User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 11:44:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryThank you for that link. The most sensible thing so far in this thread!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 11:52:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being a 13er has nothing to do it. The author of that article is neither a professional lawyer, nor is he a member of the ATF and can speak for them. That article is the author's interpretation of the ATF's intent regarding intent. As far as I'm concerned, the author is about as trust worthy and accurate as anyone posting on this thread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your a 13ner so they mat act like they didn't see this. this looks like it solves the misunderstanding. Being a 13er has nothing to do it. The author of that article is neither a professional lawyer, nor is he a member of the ATF and can speak for them. That article is the author's interpretation of the ATF's intent regarding intent. As far as I'm concerned, the author is about as trust worthy and accurate as anyone posting on this thread. But it does pretty follow suit with the princelaw.com blog. When you read 'the letter' it has a lot more to do with converting a rifle to a pistol & the intent to end up with an SBR than it does with anything else. I think this thing is whole lot more 'sky is falling' than a major shift in position by the ATF. We all know the sig brace isn't a shoulder stock & wasn't intended to be. I don't think anyone is/was trying to 'pull one over' on the .gov. Like some others though, I'm surprised at how many 'freedom loving gun owners' are so willing to sign on .govs dotted line... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 11:57:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for that link. The most sensible thing so far in this thread!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for that link. The most sensible thing so far in this thread!! This, thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 11:58:00 PM EDT
[#4]
"In short, this guy basically sent a love note to the ATF letting them know that he was about to build an unregistered SBR."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:03:15 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And, he's usually an idiot. He's the same retard that said it would be stupid to use an AR15 for self defense. =http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/foghorn/self-defense-tip-dont-use-a-rifle/ He also seems to have invented a question which is not reflected in the letter. Although, at the same time, I'm curious. The question posed in the letter says "noveske flash hider", the opinion specifies 'flaming pig'. Wonder why the ATF would call it by a nickname... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your a 13ner so they mat act like they didn't see this. this looks like it solves the misunderstanding. Being a 13er has nothing to do it. The author of that article is neither a professional lawyer, nor is he a member of the ATF and can speak for them. That article is the author's interpretation of the ATF's intent regarding intent. As far as I'm concerned, the author is about as trust worthy and accurate as anyone posting on this thread. And, he's usually an idiot. He's the same retard that said it would be stupid to use an AR15 for self defense. =http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/foghorn/self-defense-tip-dont-use-a-rifle/ He also seems to have invented a question which is not reflected in the letter. Although, at the same time, I'm curious. The question posed in the letter says "noveske flash hider", the opinion specifies 'flaming pig'. Wonder why the ATF would call it by a nickname... Foghorn Leghorn is a toolbag. He is an absolute idiot and there's no questioning it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:05:28 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being a 13er has nothing to do it. The author of that article is neither a professional lawyer, nor is he a member of the ATF and can speak for them. That article is the author's interpretation of the ATF's intent regarding intent. As far as I'm concerned, the author is about as trust worthy and accurate as anyone posting on this thread. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your a 13ner so they mat act like they didn't see this. this looks like it solves the misunderstanding. Being a 13er has nothing to do it. The author of that article is neither a professional lawyer, nor is he a member of the ATF and can speak for them. That article is the author's interpretation of the ATF's intent regarding intent. As far as I'm concerned, the author is about as trust worthy and accurate as anyone posting on this thread. If not worse. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:09:08 AM EDT
[#7]
Anyone else inclined to call their Representatives Monday on this? It's gotten out of hand and there should be an investigation of the intended actions of the ATF. With the flip flopping, use of "intend", and the steep punishments in the result of possible wrongdoing, this is a minefield.
Maybe this will help spark something with those currently elected and maybe pass onto the newly elected.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:10:21 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Foghorn Leghorn is a toolbag. He is an absolute idiot and there's no questioning it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your a 13ner so they mat act like they didn't see this. this looks like it solves the misunderstanding. Being a 13er has nothing to do it. The author of that article is neither a professional lawyer, nor is he a member of the ATF and can speak for them. That article is the author's interpretation of the ATF's intent regarding intent. As far as I'm concerned, the author is about as trust worthy and accurate as anyone posting on this thread. And, he's usually an idiot. He's the same retard that said it would be stupid to use an AR15 for self defense. =http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/03/foghorn/self-defense-tip-dont-use-a-rifle/ He also seems to have invented a question which is not reflected in the letter. Although, at the same time, I'm curious. The question posed in the letter says "noveske flash hider", the opinion specifies 'flaming pig'. Wonder why the ATF would call it by a nickname... Foghorn Leghorn is a toolbag. He is an absolute idiot and there's no questioning it. I was going to say, I bet there are several saliva covered transparent surfaces in his AO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:30:37 AM EDT
[#9]
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:34:37 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. That ought to turn out well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:44:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. I'm sure they already have. And more than one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:44:13 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. No. Just no. Have you been reading the thread? Don't send letters to the tech branch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:45:44 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Just no. Have you been reading the thread? Don't send letters to the tech branch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. No. Just no. Have you been reading the thread? Don't send letters to the tech branch. I already wrote one asking if a fleshlight in place of the buffer tube, fired while my dick is inside, results in a rifle or a pistol. I made sure to include lots of pictures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 1:08:51 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 1:12:44 AM EDT
[#15]
i will continue to use my brace in the way it suits my personal reason for legally purchasing it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 1:14:10 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryGreat read, and nice and clear, thanks! Hey, I built my pistols to be pistols long before the Sig brace. Now, I am happy to throw $50 to any of you quitters for your old useless SB15s. Well, at least two of you anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 1:17:47 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I already wrote one asking if a fleshlight in place of the buffer tube, fired while my dick is inside, results in a rifle or a pistol. I made sure to include lots of pictures. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. No. Just no. Have you been reading the thread? Don't send letters to the tech branch. I already wrote one asking if a fleshlight in place of the buffer tube, fired while my dick is inside, results in a rifle or a pistol. I made sure to include lots of pictures. I hope you really did that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 1:27:58 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope you really did that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. No. Just no. Have you been reading the thread? Don't send letters to the tech branch. I already wrote one asking if a fleshlight in place of the buffer tube, fired while my dick is inside, results in a rifle or a pistol. I made sure to include lots of pictures. I hope you really did that. no but I really want to. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 1:29:56 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope you really did that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. No. Just no. Have you been reading the thread? Don't send letters to the tech branch. I already wrote one asking if a fleshlight in place of the buffer tube, fired while my dick is inside, results in a rifle or a pistol. I made sure to include lots of pictures. I hope you really did that. Fleshlight receiver extension covers are the next big thing for 2015. Hell I may just order one to post pics it on the tube 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 3:26:34 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Just no. Have you been reading the thread? Don't send letters to the tech branch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. No. Just no. Have you been reading the thread? Don't send letters to the tech branch. I was being sarcastic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 3:29:04 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure they already have. And more than one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. I'm sure they already have. And more than one. I agree. I'd bet most of those doing so just want to post somewhere on the internet that they wrote tech branch and got a letter back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 3:34:50 AM EDT
[#22]
So if the brace becomes truly illegal to shoulder, and many here are saying "don't care, gonna do it any way", at that point honestly why don't we all just say fuck it, and go ahead and build full-on unregistered SBRs?
I mean if you're pretty sure that you'll never be caught or prosecuted with a brace, and you're willing to admit that publicly, what's the difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 4:06:50 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That ought to turn out well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hopefully someone will send a letter to the ATF asking for further clarification. That ought to turn out well. I just want to write a letter about type of paper used, what about card stock? Why just plain white paper? Why serif text? Why not Ramallah font on Bone colored paper? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 6:35:56 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for that link. The most sensible thing so far in this thread!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for that link. The most sensible thing so far in this thread!! The author of the link above paraphrased what he thought the person submitting the question asked: "You asked if building an AR pistol with a SB-15 brace required a Form 1 as a Short Barreled Rifle. If you build the pistol as described and intend to use it as a pistol, then it does not require a From 1 and is just a pistol. If you intend to build a pistol and it is improperly used from time to time, that’s OK. If you intend to build the firearm to be a Short Barreled Rifle and use the pistol brace as a stock, then you intend to build an SBR and that requires a Form 1 and a tax stamp. If you intend to build a small gun designed to be fired from the shoulder, that is an SBR no matter what parts you use." No where in the letter from the ATF does it mention that the submitter of the question asked that specific question. He never said his intent was anything other than to make a pistol. Yet the ATF said if you shoulder the weapon it is a SBR if you intended to make a SBR. Well now..........let's say an ATF agent sees you shooting the Sig Braced rifle from the shoulder...............now what was the intent? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 7:32:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The author of the link above paraphrased what he thought the person submitting the question asked: "You asked if building an AR pistol with a SB-15 brace required a Form 1 as a Short Barreled Rifle. If you build the pistol as described and intend to use it as a pistol, then it does not require a From 1 and is just a pistol. If you intend to build a pistol and it is improperly used from time to time, that’s OK. If you intend to build the firearm to be a Short Barreled Rifle and use the pistol brace as a stock, then you intend to build an SBR and that requires a Form 1 and a tax stamp. If you intend to build a small gun designed to be fired from the shoulder, that is an SBR no matter what parts you use." No where in the letter from the ATF does it mention that the submitter of the question asked that specific question. He never said his intent was anything other than to make a pistol. Yet the ATF said if you shoulder the weapon it is a SBR if you intended to make a SBR. Well now..........let's say an ATF agent sees you shooting the Sig Braced rifle from the shoulder...............now what was the intent? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Thank you for that link. The most sensible thing so far in this thread!! The author of the link above paraphrased what he thought the person submitting the question asked: "You asked if building an AR pistol with a SB-15 brace required a Form 1 as a Short Barreled Rifle. If you build the pistol as described and intend to use it as a pistol, then it does not require a From 1 and is just a pistol. If you intend to build a pistol and it is improperly used from time to time, that’s OK. If you intend to build the firearm to be a Short Barreled Rifle and use the pistol brace as a stock, then you intend to build an SBR and that requires a Form 1 and a tax stamp. If you intend to build a small gun designed to be fired from the shoulder, that is an SBR no matter what parts you use." No where in the letter from the ATF does it mention that the submitter of the question asked that specific question. He never said his intent was anything other than to make a pistol. Yet the ATF said if you shoulder the weapon it is a SBR if you intended to make a SBR. Well now..........let's say an ATF agent sees you shooting the Sig Braced rifle from the shoulder...............now what was the intent? The part in red is what doesn't make any sense. Pistols with the sig brace have been sold for a while now, so why would this guy feel the need to write the letter asking if it was legal to build a pistol with the brace? There are a few possible answers. 1. The guy is an idiot. 2. He wanted to show how important he is because he wrote a letter to the ATF and they sent a reply. 3. Some combination of 1&2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 7:39:03 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
..................... The part in red is what doesn't make any sense. Pistols with the sig brace have been sold for a while now, so why would this guy feel the need to write the letter asking if it was legal to build a pistol with the brace? There are a few possible answers. 1. The guy is an idiot. 2. He wanted to show how important he is because he wrote a letter to the ATF and they sent a reply. 3. Some combination of 1&2. I think he wanted to add one of those Magpul AFG grips to his rails and wanted to make sure that was ok? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 7:59:06 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think he wanted to add one of those Magpul AFG grips to his rails and wanted to make sure that was ok? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
..................... The part in red is what doesn't make any sense. Pistols with the sig brace have been sold for a while now, so why would this guy feel the need to write the letter asking if it was legal to build a pistol with the brace? There are a few possible answers. 1. The guy is an idiot. 2. He wanted to show how important he is because he wrote a letter to the ATF and they sent a reply. 3. Some combination of 1&2. I think he wanted to add one of those Magpul AFG grips to his rails and wanted to make sure that was ok? It would still be the same thing, The AFG isn't a vertical grip, who the hell would think it was? If he had done his research he would know that question was asked and answered close to 5 years ago. Hell he could have just built one of these with the sig brace. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:00:34 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................. It would still be the same thing, The AFG isn't a vertical grip, who the hell would think it was? If he had done his research he would know that question was asked and answered close to 5 years ago. Hell he could have just built one of these with the sig brace. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/xo_26b_800x_235-tfb.jpg Believe me..........I am NOT saying this guy was the sharpest knife in the kitchen cabinet!! ETA: In fact, some guys here have said this guy is so stupid that they think he might just be an ATF plant with a fake question so the ATF could change their minds in a ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:05:10 AM EDT
[#29]
Put Sig Brace on AR pistol.
Use it to shoulder mount said pistol. Act surprised and butthurt when ATF says no.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:05:53 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Put Sig Brace on AR pistol. Use it to shoulder mount said pistol. Act surprised and butthurt when ATF says no. But they said that was ok in a previous ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:10:16 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would still be the same thing, The AFG isn't a vertical grip, who the hell would think it was? If he had done his research he would know that question was asked and answered close to 5 years ago. Hell he could have just built one of these with the sig brace. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/xo_26b_800x_235-tfb.jpg No. That would be an NFA Item due to the vertical Foregrip. The Angled Foregrip is different. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..................... The part in red is what doesn't make any sense. Pistols with the sig brace have been sold for a while now, so why would this guy feel the need to write the letter asking if it was legal to build a pistol with the brace? There are a few possible answers. 1. The guy is an idiot. 2. He wanted to show how important he is because he wrote a letter to the ATF and they sent a reply. 3. Some combination of 1&2. I think he wanted to add one of those Magpul AFG grips to his rails and wanted to make sure that was ok? It would still be the same thing, The AFG isn't a vertical grip, who the hell would think it was? If he had done his research he would know that question was asked and answered close to 5 years ago. Hell he could have just built one of these with the sig brace. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/xo_26b_800x_235-tfb.jpg No. That would be an NFA Item due to the vertical Foregrip. The Angled Foregrip is different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:15:33 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if the brace becomes truly illegal to shoulder, and many here are saying "don't care, gonna do it any way", at that point honestly why don't we all just say fuck it, and go ahead and build full-on unregistered SBRs? I mean if you're pretty sure that you'll never be caught or prosecuted with a brace, and you're willing to admit that publicly, what's the difference? We are pretty much there already. There are a lot more unregistered SBRs shot in public than registered. 300 pages of SBR pictures here on arfcom and what one in ten are engraved, lol, opsec my ass. And why should they, the atf doesn't have the assets to enforce it. The atf has less assets available to it than the border control has for its mission. Over 10 years of shooting SBR'S in public, not once was I asked for my form 1's in the most populated region in the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:19:51 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..................... The part in red is what doesn't make any sense. Pistols with the sig brace have been sold for a while now, so why would this guy feel the need to write the letter asking if it was legal to build a pistol with the brace? There are a few possible answers. 1. The guy is an idiot. 2. He wanted to show how important he is because he wrote a letter to the ATF and they sent a reply. 3. Some combination of 1&2. I think he wanted to add one of those Magpul AFG grips to his rails and wanted to make sure that was ok? It would still be the same thing, The AFG isn't a vertical grip, who the hell would think it was? If he had done his research he would know that question was asked and answered close to 5 years ago. Hell he could have just built one of these with the sig brace. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/xo_26b_800x_235-tfb.jpg No. That would be an NFA Item due to the vertical Foregrip. The Angled Foregrip is different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:21:25 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are pretty much there already. There are a lot more unregistered SBRs shot in public than registered. 300 pages of SBR pictures here on arfcom and what one in ten are engraved, lol, opsec my ass. And why should they, the atf doesn't have the assets to enforce it. The atf has less assets available to it than the border control has for its mission. Over 10 years of shooting SBR'S in public, not once was I asked for my form 1's in the most populated region in the US. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So if the brace becomes truly illegal to shoulder, and many here are saying "don't care, gonna do it any way", at that point honestly why don't we all just say fuck it, and go ahead and build full-on unregistered SBRs? I mean if you're pretty sure that you'll never be caught or prosecuted with a brace, and you're willing to admit that publicly, what's the difference? We are pretty much there already. There are a lot more unregistered SBRs shot in public than registered. 300 pages of SBR pictures here on arfcom and what one in ten are engraved, lol, opsec my ass. And why should they, the atf doesn't have the assets to enforce it. The atf has less assets available to it than the border control has for its mission. Over 10 years of shooting SBR'S in public, not once was I asked for my form 1's in the most populated region in the US. I find this to be true. I help out at a local Gunsmith's shop and see a couple "illegal" SBRs each month come in. It seems more often than not Billy Bob buys an AR and then a year or two later decides to change the upper out because he likes the look of a 10" bbl. These guys for the most part have no idea what the NFA is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:24:53 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. That would be an NFA Item due to the vertical Foregrip. The Angled Foregrip is different. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..................... The part in red is what doesn't make any sense. Pistols with the sig brace have been sold for a while now, so why would this guy feel the need to write the letter asking if it was legal to build a pistol with the brace? There are a few possible answers. 1. The guy is an idiot. 2. He wanted to show how important he is because he wrote a letter to the ATF and they sent a reply. 3. Some combination of 1&2. I think he wanted to add one of those Magpul AFG grips to his rails and wanted to make sure that was ok? It would still be the same thing, The AFG isn't a vertical grip, who the hell would think it was? If he had done his research he would know that question was asked and answered close to 5 years ago. Hell he could have just built one of these with the sig brace. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/xo_26b_800x_235-tfb.jpg No. That would be an NFA Item due to the vertical Foregrip. The Angled Foregrip is different. If the total OAL of the weapon is great than 26", the ATF classifies your weapon as a "firearm", not a "pistol." Since it is not a pistol, adding a VFG does not make it an AOW (as long as you don't conceal it, from what I understand). It is still, simply, a "firearm." This has been gone over ad nauseam. Someone with the pertinent cites will probably comment shortly, but it is completely 100% legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:25:20 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for that link. The most sensible thing so far in this thread!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you for that link. The most sensible thing so far in this thread!! Ditto, that article spells it out without all the drama. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:27:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. That would be an NFA Item due to the vertical Foregrip. The Angled Foregrip is different. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..................... The part in red is what doesn't make any sense. Pistols with the sig brace have been sold for a while now, so why would this guy feel the need to write the letter asking if it was legal to build a pistol with the brace? There are a few possible answers. 1. The guy is an idiot. 2. He wanted to show how important he is because he wrote a letter to the ATF and they sent a reply. 3. Some combination of 1&2. I think he wanted to add one of those Magpul AFG grips to his rails and wanted to make sure that was ok? It would still be the same thing, The AFG isn't a vertical grip, who the hell would think it was? If he had done his research he would know that question was asked and answered close to 5 years ago. Hell he could have just built one of these with the sig brace. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/xo_26b_800x_235-tfb.jpg No. That would be an NFA Item due to the vertical Foregrip. The Angled Foregrip is different. No, it's an Other Firearm not an Any Other Weapon. As such it is not an NFA regulated item. The pic was to show that in the right configuration a vertical grip can still be legal.[;) http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS_XO-26.html Even more interesting is a court case in the early 90's where the court ruled against the ATF on pistols with a forward vertical grip. http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/us_v_davis2.txt As to the motion to dismiss concerning the two pistols, this
court concludes that the weapons are "pistols" as defined and are not "any other weapons," and that the motion to dismiss as to the pistol counts should be granted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:27:41 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
......................... If the total OAL of the weapon is great than 26", the ATF classifies your weapon as a "firearm", not a "pistol." Since it is not a pistol, adding a VFG does not make it an AOW. It is still, simply, a "firearm." This has been gone over ad nauseam. Completely 100% legal. We are talking about OAL less than 26" with a vertical grip and not a pistol buffer tube. That picture is ok but you can't have a shoulder stock on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:28:31 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I find this to be true. I help out at a local Gunsmith's shop and see a couple "illegal" SBRs each month come in. It seems more often than not Billy Bob buys an AR and then a year or two later decides to change the upper out because he likes the look of a 10" bbl. These guys for the most part have no idea what the NFA is. Not to mention I'm sure there are countless shotguns out there that someone took a hacksaw to cause they saw it in a movie and it looked awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:30:02 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the total OAL of the weapon is great than 26", the ATF classifies your weapon as a "firearm", not a "pistol." Since it is not a pistol, adding a VFG does not make it an AOW (as long as you don't conceal it, from what I understand). It is still, simply, a "firearm." This has been gone over ad nauseam. Someone with the pertinent cites will probably comment shortly, but it is completely 100% legal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..................... The part in red is what doesn't make any sense. Pistols with the sig brace have been sold for a while now, so why would this guy feel the need to write the letter asking if it was legal to build a pistol with the brace? There are a few possible answers. 1. The guy is an idiot. 2. He wanted to show how important he is because he wrote a letter to the ATF and they sent a reply. 3. Some combination of 1&2. I think he wanted to add one of those Magpul AFG grips to his rails and wanted to make sure that was ok? It would still be the same thing, The AFG isn't a vertical grip, who the hell would think it was? If he had done his research he would know that question was asked and answered close to 5 years ago. Hell he could have just built one of these with the sig brace. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/xo_26b_800x_235-tfb.jpg No. That would be an NFA Item due to the vertical Foregrip. The Angled Foregrip is different. If the total OAL of the weapon is great than 26", the ATF classifies your weapon as a "firearm", not a "pistol." Since it is not a pistol, adding a VFG does not make it an AOW (as long as you don't conceal it, from what I understand). It is still, simply, a "firearm." This has been gone over ad nauseam. Someone with the pertinent cites will probably comment shortly, but it is completely 100% legal. It's a miracle! Someone else gets it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:30:55 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are talking about OAL less than 26" with a vertical grip and not a pistol buffer tube. That picture is ok but you can't have a shoulder stock on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
......................... If the total OAL of the weapon is great than 26", the ATF classifies your weapon as a "firearm", not a "pistol." Since it is not a pistol, adding a VFG does not make it an AOW. It is still, simply, a "firearm." This has been gone over ad nauseam. Completely 100% legal. We are talking about OAL less than 26" with a vertical grip and not a pistol buffer tube. That picture is ok but you can't have a shoulder stock on it. Yes, but the post that brich2929 quoted and claimed to contain a picture of an illegal AOW does in fact contain a picture of a "firearm" with an OAL greater than 26". I then quoted him, to inform him that the weapon pictured was not an NFA item. ETA: I added your edit to my quote. Yes, I'm aware the rifle pictured WOULD be an NFA item if you added a buttstock. That would make it an SBR. brich2929 was trying to state that that picture contained an NFA item as it sits. It does not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:33:04 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
............ Yes, but the post that brich2929 quoted and claimed to contain a picture of an illegal AOW does in fact contain a picture of a "firearm" with an OAL greater than 26". I then quoted him, to inform him that the weapon pictured was not an NFA item. Gotcha. ETA: Yes, I misunderstood what you guys were saying.........I agree 100 percent with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:35:05 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are talking about OAL less than 26" with a vertical grip and not a pistol buffer tube. That picture is ok but you can't have a shoulder stock on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
......................... If the total OAL of the weapon is great than 26", the ATF classifies your weapon as a "firearm", not a "pistol." Since it is not a pistol, adding a VFG does not make it an AOW. It is still, simply, a "firearm." This has been gone over ad nauseam. Completely 100% legal. We are talking about OAL less than 26" with a vertical grip and not a pistol buffer tube. That picture is ok but you can't have a shoulder stock on it. 
But you can have a sig brace on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:36:41 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.......................
But you can have a sig brace on it.
Yes you can......................................................................I think?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:37:59 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes you can......................................................................I think? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.......................
But you can have a sig brace on it.
Yes you can......................................................................I think? Whatever you do, don't shoulder it! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:38:58 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whatever you do, don't shoulder it! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.......................
But you can have a sig brace on it.
Yes you can......................................................................I think? Whatever you do, don't shoulder it! This is such a clusterfuck. I hate the NFA!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:44:33 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is such a clusterfuck. I hate the NFA!!
Yes! The problem as I see it is ATF "rulings". Gov't agencies should not be making the law or interpreting it. That's for congress and the courts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 8:47:29 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes! The problem as I see it is ATF "rulings". Gov't agencies should not be making the law or interpreting it. That's for congress and the courts. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is such a clusterfuck. I hate the NFA!!
Yes! The problem as I see it is ATF "rulings". Gov't agencies should not be making the law or interpreting it. That's for congress and the courts. All because of fucking Prohibition and John Fucking Dillinger et. al. And OF COURSE fucking Congress.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 9:53:09 AM EDT
[#49]
LOL, thats like saying ill still use cocaine because it was Legal in the 1800's....
jeez you guys still ranting over this ? just Pay the Man his $200 bucks and have a nice Stamp that says your ''allowed'' to use your shoulder fired less then 16'' barrel rifle. i just picked up a suppressor yesterday... yup, payed the man his $200... no big deal. most you guys take the old ladys out on saturday night and think nothing of eating $200 bucks then dumping it in the toilet the next morning. a SBR will be there the rest of your life.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i will continue to use my brace in the way it suits my personal reason for legally purchasing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 9:54:35 AM EDT
[#50]
hey , might as well go full bore and build M16's too.....lol
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if the brace becomes truly illegal to shoulder, and many here are saying "don't care, gonna do it any way", at that point honestly why don't we all just say fuck it, and go ahead and build full-on unregistered SBRs? I mean if you're pretty sure that you'll never be caught or prosecuted with a brace, and you're willing to admit that publicly, what's the difference? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
