New ATF letter already having an effect on SB15/SBX - Page 3

AR-15 » AR Pistols

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - New ATF letter already having an effect on SB15/SBX (Page 3 of 3)

Posted: 1/25/2015 12:50:01 AM EDT

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:
I have been reading the responses that many of you have posted lately since the letter came out almost a week ago. The majority of the responses as a bad as they were after the November 2014 letter came out, and in some cases worse. There have been a few, very few, rational and common sense responses, but the majority of these have been retarded. I have never been so disgusted as I am now at the amount of gun owners that are angry and bent out of shape from getting away with something for so long only to have the door shut in your faces. SIG marketed the SB15 to be used a forearm brace and the primary target consumers were those that have physical limitation that do not allow them to support a rifle with two hands. When the ATF approved the SB15, they stated in the letter that they DID NOT RECOMMEND using it for any other purpose for which the SB15 is intended. They also stated in a subsequent letter that they consider "design and intent" when classifying a weapon. In light of this, many of you, who have no physical limitations, bought these braces and found a whole other use for them. The next thing you know, there are AR pistols being sold with the SIG Brace and marketed as being able to have a SBR without having to have a Form 1. Additionally, the SIG Brace was never intended to be used for a shoulder-fired weapon. That is not what it was approved for. The ATF was very lenient in allowing guys to use the SIG Brace as they have been for a while until they were made to realize exactly what was happening. This is why they jumped in and made the new decision about the SIG Brace being used on an AR pistol as a means to shoulder fire it. The SB15 was not declared illegal as it still to be used as a forearm stabilizing brace, but using the SB15 as a make-shift stock with the intention to build and use the AR pistol as a shoulder fired weapon does constitute those AR pistols to now be classified as SBRs and subject to requiring a Form 1.

I have an AR pistol with just a pistol buffer tube and never had the desire for the SB15. I knew that it was going to be questionable later on. Well, just as I suspected, guys started abusing the SB15 and now they are paying a price. They can deny and defy all they want. They can scream of lawsuits and illegality all they want. They created this problem, not the ATF. It just takes one bad apple to spoil the whole barrel. In this case, there are a bunch of bad apples. The ATF trusted that the SB15 owners would act responsibly and according to the law, but that trust was violated and the ATF has dropped the hammer. There was the writing on the wall and many of you did not see it. If you really wanted a SBR, you should have done like everyone who has a legal SBR(s) and filed the application for the Form 1 and gotten your tax stamp. For those in states where SBRs are not legal to own, oh well. You either have an AR pistol in a legal configuration and use it as such or you get a carbine. Your choice. I know many of you are going to vehemently disagree with much of what I have said and that is fine. The truth of the matter is, what has happened has happened and there is nothing you are going to do to change it. It is what it is until the ATF changes things. I do not look for that to happen any time soon. If anything, those of you that are bitching and moaning over this issue have probably done more harm than good for the gun owning community. I do not agree with everything the ATF does or says and I disagree with many things on the NFA list, but I still follow the laws and regulations. Is it a big inconvenience? Yes. That is the price that mature, responsible, and law abiding gun owners pay.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
I have been reading the responses that many of you have posted lately since the letter came out almost a week ago. The majority of the responses as a bad as they were after the November 2014 letter came out, and in some cases worse. There have been a few, very few, rational and common sense responses, but the majority of these have been retarded. I have never been so disgusted as I am now at the amount of gun owners that are angry and bent out of shape from getting away with something for so long only to have the door shut in your faces. SIG marketed the SB15 to be used a forearm brace and the primary target consumers were those that have physical limitation that do not allow them to support a rifle with two hands. When the ATF approved the SB15, they stated in the letter that they DID NOT RECOMMEND using it for any other purpose for which the SB15 is intended. They also stated in a subsequent letter that they consider "design and intent" when classifying a weapon. In light of this, many of you, who have no physical limitations, bought these braces and found a whole other use for them. The next thing you know, there are AR pistols being sold with the SIG Brace and marketed as being able to have a SBR without having to have a Form 1. Additionally, the SIG Brace was never intended to be used for a shoulder-fired weapon. That is not what it was approved for. The ATF was very lenient in allowing guys to use the SIG Brace as they have been for a while until they were made to realize exactly what was happening. This is why they jumped in and made the new decision about the SIG Brace being used on an AR pistol as a means to shoulder fire it. The SB15 was not declared illegal as it still to be used as a forearm stabilizing brace, but using the SB15 as a make-shift stock with the intention to build and use the AR pistol as a shoulder fired weapon does constitute those AR pistols to now be classified as SBRs and subject to requiring a Form 1.

I have an AR pistol with just a pistol buffer tube and never had the desire for the SB15. I knew that it was going to be questionable later on. Well, just as I suspected, guys started abusing the SB15 and now they are paying a price. They can deny and defy all they want. They can scream of lawsuits and illegality all they want. They created this problem, not the ATF. It just takes one bad apple to spoil the whole barrel. In this case, there are a bunch of bad apples. The ATF trusted that the SB15 owners would act responsibly and according to the law, but that trust was violated and the ATF has dropped the hammer. There was the writing on the wall and many of you did not see it. If you really wanted a SBR, you should have done like everyone who has a legal SBR(s) and filed the application for the Form 1 and gotten your tax stamp. For those in states where SBRs are not legal to own, oh well. You either have an AR pistol in a legal configuration and use it as such or you get a carbine. Your choice. I know many of you are going to vehemently disagree with much of what I have said and that is fine. The truth of the matter is, what has happened has happened and there is nothing you are going to do to change it. It is what it is until the ATF changes things. I do not look for that to happen any time soon. If anything, those of you that are bitching and moaning over this issue have probably done more harm than good for the gun owning community. I do not agree with everything the ATF does or says and I disagree with many things on the NFA list, but I still follow the laws and regulations. Is it a big inconvenience? Yes. That is the price that mature, responsible, and law abiding gun owners pay.

writes long rambling post about "the law"

overlooks the fact the the NFA istelf is illegal and that ATF agents are depriging people of right under the colour of law

ETA, the last sentance is really a nugget:

I do not agree with everything the ATF does or says and I disagree with many things on the NFA list, but I still follow the laws and regulations. Is it a big inconvenience? Yes. That is the price that mature, responsible, and law abiding gun owners pay.

You do not agree w/ everything the ATF does means you agree w/ some of it. How does boots taste bro.

Posted: 1/27/2015 4:04:49 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:
LOL you all poked the bear.

AR pistols are next on their list.

View Quote

On that note, how come the 5.45 ammo was on the hit list becasue it could be used in a pistol, but not .223 that could be fired from a pistol (or 7.62 for that matter)? Maybe I am completely missing the point, but I thought it had to do with armor piercing & pistols.

Posted: 1/27/2015 4:52:04 PM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:

On that note, how come the 5.45 ammo was on the hit list becasue it could be used in a pistol, but not .223 that could be fired from a pistol (or 7.62 for that matter)? Maybe I am completely missing the point, but I thought it had to do with armor piercing & pistols.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
LOL you all poked the bear.

AR pistols are next on their list.

On that note, how come the 5.45 ammo was on the hit list becasue it could be used in a pistol, but not .223 that could be fired from a pistol (or 7.62 for that matter)? Maybe I am completely missing the point, but I thought it had to do with armor piercing & pistols.

Many types of 5.45 are a mild steel core. It's not actually "armor piercing" and only penetrates slightly better than lead cores. Like many things as of late, it is complete and utter bullshit.

People ask me from time to time how certain gun laws came to be and what relevance they have. I simply tell them that they are whatever could get passed at the time. They don't have to make sense or do any good.

Posted: 1/28/2015 2:31:43 PM EDT

[#4]

The problem with this capricious ruling is that without any physical change or redesign, the ATF has now ruled that by shouldering an arm brace constitutes a redesign. This is the slippery slope of ruling arbitrarily against any and everything. Let's take the ATF (CFR) definition of a pistol:

The term “Pistol” means 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 chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s);

and a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

Take notice of how this definition parallels much of the sig brace rhetoric in such a 'pistol' by definition is "originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand..."

Pay particular attention to the originally, made, and intended... "when held in one hand".

By the same logic used in the open letter to the public, the ATF could continue to slide down the slippery slope of determining all handguns fired with more than one hand are now AOWs as you have effectively "redesigned" the firearm to be fired with two hands as 99% of pistol shooters are trained to shoot.

We could blame folks for poking the bear with letters on the SB15, but ultimately the ATF is passing capricious and arbitrary opinions that carry the weight of a felony with loss of your civil rights. I don't see it happening; but we need to push for the repeal of the NFA. Read the federalist papers and any other document you can find from the time period and it's pretty clear the citizens were meant to have the same arms as the military. The only thing the Founders disagreed upon was whether those rights needed to be written or if it were so obvious that they wouldn't need to put pen to paper.

Posted: 1/28/2015 3:58:39 PM EDT

[#5]

The first definition is "pistol", the second definition is "handgun". As much as people including the ATF like to lump them together, they are very much different. I'm one of the few on this board that interprets a drastically different meaning between the two. And that being that "pistol" does not preclude a design that allows firing while held in both hands, while "handgun" does.

I tend to think of legal language in terms of a logic equation more than connotation. My interpretation assumes that if they were the same, they would have the same construction. And obviously they don't, so they must not be the same. Of course, the two terms come from different aspects of gun law. Pistol comes from make and manufacture and handgun has more to do with transfer. Since they come from different regulatory functions, perhaps that's why most people assume they mean the same. That's possible, it just doesn't fit well when looking at the language strictly from the construction of plain English.

Posted: 1/28/2015 10:33:15 PM EDT

[#6]

As much as the definitions of "handgun" and "pistol" are different; the problem with either definition is that they both include the wording "one hand" or "single hand." It's the same stretch of logic used for the sig brace open letter so the legal language is there given the previous logic used. So the plain English of both USC Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 921 and CFR Title 27 Chapter II Subchapter B Part 478 Subpart B Section 478.11 state "one hand" or "single hand."

Is it likely the ATF will apply this logic further to say how you can and can't legally use a firearm in the sense of a "pistol" or "handgun?" NO. The problem is the arbitrary and capricious nature of how they've determined how one use is perfectly legal and another now carries with it a felony. The ATF could further apply this "logic" to anything it wishes. Perhaps they'll redefine bump firing or pulling the trigger too fast. Who knows. It follows the same stretch of logic.

Posted: 1/28/2015 11:15:34 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
The first definition is "pistol", the second definition is "handgun". As much as people including the ATF like to lump them together, they are very much different. I'm one of the few on this board that interprets a drastically different meaning between the two. And that being that "pistol" does not preclude a design that allows firing while held in both hands, while "handgun" does.

I tend to think of legal language in terms of a logic equation more than connotation. My interpretation assumes that if they were the same, they would have the same construction. And obviously they don't, so they must not be the same. Of course, the two terms come from different aspects of gun law. Pistol comes from make and manufacture and handgun has more to do with transfer. Since they come from different regulatory functions, perhaps that's why most people assume they mean the same. That's possible, it just doesn't fit well when looking at the language strictly from the construction of plain English.

View Quote

Umm.... A pistol is a handgun but a handgun isn't necessarily a pistol. A pistol is a type of handgun that has a chamber integrated with the barrel. A revolver would be an example of a handgun that isn't a pistol. The handgun definition covers pistols but not necessarily vise-versa.

Just so you aren't confused. An AR15 has a chamber integrated with the barrel ergo a "pistol" in the right configuration.

Posted: 1/29/2015 1:30:14 AM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:

Umm.... A pistol is a handgun but a handgun isn't necessarily a pistol. A pistol is a type of handgun that has a chamber integrated with the barrel. A revolver would be an example of a handgun that isn't a pistol. The handgun definition covers pistols but not necessarily vise-versa.

Just so you aren't confused. An AR15 has a chamber integrated with the barrel ergo a "pistol" in the right configuration.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The first definition is "pistol", the second definition is "handgun". As much as people including the ATF like to lump them together, they are very much different. I'm one of the few on this board that interprets a drastically different meaning between the two. And that being that "pistol" does not preclude a design that allows firing while held in both hands, while "handgun" does.

I tend to think of legal language in terms of a logic equation more than connotation. My interpretation assumes that if they were the same, they would have the same construction. And obviously they don't, so they must not be the same. Of course, the two terms come from different aspects of gun law. Pistol comes from make and manufacture and handgun has more to do with transfer. Since they come from different regulatory functions, perhaps that's why most people assume they mean the same. That's possible, it just doesn't fit well when looking at the language strictly from the construction of plain English.

Umm.... A pistol is a handgun but a handgun isn't necessarily a pistol. A pistol is a type of handgun that has a chamber integrated with the barrel. A revolver would be an example of a handgun that isn't a pistol. The handgun definition covers pistols but not necessarily vise-versa.

Just so you aren't confused. An AR15 has a chamber integrated with the barrel ergo a "pistol" in the right configuration.

I completely disagree. Pistol and revolver came first and are defined as the firearms that are made. "Made" is not part of the definition of handgun. You can't make a handgun, you can only make a pistol or revolver. Handguns didn't exist in legal terms until 1968. And since not every pistol and revolver was regulated equally by the 1968 law, handgun is obviously just a subset of pistols and revolvers.

Posted: 1/29/2015 10:07:54 AM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:
As much as the definitions of "handgun" and "pistol" are different; the problem with either definition is that they both include the wording "one hand" or "single hand." It's the same stretch of logic used for the sig brace open letter so the legal language is there given the previous logic used. So the plain English of both USC Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 921 and CFR Title 27 Chapter II Subchapter B Part 478 Subpart B Section 478.11 state "one hand" or "single hand."

Is it likely the ATF will apply this logic further to say how you can and can't legally use a firearm in the sense of a "pistol" or "handgun?" NO. The problem is the arbitrary and capricious nature of how they've determined how one use is perfectly legal and another now carries with it a felony. The ATF could further apply this "logic" to anything it wishes. Perhaps they'll redefine bump firing or pulling the trigger too fast. Who knows. It follows the same stretch of logic.

View Quote

Well, fortunately, the word "pistol" has been around since the 16th century and generally has referred to any handheld gun regardless of how it was fired. It's hard to ignore a centuries old term. The term "handgun" is very modern and didn't exist in statute until 1968. Only then does handgun refer to specific "designs" that more or less preclude firing with two hands. My interpretation was they were trying to identify "Saturday Night Specials" that they could regulate. They weren't trying to encompass all pistols with that definition (my opinion).

Posted: 1/29/2015 10:29:49 AM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:

I completely disagree. Pistol and revolver came first and are defined as the firearms that are made.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The first definition is "pistol", the second definition is "handgun". As much as people including the ATF like to lump them together, they are very much different. I'm one of the few on this board that interprets a drastically different meaning between the two. And that being that "pistol" does not preclude a design that allows firing while held in both hands, while "handgun" does.

I tend to think of legal language in terms of a logic equation more than connotation. My interpretation assumes that if they were the same, they would have the same construction. And obviously they don't, so they must not be the same. Of course, the two terms come from different aspects of gun law. Pistol comes from make and manufacture and handgun has more to do with transfer. Since they come from different regulatory functions, perhaps that's why most people assume they mean the same. That's possible, it just doesn't fit well when looking at the language strictly from the construction of plain English.

Umm.... A pistol is a handgun but a handgun isn't necessarily a pistol. A pistol is a type of handgun that has a chamber integrated with the barrel. A revolver would be an example of a handgun that isn't a pistol. The handgun definition covers pistols but not necessarily vise-versa.

Just so you aren't confused. An AR15 has a chamber integrated with the barrel ergo a "pistol" in the right configuration.

I completely disagree. Pistol and revolver came first and are defined as the firearms that are made.

If you disagree then tell me what I said that was incorrect. Pistol and revolver did come first. The term handgun came about as a word to encompass them both with a single word. I read both of your posts and I'm still not seeing where any of what I said is incorrect.

Posted: 1/29/2015 11:25:09 AM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:

If you disagree then tell me what I said that was incorrect. Pistol and revolver did come first. The term handgun came about as a word to encompass them both with a single word. I read both of your posts and I'm still not seeing where any of what I said is incorrect.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The first definition is "pistol", the second definition is "handgun". As much as people including the ATF like to lump them together, they are very much different. I'm one of the few on this board that interprets a drastically different meaning between the two. And that being that "pistol" does not preclude a design that allows firing while held in both hands, while "handgun" does.

I tend to think of legal language in terms of a logic equation more than connotation. My interpretation assumes that if they were the same, they would have the same construction. And obviously they don't, so they must not be the same. Of course, the two terms come from different aspects of gun law. Pistol comes from make and manufacture and handgun has more to do with transfer. Since they come from different regulatory functions, perhaps that's why most people assume they mean the same. That's possible, it just doesn't fit well when looking at the language strictly from the construction of plain English.

Umm.... A pistol is a handgun but a handgun isn't necessarily a pistol. A pistol is a type of handgun that has a chamber integrated with the barrel. A revolver would be an example of a handgun that isn't a pistol. The handgun definition covers pistols but not necessarily vise-versa.

Just so you aren't confused. An AR15 has a chamber integrated with the barrel ergo a "pistol" in the right configuration.

I completely disagree. Pistol and revolver came first and are defined as the firearms that are made.

If you disagree then tell me what I said that was incorrect. Pistol and revolver did come first. The term handgun came about as a word to encompass them both with a single word. I read both of your posts and I'm still not seeing where any of what I said is incorrect.

Every handgun is a pistol or a revolver as defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The reason for that is handguns are not made or manufactured. One can only make or manufacture a pistol or revolver. Once you have made/manufactured a pistol or revolver, some but not all are regulated as handguns by the GCA.

You stated a pistol is a type of handgun and it's just the opposite as our statutes are written. A handgun is a type of pistol (or revolver). Specifically, handguns are pistols and revolvers that are designed to be fired by the use of a single hand (the design naturally having preclusion of that use). If you wanted to start with what group that may be, from regulation one could claim handguns start at pistols and revolvers under 50 ounces. That's a leap but not unlike the 26" rule the ATF uses to identify concealable weapons.

Obviously, how I interpret handgun has flaws because in reality every pistol and revolver is regulated as a handgun by ATF. The problem, though for the ATF, is that there are pistols that have design to be held with two hands (and that would be every pistol with a barrel shroud or handguard).

There are definitely flaws in the way the statutes are written and how the ATF tries to regulate things. They need to be revised a bit.

Posted: 1/29/2015 1:10:54 PM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:

Every handgun is a pistol or a revolver as defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The reason for that is handguns are not made or manufactured. One can only make or manufacture a pistol or revolver. Once you have made/manufactured a pistol or revolver, some but not all are regulated as handguns by the GCA.

You stated a pistol is a type of handgun and it's just the opposite as our statutes are written. A handgun is a type of pistol (or revolver). Specifically, handguns are pistols and revolvers that are designed to be fired by the use of a single hand (the design naturally having preclusion of that use). If you wanted to start with what group that may be, from regulation one could claim handguns start at pistols and revolvers under 50 ounces. That's a leap but not unlike the 26" rule the ATF uses to identify concealable weapons.

Obviously, how I interpret handgun has flaws because in reality every pistol and revolver is regulated as a handgun by ATF. The problem, though for the ATF, is that there are pistols that have design to be held with two hands (and that would be every pistol with a barrel shroud or handguard).

There are definitely flaws in the way the statutes are written and how the ATF tries to regulate things. They need to be revised a bit Eliminated.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The first definition is "pistol", the second definition is "handgun". As much as people including the ATF like to lump them together, they are very much different. I'm one of the few on this board that interprets a drastically different meaning between the two. And that being that "pistol" does not preclude a design that allows firing while held in both hands, while "handgun" does.

I tend to think of legal language in terms of a logic equation more than connotation. My interpretation assumes that if they were the same, they would have the same construction. And obviously they don't, so they must not be the same. Of course, the two terms come from different aspects of gun law. Pistol comes from make and manufacture and handgun has more to do with transfer. Since they come from different regulatory functions, perhaps that's why most people assume they mean the same. That's possible, it just doesn't fit well when looking at the language strictly from the construction of plain English.

Umm.... A pistol is a handgun but a handgun isn't necessarily a pistol. A pistol is a type of handgun that has a chamber integrated with the barrel. A revolver would be an example of a handgun that isn't a pistol. The handgun definition covers pistols but not necessarily vise-versa.

Just so you aren't confused. An AR15 has a chamber integrated with the barrel ergo a "pistol" in the right configuration.

I completely disagree. Pistol and revolver came first and are defined as the firearms that are made.

If you disagree then tell me what I said that was incorrect. Pistol and revolver did come first. The term handgun came about as a word to encompass them both with a single word. I read both of your posts and I'm still not seeing where any of what I said is incorrect.

Every handgun is a pistol or a revolver as defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The reason for that is handguns are not made or manufactured. One can only make or manufacture a pistol or revolver. Once you have made/manufactured a pistol or revolver, some but not all are regulated as handguns by the GCA.

You stated a pistol is a type of handgun and it's just the opposite as our statutes are written. A handgun is a type of pistol (or revolver). Specifically, handguns are pistols and revolvers that are designed to be fired by the use of a single hand (the design naturally having preclusion of that use). If you wanted to start with what group that may be, from regulation one could claim handguns start at pistols and revolvers under 50 ounces. That's a leap but not unlike the 26" rule the ATF uses to identify concealable weapons.

Obviously, how I interpret handgun has flaws because in reality every pistol and revolver is regulated as a handgun by ATF. The problem, though for the ATF, is that there are pistols that have design to be held with two hands (and that would be every pistol with a barrel shroud or handguard).

There are definitely flaws in the way the statutes are written and how the ATF tries to regulate things. They need to be revised a bit Eliminated.

FIFY

Posted: 2/1/2015 5:31:01 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

Well, fortunately, the word "pistol" has been around since the 16th century and generally has referred to any handheld gun regardless of how it was fired. It's hard to ignore a centuries old term. The term "handgun" is very modern and didn't exist in statute until 1968. Only then does handgun refer to specific "designs" that more or less preclude firing with two hands. My interpretation was they were trying to identify "Saturday Night Specials" that they could regulate. They weren't trying to encompass all pistols with that definition (my opinion).

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
As much as the definitions of "handgun" and "pistol" are different; the problem with either definition is that they both include the wording "one hand" or "single hand." It's the same stretch of logic used for the sig brace open letter so the legal language is there given the previous logic used. So the plain English of both USC Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 921 and CFR Title 27 Chapter II Subchapter B Part 478 Subpart B Section 478.11 state "one hand" or "single hand."

Is it likely the ATF will apply this logic further to say how you can and can't legally use a firearm in the sense of a "pistol" or "handgun?" NO. The problem is the arbitrary and capricious nature of how they've determined how one use is perfectly legal and another now carries with it a felony. The ATF could further apply this "logic" to anything it wishes. Perhaps they'll redefine bump firing or pulling the trigger too fast. Who knows. It follows the same stretch of logic.

Well, fortunately, the word "pistol" has been around since the 16th century and generally has referred to any handheld gun regardless of how it was fired. It's hard to ignore a centuries old term. The term "handgun" is very modern and didn't exist in statute until 1968. Only then does handgun refer to specific "designs" that more or less preclude firing with two hands. My interpretation was they were trying to identify "Saturday Night Specials" that they could regulate. They weren't trying to encompass all pistols with that definition (my opinion).

The problem is the way ATF trivially regulates firearms or the fact that there are even restrictions that are clearly a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Both USC and CFR define pistol and handgun similarly as being fire "one handed" or "single handed." Although one regulates making a firearm with intent and the other covers trade; both specify that they are to operated with ONE HAND.

Just an aside, the word handgun actually comes from "Hand Gonne" which has been around arguably as long as the advent of firearms.

Posted: 2/1/2015 6:04:46 PM EDT

[#14]

Does anyone really believe that an AR pistol is designed or intended to be fired with one hand?

Posted: 2/1/2015 6:27:08 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
Does anyone really believe that an AR pistol is designed or intended to be fired with one hand?

View Quote

Do you really believe that anyone buys a Glock intending to shoot one handed? I bet there isn't a police department in the country that teaches cops to shoot only with one hand.

Posted: 2/1/2015 7:01:23 PM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:

Do you really believe that anyone buys a Glock intending to shoot one handed? I bet there isn't a police department in the country that teaches cops to shoot only with one hand.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does anyone really believe that an AR pistol is designed or intended to be fired with one hand?

Do you really believe that anyone buys a Glock intending to shoot one handed? I bet there isn't a police department in the country that teaches cops to shoot only with one hand.

Firearm definitions don't deal with what buyers intend to do with a gun. They deal with the design and intent when the pistol is manufactured.

It is hard for me to believe the ATF ever approved AR pistols in the first place, although that decision certainly proved beneficial for gun owners. I am thankful for that approval of a design that was obviously meant to be shot with two hands.

Posted: 2/3/2015 11:11:55 AM EDT

[#17]

Posted: 2/3/2015 12:04:18 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

We could blame folks for poking the bear with letters on the SB15, but ultimately the ATF is passing capricious and arbitrary opinions that carry the weight of a felony with loss of your civil rights. I don't see it happening; but we need to push for the repeal of the NFA. Read the federalist papers and any other document you can find from the time period and it's pretty clear the citizens were meant to have the same arms as the military. The only thing the Founders disagreed upon was whether those rights needed to be written or if it were so obvious that they wouldn't need to put pen to paper.

View Quote

The United States argued in the infamous Miller case of 1939 that Miller's prohibition of his sawed-off shotgun was not a 2nd Amendment violation since sawed-off shotguns are not appropriate for combat. Since SBRs are routinely used in combat, well, you get the drift.

Further: Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.
An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

– Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Posted: 2/3/2015 11:24:54 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:

Firearm definitions don't deal with what buyers intend to do with a gun. They deal with the design and intent when the pistol is manufactured.

It is hard for me to believe the ATF ever approved AR pistols in the first place, although that decision certainly proved beneficial for gun owners. I am thankful for that approval of a design that was obviously meant to be shot with two hands.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does anyone really believe that an AR pistol is designed or intended to be fired with one hand?

Do you really believe that anyone buys a Glock intending to shoot one handed? I bet there isn't a police department in the country that teaches cops to shoot only with one hand.

Firearm definitions don't deal with what buyers intend to do with a gun. They deal with the design and intent when the pistol is manufactured.

It is hard for me to believe the ATF ever approved AR pistols in the first place, although that decision certainly proved beneficial for gun owners. I am thankful for that approval of a design that was obviously meant to be shot with two hands.

I hate to tell you but this latest letter says exactly otherwise.
If we applied your logic then I could buy a complete Sig brace equipped pistol and then shoulder the hell out of it while giving the ATF the finger seeing as I wasn't the manufacturer and my intent means nothing. Alas, this is not the case according to the most recent letter.

Posted: 2/4/2015 10:34:57 AM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

I hate to tell you but this latest letter says exactly otherwise.
If we applied your logic then I could buy a complete Sig brace equipped pistol and then shoulder the hell out of it while giving the ATF the finger seeing as I wasn't the manufacturer and my intent means nothing. Alas, this is not the case according to the most recent letter.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does anyone really believe that an AR pistol is designed or intended to be fired with one hand?

Do you really believe that anyone buys a Glock intending to shoot one handed? I bet there isn't a police department in the country that teaches cops to shoot only with one hand.

Firearm definitions don't deal with what buyers intend to do with a gun. They deal with the design and intent when the pistol is manufactured.

It is hard for me to believe the ATF ever approved AR pistols in the first place, although that decision certainly proved beneficial for gun owners. I am thankful for that approval of a design that was obviously meant to be shot with two hands.

I hate to tell you but this latest letter says exactly otherwise.
If we applied your logic then I could buy a complete Sig brace equipped pistol and then shoulder the hell out of it while giving the ATF the finger seeing as I wasn't the manufacturer and my intent means nothing. Alas, this is not the case according to the most recent letter.

I would imagine you probably could. But we won't know for sure until someone gets charged by the feds. My guess is that will be never.

Posted: 2/4/2015 11:13:54 AM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:

I would imagine you probably could. But we won't know for sure until someone gets charged by the feds. My guess is that will be never.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Does anyone really believe that an AR pistol is designed or intended to be fired with one hand?

Do you really believe that anyone buys a Glock intending to shoot one handed? I bet there isn't a police department in the country that teaches cops to shoot only with one hand.

Firearm definitions don't deal with what buyers intend to do with a gun. They deal with the design and intent when the pistol is manufactured.

It is hard for me to believe the ATF ever approved AR pistols in the first place, although that decision certainly proved beneficial for gun owners. I am thankful for that approval of a design that was obviously meant to be shot with two hands.

I hate to tell you but this latest letter says exactly otherwise.
If we applied your logic then I could buy a complete Sig brace equipped pistol and then shoulder the hell out of it while giving the ATF the finger seeing as I wasn't the manufacturer and my intent means nothing. Alas, this is not the case according to the most recent letter.

I would imagine you probably could. But we won't know for sure until someone gets charged by the feds. My guess is that will be never.

You don't need to get charged by the Feds. You can get charged by your town, city, county or state. Every State has a short barreled rifle law of it's own. And most jurisdictions can enforce every law not preempted by the Feds.

Now, I seriously doubt many jurisdictions would arrest someone for owning something sold in a local gun shop. But, I wouldn't provoke someone to the level of law enforcement while possessing one. Although, still highly unlikely unless these pistols start becoming more well known to the general population.

Posted: 2/4/2015 12:53:23 PM EDT

[#22]

I've noticed that the Sig braces not only have come back up in price since the initial dumping of them 3 weeks ago, but they have increased substantially over the last week. Is there suddenly a shortage or something?

Posted: 2/4/2015 11:34:34 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:
I've noticed that the Sig braces not only have come back up in price since the initial dumping of them 3 weeks ago, but they have increased substantially over the last week. Is there suddenly a shortage or something?

View Quote

-> $104.49 with free shipping

-> More than 10 available / 587 sold

-> 5 sold in last 24 hours

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sig-Sauer-SIGTac-Pistol-Stabilizing-Brace-Tactical-Handgun-PSB-AR-BLK-SB15-/261669849262

Posted: 2/5/2015 12:00:26 AM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:
The problem with this capricious ruling is that without any physical change or redesign, the ATF has now ruled that by shouldering an arm brace constitutes a redesign. This is the slippery slope of ruling arbitrarily against any and everything.

View Quote

It wasn't a ruling, it was just an 'opinion'.

Posted: 2/5/2015 12:25:46 AM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

It wasn't a ruling, it was just an 'opinion'.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The problem with this capricious ruling is that without any physical change or redesign, the ATF has now ruled that by shouldering an arm brace constitutes a redesign. This is the slippery slope of ruling arbitrarily against any and everything.

It wasn't a ruling, it was just an 'opinion'.

I've heard in the past that the ATF's "opinion" as it pertains to the NFA was held in the court of law as though it was law.

Posted: 2/5/2015 12:49:26 AM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:

I've heard of an example in the past where the ATF's "opinion" was held in the court of law as though it was law.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The problem with this capricious ruling is that without any physical change or redesign, the ATF has now ruled that by shouldering an arm brace constitutes a redesign. This is the slippery slope of ruling arbitrarily against any and everything.

It wasn't a ruling, it was just an 'opinion'.

I've heard of an example in the past where the ATF's "opinion" was held in the court of law as though it was law.

Please elucidate us as to the case.

Like some others have opined, I don't think ATF wants this one in court, will just settle for the intimidation factor.

- OS

Posted: 2/5/2015 1:40:14 AM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:

Please elucidate us as to the case.

Like some others have opined, I don't think ATF wants this one in court, will just settle for the intimidation factor.

- OS

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The problem with this capricious ruling is that without any physical change or redesign, the ATF has now ruled that by shouldering an arm brace constitutes a redesign. This is the slippery slope of ruling arbitrarily against any and everything.

It wasn't a ruling, it was just an 'opinion'.

I've heard in the past that the ATF's "opinion" as it pertains to the NFA was held in the court of law as though it was law..

Please elucidate us as to the case.

Like some others have opined, I don't think ATF wants this one in court, will just settle for the intimidation factor.

- OS

Correction: in the past ATF opinion has been used as a substitute for law. Courts not mentioned.

Would like clarification myself.

Saw this mentioned here at 0:35 -> http://youtu.be/xvJayroI700

Posted: 2/5/2015 10:12:57 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
Please elucidate us as to the case.

Like some others have opined, I don't think ATF wants this one in court, will just settle for the intimidation factor.

- OS

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

The problem with this capricious ruling is that without any physical change or redesign, the ATF has now ruled that by shouldering an arm brace constitutes a redesign. This is the slippery slope of ruling arbitrarily against any and everything.

It wasn't a ruling, it was just an 'opinion'.

I've heard of an example in the past where the ATF's "opinion" was held in the court of law as though it was law.

Please elucidate us as to the case.

Like some others have opined, I don't think ATF wants this one in court, will just settle for the intimidation factor.

- OS

I think he's getting ATF opinion confused with an ATF rule which is an Administrative Law.

Just like all the stupid IRS rules are, but break one of the IRS rules and they will bend you over real good.

The ATF and the IRS were both a bureau of the Department of the Treasury (the ATF was a division of the IRS until 1972 when it became a separate bureau) until the Homeland Security Act of 2002 when the renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) was shifted to the Department of Justice.

Funny thing is the BATFE does not really do anything with alcohol and tobacco. Tax collection and regulatory functions related to alcohol and tobacco was transferred to the new Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) which is under still the Department of The Treasury.

Confused yet?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - New ATF letter already having an effect on SB15/SBX (Page 3 of 3)

AR-15 » AR Pistols

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us