I completely agree with your last point

Here is something to read and comprehend.... It is regarding non AOW "firearms"

http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf


How would you classify an AR pistol with a length over 26" and say...a vfg?  Would you disagree with the ATF?

Letter says nothing about intent. It says "Use", not "intending".

Use has to be proven exponentially in this regard.

Secondly, "Redesigned" is a very narrow definition based on time frame. So can it be "Redesigned" back the other way? The answer is YES! Remember US v Thompson? Once a pistol, it can be reverted to a pistol... Regardless.

Let's ponder this, they already ruled it a brace, correct? So if we send in a Form 1 & get a SBR stamp until I use it as a "Stock" the can not say it is a Rifle because until it is shouldered it isn't a "Stock", but they give the stamp anyway (maybe) which they can't do because it isn't a "Stock" until I "Use" it as one & then I use it "As intended" I am, by there own admission mind you, "Redesigning" it back into a pistol. But it was a pistol " Legally" to begin with... By their own ruling even now.

But once a "Rifle" always a "Rifle", providing it was a rifle to begin with, if not it can go back & forth. , Sayeth the SCOTUS.

You may not also remember the ruling on the comp they "Ruled" a suppressor but the courts said their rationale was incorrect... They are not perfect not rational in their "Rulings".

I will have to learn more about these laws because clearly I want to be within the law. I understood the law as how the weapon was used would not change its classification.? Prior to the sig brace I shouldered the buffer tube when firing. Did that make it an sbr?

i believe it does skirt the law. But the Atf approved it and stated it could be shouldered. Wouldn't have bought one if they hadn't done those things.

Just give the robber what he wants and he'll go away and not harm you.
Don't resist a rapist, you'll end up hurt.
I'd just rather not get involved...

It's still a pistol, with or without a Sig Brace.

Firing an MOE stock from the hip "redesigns" it into a hip brace rather than a shoulder stock - so with a barrel under 16" you have a pistol or firearm rather than an SBR since it is no longer designed to be fried from the shoulder...

I'm keeping my braces so I can do this with my AR pistols! (and yes, I know those are SBS's, but same concept.  Heck, maybe Mila needs some Sigbraces!)

Reread the above and try to concentrate on the words written. We are talking about SBRs here not AOWs.





I wrote "With a barrel under 16" or an AOL under 26" that is a SBR."





Your responded with "And with one over 26"....it's not "





You are saying a rifle with an OAL of less than 26" is not a SBR.





And I often disagree with the ATF. I can also show you 2 letter that claim an AR pistol over 26" OAL is not classified as a pistol but as a firearm all by itself, regardless of a vfg or not.





 

Someone has to be the first. All it takes is a nosy cop and or a nosy ATF agent.

A few years ago I hosted a three gun match and had put flyers up all over, one of my shooters put a flyer up in a hardware store in bumpfuck indiana. Two DEA agents showed up because of that flyer. You never know who is at the range shooting and if that person decides hey that looks like an illegal gun let's see if it is. To save 200 bucks it's not worth the risk to me.

Not seeing where I said that but I'm sorry if  I miscommunicated

I love loop holes.

FIFY

In before someone tells me I should not post a non-NFA AOW firearm in a pistol forum?

Maybe they are not SBSs

http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=88

Haha. Exactly. If its the shape of a stock then maybe they should have ruled it a stock.  But they didn't.

No he didn't.  He never equipped it with a stock.

There is no loophole.  that is libtard talk.

There is legal or not and the Sig Brace is legal for an AR15 Pistol.

Someone should design a combination pistol stabilizer/bumpfire "stock"

I'm really not sure what all the hoopla is about regarding the brace and I sure as heck don't get whey people would just dump them...

They are still perfectly legal to own and use.

I'm probably going to scoop 2 or 3 more up just to have since they are so cheap now.


Unless I'm missing something as to why I should be panicking but it just seems foolish.

In some of the FTB letter's to different arm brace manufacturers it read's something like this:

Based on our evaluation,FTB find's that the submitted forearm brace, when attatched to the firearm,
does not convert that weapon to be fired from the shoulder and would no alter the classification
of a pistol or other firearm. While a fire arm so equipped would still be regulated by the Gun Control Act, 18
U.S.C. 921 (a) (3) , such a firearm would not be subject to NFA controls.

key word's:
does not convert
would not alter the classification
such a fire arm would not be subject to NFA controls.

would some one be so kind to clarify?
if there where a way to post the file letter here?

What bug's me the most is what right does that other person or agency have on how,when and where I should play with my property witch was purchased by legal mean's and was approved by a government branch to be legal.

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.

Piss off.
Many people got something very verstile and something they should have been able to have all along.

They went through great effort to COMPLY with the law.

Now an agency wants to put them out of compliance without any new legislation.

You call it skirt but the fact is that they complied.

Sit and spin.

You are so completely and utterly wrong that it's not even worth the time to try and explain it to you.

I'm sure you went through "great effort" to comply. You saw it, you bought it, expending no more effort than you would to buying a Big Mac at McDonald's.



 

Live in fear people!

While the new ruling from ATF could change otherwise legal gun owners into felons overnight if they are arrested for shouldering what was for the past year a perfectly legal pistol, firearms law experts say the bureau’s logic is unlikely to stand up to any court challenge.

The key, legal experts say, is that the ATF is essentially saying that by misusing something -- putting an arm brace to your shoulder -- the shooter is “redesigning” the item into something else.

“If an individual builds an AR-type pistol using a SigTac SB-15 brace, uses it in the manner for which it were (sic) designed and then hands it to a friend who shoulders it, did the friend just ‘redesign’ the brace?” wonders Adam Kraut, a firearms lawyer with the Prince Law Offices in Pennsylvania. “According to this letter they just did. So is the firearm no longer a pistol and now a SBR?”

“I don’t know of a single person who would think that “redesign” entails the misuse of an object,” Kraut adds. “If anything, I would venture to say it would require the individual to modify an existing object. If I were to use a screwdriver to pry open an object did I just redesign it? Is using a pencil to drum on the table redesigning it into a drum stick?”

It is unclear how this ruling will affect the exploding AR pistol market, which has blossomed since the ATF’s March ruling saying shouldering the brace wasn’t illegal.

LOL you all poked the bear.

AR pistols are next on their list.

Please don't hate Freedom out of excitants when I'm just old enough to appreciate it.

This has gone so far off topic but I am going to try this one more time using a simple concept of our legal system & leave it at that.

One question:

What has changed?

All of you keep calling that Open Letter a Ruling. It is not a legal ruling. It is an Open letter. Even if it were an open letter that will result in anything that has happened prior to the change in their "opinion" we must consider the legal concept that you can not be prosecuted for an act prior to the creation of a law. Keeping in mind that there has been no change to the classification of the item that is the topic of discussion.

Example: Johny law is running a speed trap on a road posted at 45MPH. You are radard at 42MPH. The next month the city reduces the speed limit on that road to 35MPH. You all honestly believe that Johny law can come give you a ticket for going 42MPH in a 35MPH speed zone?

If an individual believes that they are a real ignorant individual that does not know the first thing about Laws or prosecutions there-of & you should not be posting your ignorant opinions on a national forum.

For the last time stop using the term "intent" prior to usage as that has nothing to do with it. It all boils down to USE & USE ONLY

This is also a tech forum. Get to the topic of some form of Tech or this should be moved to the legal discussion or GD forum or locked. I vote for locked because right now it is all mental masturbation.

The use they talk about is the use of the brace as a shoulder stock. Nowhere does it mention the use of the actual firearm.






IF you put it on a firearm intended to be shoulder fired then you are using it as a shoulder stock, and making a NFA firearm if the barrel is under 16".






From the letter:













"Any
person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder
stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a
smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first
file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting
firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA."
Now how is intent not relevant again? They even point out that you must first file a form 1 and pay the tax. FIRST i.e. BEFORE it is used to fire the firearm.
This part:
"use as a shoulder stock constitutes a "redesign" of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item."
Deals with those individuals that that have already used it on a firearm as a shoulder stock as highlighted above. Why? Because they already put it on the pistol with the intent of shoulder firing it and have been using it as such. So if you use it as a shoulder stock, i.e. put it on a pistol with intent to shoulder fire, then you have redesigned the brace as a stock.
It can very easily been read my way as yours. I believe my way is correct since the ATF cannot rewrite federal law which they would be doing in your interpretation. Now put down the internet and walk away.
 

Thank you.

Let me lay this out one more time & then you can walk away... Because your interpretive skills are lacking. What do you think "Use" means? Is it before it is used or at the moment it is used that constitutes "Use" in this context?

If you intend to use it & will, before you do, as the "Redesign" does not occur until actual usage, meaning "Used", they are saying you have to get a Form 1 Stamp. Simply intending to does not, I repeat DOES NOT constitute a redesign.

The rest is BS as the so-called redesign does not occur until that time, as up until that point it is still a pistol.

Last part "Use as a shoulder stock constitutes a "Redesign"..:"  the second part "...because a possessor has changed the very function of the item." if only temporarily... So can it not still be used as a Brace again & by their own admission "Redesigned" again back into a Pistol? So how would they know since the context of "Changed the Function" is time relative & might I add very constructive & very vaguely set. Has it "Really" changed the function so much that it can't be used as a brace? In order to truly change a function it must be manifested into a permanent entity.

Before this open letter as up to that point it was stated that the use does not change the classification, there's that whole can of worms... They ruled it a Brace & that is what it is. They have yet to change that... & about a redesign occurring because you use something a certain way is a bit of a stretch...

Which a court may very well disagree with.
Example: If I use a knife as a prying tool one time, to say open a paint can, like a paint can opener, & proceed to go about carrying it concealed without a permit can I tell the cops "Oh it's OK, I used it to open a can like a can opener so it isn't a knife any more because I "redesigned" it into a can opener & the ATF says in an open letter if I use something different from what it was intended or designed for I have redesigned it because I "changed the very function". Do you think a cop isn't going to arrest me & a judge will buy that whole story for one second or will he say "No son, That is a knife right there. How you used it is irrelevant because it is still a weapon."

The only way that would fly is if I "Permanantly" modified it to look & function Exactly like a can opener. Or knives are redefined as can openers & no longer a weapon.

Besides, Intent can change...

At some point you got the impression we live in a Minority Report type prosecutorial system of Law. But by all means keep interjecting your bullying & finger wagging into a tech forum.

Fact is, ATF enforces law. They do not make it. This is remaking law. Their arbitrary definition of the word "redesign" will not hold in court.

The brace is still a brace today, as it was when first approved. The only thing that makes it a stock now is "redesign'' through actual use(intent).

Again, this will not stand as precedent! Which is what will be needed for the ATF to enforce their opinion.

It's still just your opinion scooter. My interpretation is as, if not, more accurate than yours. Look at the part I highlighted. "Anyone who intends to use...must first..." So in this context "use" is stipulated as before. That is because if you intend to use it as a stock it will become a stock. A little comprehension training would go a long way in your understanding the English language.




And look who's calling the kettle black, your a newbie 13er trying to dictate moving this to a different forum or locking it down like your opinion even matters to anyone.


This is a tech matter on a tech forum, If you don't like it GTFO!





 

I think Prince Law opined an absurd position created by the ATF letter.   What if you buy a pistol with the brace intending only to use it as a brace and hand it to your friend who intends to shoulder it and then does shoulder it while firing.  Now he hands it back to you.  Are you now in illegal possession of a short barreled rifle because your friend redesigned it?  Or can you redesign it back to a pistol just by using it as a brace?

This argument shows why "use" is irrelevant and not part of the definition and can't be part of the definition of redesign.  

Let's calm down children. This is a matter only the courts can truly define.

Since there is yet to be case law setting precedent it's all speculation.

If Sig takes legal action we'll find out down the road.

The latest opinion amounts to a public temper tantrum and I view it with as much seriousness.

Exactly.

So let's end the finger wagging, I told you so mentality that serves no other purpose but that of the Devils advocate.

You think you can use a knife as a can opener & it be called a can opener after that point?

Simple question, simple answer.

People,when they are wrong, love to resort to when you joined around here. Classic diversionary tactics.

No more than I think you can hold a brace to your shoulder and redesign it as a stock.


You can however redesign it if you install it on a firearm you intend to be fired from the shoulder. Then and only then have you redesigned for it for a purpose other than what it was originally designed for. Take it back off and it's just a piece of rubber again.





So now you've changed the question around to a knife screwdriver BS crap simply to evade my questions? Classic diversionary of someone who can't admit they are wrong. Climb back down into your mom's basement scooter, this is adult business being discussed.


 

You're still arguing ilogical semantics for the man.

Even at that, Still not "redesigned" until you use it as a stock. Up until that point it is still a pistol.

That is the tech of it.

You use it as a stock as soon as you install it on a firearm designed, made and intended to be fired from the shoulder.



How about that pistol, by your account it can't even be a pistol until you fire it.

If you build a pistol using a rifle buffer tube are you not using the rifle buffer tube as a pistol buffer tube before you fire the pistol?



The only way the brace can be a stock is if it is used on a firearm intended to be fired from the shoulder, not simply used to fire from the shoulder.



The point I am making is that the ATF is wrong in this letter if they wrote it with the meaning YOU are putting on it. Don't try and tell anyone I am arguing "for the man" when You are the one agreeing with him.



And for God's sake if you can't comprehend the English language at least try and learn how to spell.



 

It does seem to be headed in that direction. I'll just add him to my ignore list so I can't be lured into his bottomless pit by his antagonistic BS.



Thanks Wilson for the swift kick in the ass.
 

Run for your life, im shouldering an SB15 brace this weekend!

HIDE YER DAG!

the main thing i have learned form all this and the take away is that there are a  lot of fucking idiots posting on arfcom. some people should not have access to a keyboard let alone a fucking loaded gun!

Come on now. You have to know better than that.

Rule #1) A pistol or a firearm is not a Rifle until you put a stock on it.

Rule #2) A Sig brace is a Brace. Period. If it was otherwise it wouldn't be able to be sold on the new Black Ace 12g.

Let's leave it at that & call it good.

My world just got a little bit better.

I would if I had one...

Lawl

Lol Jurassic Park SB15 brace emrbryos