Shouldering that Sig Brace? Read this.
- Thread starter erwos
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Attachments
No offense meant towards erwos but could showing this story in light of a pistol as opposed to the shotgun in the letter be called "fear mongering"? I don't think this thread is meant that way but more to shed light, thanks op. I have been wanting a better stock on my 300 and this helps me decide to SBR before the new rules on trusts ... And the executive order to raise the price of stamps. 
just kidding!
just kidding!
Only if you think that shouldering a brace can make a "firearm" into a shotgun, but not a pistol into a rifle. The ATF was clear in that letter that shouldering the brace makes it a stock, and their logic had nothing to do with the characteristics of the weapon it was mounted on. Clutching this whole "well, the letter is about a shotgun" when the letter wasn't even about a shotgun is silly. (The letter is actually about a smooth-bored "generic firearm" > 26" in length possibly with a VFG. You will recall that Scott's did something similar with 14" smooth-bored guns.)
Much as I like SBRs, the other thing to consider here is that some "builds" in MD are legal using an "arm brace", but not a stock - namely guns going under 26". So the SBR fallback isn't going to work for everyone.I don't think this thread is meant that way but more to shed light, thanks op. I have been wanting a better stock on my 300 and this helps me decide to SBR before the new rules on trusts ... And the executive order to raise the price of stamps.
My bad.
Based on this, for the time being, I would NOT shoulder a pistol with a sig-brace. At least I wouldn't do it anywhere it could end up on surveillance video, e.g. a public range or anywhere federal LEOs or MSP may lurk around.
The brace always seemed like an all too easy workaround for the nfa issue.
The brace always seemed like an all too easy workaround for the nfa issue.
I wouldn't necessarily go that far, but I'd hold off on buying more stuff that required braces to be useful...
There is always the option of being the first one to be prosecuted. Making new federal law from the defendants box can be done, it is quite pricey and the downside risk is a couple of years in federal prison. An ATF letter is not a safe-haven from prosecution. The ATF letter sig ships with the brace clearly states how it is to be used to fall under the pistol rule. There is another one that states that shouldering it doesnt make it a rifle, but that can be rescinded or clarified in a heartbeat.
hacktracker
Active Member
There is an ATF letter on page 2 that directly contradicts the newer letter on page 1.
What a mess!
SIG is just covering themselves by clearly stating what the brace is designed for.
There is no precedent for an illegal manner of firing a gun.
Yup, and until that conflict has been resolved in the context of a enforcement case at the federal appeals court level, I would err on the side of caution.
Wojo
What's that Smell
I must be crazy! I am just going to carry on shooting just as i did before.
The sig brace is made and is designed to be fired as a brace wrapping around the arm. As long as you do not make or remake you are good to go.
Everyone knows the only way to truly utilize the sig brace is use it shirtless
The sig brace is made and is designed to be fired as a brace wrapping around the arm. As long as you do not make or remake you are good to go.
Everyone knows the only way to truly utilize the sig brace is use it shirtless
Got to ask yourself: do I feel lucky ?
In federal law there is always opportunity to make precedent. Who would have thought that potatoes grown in your yard are a part of interstate commerce ? That your house is not yoirs if there is someone else who could pay more taces if he builds a hotel on your lot ?
1time
Ultimate Member
I would like to see the ATF prove in court that how you fire a gun constitutes being "made or re-made, or designed or re-designed" provided no modifications are made to the stock. Now removing the velcro or adding a but pad to it would be easy to prove, in stock from I don't see how that's possible. Merriam-Webster would be on your side.
The ATF has defined a temporarily attached shoestring as prohibited modification in that context. Agencies have a lot of latitude in interpreting their own regs. The FAA for example has decided that if I get into my plane and fly someone I know in a business context (e.g. a fellow chamber of commerce member) to a meeting on my own dime, the 'goodwill' I incur with that person is 'compensation' (making it an illegal charter operation). You can't make this stuff up.
While Sig didn't 'design' the device to be used as a shoulder stock, you using it as such could be construed as a 're-design' (note the other issue in the letter, if you conceal a long gun 'upon the person', you have created an AOW. It may not have been designed by the maker to be used that way, but if you show that you can conceal it it is not a long-gun in the ATFs eyes).
Since we are in the Depot section anyone know of a good deal on adjustable stocks?
"Your honor, the defendant made that device into a stock the very moment he shouldered it. It served no other purpose!"
"Guilty! SUMMARY EXECUTION AT DAWN!"
Bertfish
Throw bread on me
Unfortunately that does not seem far-fetched at all anymore...
aquaman
Ultimate Member
eforms take 3-4 weeks now
the sigbrace is retarded.
the sigbrace is retarded.
- Dec 27, 2012
- 30,203
A brace of braces
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Sign up on our online store and earn 1000 points- Started by J_Gunslinger
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
PG County getting some Liberty Doll love over a bill that would ban computers for minors- Started by jc1240
- Replies: 6