like this on our side....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhTw3Vq-cpk

Edited December 30, 2014 by btq96r

[Dolomite_supafly]

Yeah, just like those open carry buffoons. Every time something goes our way gun owners jump around and say "nanny, nanny, boo, boo" to those in charge rather than just shut up and enjoy the win. If we want to do something we should call those in charge and thank them for making the right decision. Even those at the ATF would like to hear "great job" from time to time and if it comes from the gun community, rather than constant criticism, it might make them act more favorably towards us.

 

Personally I think a lot of these letters are from those who openly hate the Sig brace and what it represents, which is a way to avoid the fees and rules associated with owning a SBR. And those people are not friends to gun owners even though they might own guns. They are saboteurs who will find another cause to champion to screw over their fellow gun owners when this Sig brace issue is settled.

 

At one point I got so disgusted with the gun community that I sold every single gun I owned except one. I am starting to get that same feeling again as I watch people who claim to be gun advocates tear the gun community apart. Not saying I would sell my guns again but at times I want to avoid most of the mainstream "gun owners" because they are looking to single out anyone who is different from them. I don't understand why we cannot all be "gun owners" rather than owners of ARs, AKs, bolt guns or any other classification that separates us. Ultimately we are all gun owners but some do not see it that way and that is what is wrong with the gun community today, to much divisive actions when we should all be standing shoulder to shoulder. When a group of gun owners loose a right they do not fight back, they accept the loss then attack those who still have the rights they lost.

[Jamie Jackson]

Damn good points Gordon.

 

We are at times our own worst enemies. I believe we have "gun owners" and members of the "Gun Culture" (which would be us..."Gun Culture" in the John Ross sense of the phrase). It is unfortunately rampant, not only on the interweb, but even at local ranges...it is disheartening.

 

I have followed this thread closely and appreciate the solid discussion and exchanges of points of view. I too picked up an SB 47 and AK pistol and assembled for my "Truck gun". It's an excellent setup.

 

It's frustrating to see so many, like the vid above, that profess to be a member of that "Culture", doing more to harm our cause than help it.

 

I personally had not considered writing a favorable letter to BATFE, but certainly see merit in your thoughts.

 

I have hopes that the NFA Freedom Alliance will have a positive impact in this arena. I hope...

[TGO David]

At one point I got so disgusted with the gun community that I sold every single gun I owned except one. I am starting to get that same feeling again as I watch people who claim to be gun advocates tear the gun community apart. Not saying I would sell my guns again but at times I want to avoid most of the mainstream "gun owners" because they are looking to single out anyone who is different from them. I don't understand why we cannot all be "gun owners" rather than owners of ARs, AKs, bolt guns or any other classification that separates us. Ultimately we are all gun owners but some do not see it that way and that is what is wrong with the gun community today, to much divisive actions when we should all be standing shoulder to shoulder. When a group of gun owners loose a right they do not fight back, they accept the loss then attack those who still have the rights they lost.

 

Gordon, if it helps, try to look at it this way:

 

The people that you and I generally think of as the "gun community" are the people who think like us.  They hold dear to traditional, dare I say conservative, values and believe in the principle of God, Family, Country.  They love Liberty and love what this great nation of ours once proudly stood for, and lament what it has become and is becoming.  They are "salt of the earth" people who believe in personal freedoms and desire that they be left alone while they in turn live and let others live.  For those folks... us... a firearm is either all or in part a tool of provision, protection and freedom.

 

When I frame my fondness for gun owners in that light, I generally do OK and am not regularly disappointed.

 

But when you bear in mind that anyone regardless of their character or morals can own a gun, as our Forefathers wisely engineered into the Constitution, it widens up the audience considerably and includes all kinds of people (good and bad) with all sorts of ideas (good and bad) and all manner of agendas (good and bad).  Thankfully we TGO'ers tend to be more of the first-paragraph type and run off the majority of society's turds that happen across our happy corner of the Internet.  But damned if there aren't still some complete and utter window-lickers out there who own guns and hurt us more than they help us.

[gregintenn]

Gordon, if it helps, try to look at it this way:

 

The people that you and I generally think of as the "gun community" are the people who think like us.  They hold dear to traditional, dare I say conservative, values and believe in the principle of God, Family, Country.  They love Liberty and love what this great nation of ours once proudly stood for, and lament what it has become and is becoming.  They are "salt of the earth" people who believe in personal freedoms and desire that they be left alone while they in turn live and let others live.  For those folks... us... a firearm is either all or in part a tool of provision, protection and freedom.

 

When I frame my fondness for gun owners in that light, I generally do OK and am not regularly disappointed.

 

But when you bear in mind that anyone regardless of their character or morals can own a gun, as our Forefathers wisely engineered into the Constitution, it widens up the audience considerably and includes all kinds of people (good and bad) with all sorts of ideas (good and bad) and all manner of agendas (good and bad).  Thankfully we TGO'ers tend to be more of the first-paragraph type and run off the majority of society's turds that happen across our happy corner of the Internet.  But damned if there aren't still some complete and utter window-lickers out there who own guns and hurt us more than they help us.

This ought to be a sticky somewhere! :up:  :up: :usa:  

[hipower]

Hard to imagine the whole situation has come to a head with guys like this on our side....
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhTw3Vq-cpk

Ok, I'm a little late to the discussion on this, but would like to add my own take on this man's video and comments.

Firstly, he does make some good comments about the legal aspects of the Sig brace and the vfg. But the manner in which he posts them to the public are totally wrong.

Don't talk about "skirting the law" and "throwing it in the face" of the BATFE. That is not only an incendiary and inflammatory comment; but I think just plain idiotic.

That's bragging on how he and others have all but broken current laws. Again...plain stupid.

Plays right into the hands of the anti-gunners. Gives them a focal point to show how we supposedly are trying to get around laws and bragging about. Just showing how little sense some have.

Secondly, Gordon and the others have a point. Could be a planned thing. Any opening, any perceived chink in the armor gives them, the antis that is, a point to belabor time and again about our flagrant disregard for laws.

Maybe a bit far-fetched, but we've seen shill purchases made, attempts to entrap FFL as well as individuals selling less than legal "buyers" by the Bloomberg people and others.

Who's to say this isn't possible.

Anyway that's my 2 cents, and probably not worth that much.

But we have to be aware. Stand up for ourselves and others.

As has been said before...Stand Together...or fall separately.