Open Letter on the Redesign of "Stabilizing Braces"

[protegeV]

This is what happens when you ask for clarification time after time. Keep poking the bear and you get f*cked.
Just another reason why the ATF and NFA need to go away.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I get the nfa gripe, but you really want the ATF to go away completely?

 

[rbird7282]

I get the nfa gripe, but you really want the ATF to go away completely?

I suppose not but like any other government agency they have grown immensely and continually operate outside of their original intent. Not saying they are necessarily a bad agency but they could be MUCH smaller with far fewer regulations and still do their job. I suppose the same could be said for government as a whole.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[protegeV]

I suppose not but like any other government agency they have grown immensely and continually operate outside of their original intent. Not saying they are necessarily a bad agency but they could be MUCH smaller with far fewer regulations and still do their job. I suppose the same could be said for government as a whole.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think most of us can agree with that sentiment.

 

[Pmbspyder]

Cross post of mine from another forum. Frustration setting in for me from everyone acting like this is a new ruling.

"Still not understanding all the doomsdayers here. All this letter did is reinforce their last one. INTENT! If you buy the brace to use as a stock and create an SBR than you're an idiot. If you buy it to use as a brace then there is no intent and it is physically impossible for you to create a shoulder stock because there is no INTENT, unless they re-classify it as a defacto shoulder stock.

READ THE ****ING LETTER

Kingery voided previous letters because one of his earlier ones said nothing about intent and just issued a blanket statement about usage. This shit is so old now it's ridiculous."

 

[TheRealJimDavis]

I'm also a tad confused, no more SBR's at all? I thought they just had to be 29" OAL. Which a lot of barrels are.

 

[embermage]

Amen to that...but you know someone out there will be able to resist the temptation.

Is that no sbr stamps or no semiauto sbr stamps? There is a difference as I would like to SBR a mare's leg

 

[outrider58]

Amen to that...but you know someone out there will not be able to resist the temptation.

Had to edit my previous statement.
I'm not sure about non-semis.

 

[swinokur]

A new examiner at BATF started rejecting everything. Several members here are trying to work with BATFE and MSP to get this whole thing straightened out. Right now they don't seem to be approving any SBR's, no matter their OAL.

It's a mess for sure.

 

[1874sharpsshooter]

That's how I initially shot the PPS43C. But, although an improvement over hand-held, it was still too unwieldy for my comfort. So I ended up biting the bullet and SBR'ing it, which made the gun much safer (and easier) to shoot.

If only our government put actual shooter safety over theoretical public protection, they'd have alot more credibility amongst gun owners, who represent nearly half the country.

just remember, they don't care what we gun owners think.they never have and never will

 

[Swearengen]

I haven't seen any updates from SIG on their website or facebook seems the least they could do is inform their customers that they are committing a felony (according to this new letter) if they shoulder their brace.

 

[Alphabrew]

I haven't seen any updates from SIG on their website or facebook seems the least they could do is inform their customers that they are committing a felony (according to this new letter) if they shoulder their brace.

^ true that. Right now only relatively few people who actually spend a good deal of time trying to pay attention to the laws by surfing forums like this are aware of the change.

 

[ironpony]

SIG peeps are all packed up for SHOT show or prepping for office parties while the top dogs are away

 

[Wfilardo]

Shouldering an AR pistol with any pistol buffer tube according to this definition is also a redesign and would be considered illegal. So basically they are defining use a redesign. Oh, and how is it going to be proved that it was used that way unless your dumb enough to make a you tube video?

 

[Abacab]

I get the nfa gripe, but you really want the ATF to go away completely?

Why wouldn't you want it to go away completely? For starters, what do they do that the FBI can't?

 

[Kman]

What would they do if you used a tight sling MP5K style and rested your cheek on it? Would that be considered "shouldering"

Maybe a couple thousand folks should write ATF for clarification and beg for another kick in the sack.

 

[Evojoeix]

Shouldering an AR pistol with any pistol buffer tube according to this definition is also a redesign and would be considered illegal. So basically they are defining use a redesign. Oh, and how is it going to be proved that it was used that way unless your dumb enough to make a you tube video?

you think a range would say anything to you or say maybe any type of law enforcement if they knew about it?

i was wondering the same thing as you

 

[fred333]

just remember, they don't care what we gun owners think.they never have and never will

Based on my conversations with them (on matters unrelated to this thread), I would disagree.

Their problem, as I see it, is that ATF's a federal agency and, as such, they're required to follow [the intent of] the law. Trouble is that, like all federal agencies, they have lawyers that interpret the law and, also like all federal agencies, their lawyers' interpretations always opt for the safest, tightest adherence to the law in order to reduce the likelihood of complaints about them not following the law. Remember, we are talking about the federal government here.

I haven't seen any updates from SIG on their website or facebook seems the least they could do is inform their customers that they are committing a felony (according to this new letter) if they shoulder their brace.

As I was about to purchase a Sig AR pistol/brace, I phoned Sig a few weeks ago re the then "opinion letters" that were floating around that appeared to contradict the ATF letter Sig was shipping with their braces. They made it very clear that the brace was NOT to be shouldered and that doing so was illegal.

So, as suggested in another thread, I think the reason Sig was including the old ATF letter with their braces was because they knew it was only a matter of time 'til ATF ruled against the brace-as-stock and they wanted to protect themselves. They sold as many braces as they could with the inference it was legal to use however the buyer wanted until they couldn't.

Until/unless ATF takes action against some unaware gun owner and some enterprising lawyer decides to make a test case out of it, that's probably gonna be the end of it. But I could be wrong.

 

[cap6888]

I know this horse has been beat to death, but the blame squarely falls on the shoulders of every idiot who had to write a letter to the ATF and every moron who made a YouTube video of them shouldering braces AND saying how it was a work around to the SBR loop hole. F@&)ing morons. As informative as YouTube can be, there are some complete morons out there. We all know what the law is. Do you think the ATF is scouring ranges looking for people shouldering Sig braces and making flashlight surpressors?

 

[shaddydan]

Flashlight suppressors are legal if ya pay yer tax stamp. As far as shouldering being illegal because it's a pistol, does that mean shooting a pistol backwards over your shoulder is illegal because that wasn't the original intent?

 

[fred333]

does that mean shooting a pistol backwards over your shoulder is illegal because that wasn't the original intent?

I'd reckon that if backwards pistol shooting's specifically prohibited by the NFA (or similar), it's likewise prohibited. If it isn't, then it's not. And that's where shouldering a (non-NFA'd) brace differs from other types of theoretical premises.