New news about the Sig brace...

[Scratch]

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

Part of it...

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

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.

[rottenit]

Anyone have a .mp3 of the song that the looser gets on the Price is Right?

Oh hang on...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

[Uffdaphil]

Talk about convoluted logic to justify an infringement! Time to force our elected reps to take back the delegated power from these politicized bureaucrats. Of course answering to their electorate is not why many pols seek the positions. What a bunch of cowed supplicants our citizens have become to allow the tidal wave of mandates and regulations to wash responsibility off of the elected's hands.

[Grappler]

Sounds like they have been scrambling for any reason to put a stop to people using them. The atf must be tired of losing out on those $200 stamps

[Dave Timm]

A lot of us in the industry saw this coming, especially when people ask dumb questions. If you ask the ATF, "hey I want to make an SBR, oops I mean pistol, with the Sig Brace as a stock and shoot it like a rifle is that ok?" they will reply no as they did. If your intent is to build a rifle, shoot it like a rifle, even with the brace as your "stock" your intent is to still build a rifle. When you have people bragging how they are building pistols but really it's their "SBR" the ATF is going to get wise. When the brace was first introduced seeking approval there was some concern about this very topic. Hence why the designer submitted a detailed outline of how the device was intended to be used.

I am not siding with the ATF and whole heartedly think the NFA is unconstitutional but I can't say this surprises me. It sucks, I think everyone should be able to own an SBR as they do anything else but until that changes it's what we have.

[xd ED]

So what does this letter change?

It appears to be a restatement/ clarification; and something of a warning not to use the stabilizer as a shoulder stock.

Or have I missed something?

[Scratch]

So what does this letter change?

It appears to be a restatement/ clarification; and something of a warning not to use the stabilizer as a shoulder stock.

Or have I missed something?

The change is that a couple months ago, they wrote a letter stating basically that it WAS ok to shoulder fire using the pistol brace, now they say it's not.

[Rip Van Winkle]

My post from last July.
http://www.mnguntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=51083&p=520340&hilit=sig+brace#p520340

[Lumpy]

This is ridiculous. Once upon a time people thought banning heavily regulating "sawed-off" long guns was a good idea because they (supposedly) had no purpose other than to make it easier for robbers to hide their guns. Now we have this whole circus about what's a SBR vs. a pistol, what counts as a stock, agonizing over quarter-inch differences in length, and more assorted bull**** than I can recall at the moment. Whatever else you might think of the NFA, it's long past time this particular requirement was stricken from the books.

[yuppiejr]

Honestly, this is about more than just the Sig Brace. In effect Mr. Kingery is taking the position that HOW YOU USE a firearm rather than any physical alteration or modification of it's physical traits (for purposes of classification) can change it's ORIGINAL DESIGN which is when firearm classifications (as the NFA is applied/written) are normally determined. Per the letter linked, the ATF has taken the position that anyone who fires an AR "pistol" from the shoulder would be "redesigning" their firearm from a non regulated pistol into an NFA regulated SBR.

I happen to think he's on shaky ground as I think the sentence below takes a pretty large leap of logic that is not supported by his own definition - placing a chunk of rubber against one's shoulder rather than strapping it to one's forearm does not change it's appearance or "function" in any measurable/observable way that, for example, MODIFYING the safety mechanism of a nail gun to allow it to discharge freely would.

--
The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). ...

The pistol stabilizing brace {note - see how easily the scope of this could easily include "cane tip, foam pad, etc..}" 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.
--


.. also, the bolded passages above are interesting and rather contradictory, because the second paragraph indicates that USING the item a specific way changes it's classification initially, while later the phrase changes to "INTENDS TO USE a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock..." If the end user purchases the sig-brace equipped pistol with the intent to fire it single handed placing it against their shoulder hasn't changed that original intent, thus is at odds with the concept that the firearm has been magically "redesigned," at least as I see it.

Clearly this is one the lawyers, this seems like a scare-bully tactic response to the hundreds or thousands of inquiries that the ATF has gotten from AR pistol owners with Sig Braces that were looking for response letters they could use as "get out of jail free" cards.

[farmerj]

Not ridiculous at all.


Company markets product to do x. Regulators accept it.

Consumers realize that it comes in handy to do y and post video and show others how cool it is. Regulators catch wind of it and say, "na uh. That's not what you said it would be used for."



They do it with lots more than just firearms too. Drugs have their limitations as do epa regs.

[Holland&Holland]

A lot of us in the industry saw this coming, especially when people ask dumb questions. If you ask the ATF, "hey I want to make an SBR, oops I mean pistol, with the Sig Brace as a stock and shoot it like a rifle is that ok?" they will reply no as they did. If your intent is to build a rifle, shoot it like a rifle, even with the brace as your "stock" your intent is to still build a rifle. When you have people bragging how they are building pistols but really it's their "SBR" the ATF is going to get wise. When the brace was first introduced seeking approval there was some concern about this very topic. Hence why the designer submitted a detailed outline of how the device was intended to be used.

I am not siding with the ATF and whole heartedly think the NFA is unconstitutional but I can't say this surprises me. It sucks, I think everyone should be able to own an SBR as they do anything else but until that changes it's what we have.

Maybe the industry should not have advertised them as a tax free SBR?

[yuppiejr]

Maybe the industry should not have advertised them as a tax free SBR?

Can you site a single place in which Sig or a reseller of the product ("the industry") advertised it as such? I don't know a single individual who purchased a Sig Brace intending to build anything but a pistol, perhaps you have sources the rest of us don't and can share?

[Holland&Holland]

Maybe the industry should not have advertised them as a tax free SBR?

Can you site a single place in which Sig or a reseller of the product ("the industry") advertised it as such? I don't know a single individual who purchased a Sig Brace intending to build anything but a pistol, perhaps you have sources the rest of us don't and can share?

Then you have not walked into a gun store in the twin cities that carries them and asked to see them. I have had or personally over heard multiple gun counter experts make this comment. Not to mention the plethora of videos online showing it as such even this very form has plenty of posts that would show anyone the intent some have with it. Please, I know we think the ATF is stupid but do we also think they are blind?

[farmerj]

Hell, a quick two word search on youtube finds a ton of videos talking about Sig brace as an sbr.