New ATF info regarding the Sig Brace

[Malamute]

Saw this elswhere. It locked up my old computer to try to open the PDF, so I havent read it yet.

Saw this posted over at calguns, thought I'd propagate the knowledge here:

"open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces "

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...ing_braces.pdf

The core info:


The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock,
and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor
has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary
to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

[Grizz]

first thing I did was remove it.

so IDC, but isn't it funny to have two opposite "facts" issued from the same two-faces?

[FWiedner]

Seems pretty straight-forward.

The thing wasn't defined as a shoulder-stock when it was first reviewed by the BATFE, and any use as a shoulder-stock is cause for reclassification.

[Grizz]

Seems pretty straight-forward.

The thing wasn't defined as a shoulder-stock when it was first reviewed by the BATFE, and any use as a shoulder-stock is cause for reclassification.

the pistol I bought was sent out with a copy of a letter written by the BATFE stating that any use as a shoulder-stock does not alter the classification.

20152738.JPG

[FWiedner]

Seems pretty straight-forward.

The thing wasn't defined as a shoulder-stock when it was first reviewed by the BATFE, and any use as a shoulder-stock is cause for reclassification.

the pistol I bought was sent out with a copy of a letter written by the BATFE stating that any use as a shoulder-stock does not alter the classification.

20152738.JPG

Your letter doesn't say anything about it being acceptable to use as a shoulder-stock, rather, it explains it's proper use as a brace.

In fact, it says specifically that the the thing is not intended to be used to fire from the shoulder.

I don't see any disparity.

[carbluesnake]

I was tempted to get an 8" weapon with an 'other' lower. I am familiar with both letters from the ATF. ATF, in a nutshell, is going to look at intent of the purchaser. Did he purchase with the intent of using the brace as a shoulder stock? May be hard to defend against. People will testify they saw you shoot it as a shoulder stock. Better get a stamp for an SBR. May be the cheapest form of insurance you ever got. That is what I did and now I will put a real stock on my SBR, and a folder at that. Over all length in my vehicle will be 18".

[Grizz]

Seems pretty straight-forward.

The thing wasn't defined as a shoulder-stock when it was first reviewed by the BATFE, and any use as a shoulder-stock is cause for reclassification.

the pistol I bought was sent out with a copy of a letter written by the BATFE stating that any use as a shoulder-stock does not alter the classification.

20152738.JPG

Your letter doesn't say anything about it being acceptable to use as a shoulder-stock, rather, it explains it's proper use as a brace.

In fact, it says specifically that the the thing is not intended to be used to fire from the shoulder.

I don't see any disparity.

sorry, here ya go.

par 3, last line
par 4, first sentence
par 4, last sentence

it isn't my letter, it is a government document.

seems very plain and easy to understand

some stumble trying to make it say something it doesn't say

it does say that the pistol brace goes on a pistol buffer and "provides....additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand"

nothing about this precludes operating a pistol with two hands, or buffering the buffer with a leg support, or even making contact with the arm or shoulder while shooting with one or two hands. it is not a stock by their definition and does not make the pistol "subject to NFA controls."

I get that the SBR guys are exercised because they paid a tax in order to be subject to NFA controls. It's amazing who expanding freedoms get opposed by. When the obvious fault lies in a government violating its own founding documents and making laws they ought not to make. I am totally in favor in more untaxed personal freedom.

[Grizz]

I was tempted to get an 8" weapon with an 'other' lower. I am familiar with both letters from the ATF. ATF, in a nutshell, is going to look at intent of the purchaser. Did he purchase with the intent of using the brace as a shoulder stock? May be hard to defend against. People will testify they saw you shoot it as a shoulder stock. Better get a stamp for an SBR. May be the cheapest form of insurance you ever got. That is what I did and now I will put a real stock on my SBR, and a folder at that. Over all length in my vehicle will be 18".

the ar I got is a pistol built on a fresh lower with a pistol buffer and designated as a pistol on the fed form, I forget the number. my intent, from invoice to state and federal forms, is to have a pistol.

[AJMD429]

the ar I got is a pistol built on a fresh lower with a pistol buffer and designated as a pistol on the fed form, I forget the number. my intent, from invoice to state and federal forms, is to have a pistol.

It sounds like they are claiming the ability to tell YOU what your 'intent' is, and if that is the case, they can always allege your intent CHANGED...

You know that if you bought a rifle intending to use it as a deer-rifle, then got in a funk and decided to saw it off and hold up liquor stores with it, your initial 'intent' to have it for deer hunting would surely not defend against the charges they'd levy when you got caught holding up liquor stores with it. (Another separate issue is that in our hoplophobic society, your holding up the liquor store and killing innocent people would get you a 6 month suspended sentence, but your 'gun crime' would get you ten years or something ridiculous.)

The BIG problem with this is if it is not opposed strongly (and the 'sporting community' never does that unless the infringement involves walnut-and-blued steel family heirlooms ), it will serve as precedent for using 'intent' and even how you hold your firearm as a basis not for some minor ticket, but for federal prison and Second Amendment revocation for you and other household members...

According to this logic IF YOU USE TWO HANDS TO FIRE YOUR REVOLVER they could allege you were no longer intending to use it as a 'handgun' since a handgun is something that may be fired one-handed.

Maybe if you shoot your semiauto too fast, they can allege you are 'intending' to use it as if it is a full-auto, regardless of whether or not it is actually one...

Or what if you use subsonic ammo in a non-suppressed firearm - does that mean you 'intended' to have a suppressed firearm, even though you don't have a stamp...????

OR for that matter, what if you don't have the brace on, and just put the 'pistol buffer tube' up to your shoulder - is that really any different...???????????

I do find the brace helpful for shooting the gun as a handgun, but I don't shoot it one-handed - I use my right hand through the brace but the gun is still too heavy to shoot one-handed for my weeny arms, so I use my left hand on the handguard. However, until I get an SBR stamp, I removed it but part of the reason is that the brace interferes with the 100-round drum...



(actually, can't get the drum to function with 300 Blk for some reason - I think the follower pressure is too great and stops the bolt from cycling forward fully... ...but at least it looks cool and can be used to annoy hoplophobic liberals... )

[horsesoldier03]

I honestly fail to see the attraction to an AR pistol anyways. IMO, the shortest barrel that is even practical on an AR would be a minimum of 12-14". An AR with a 7-9" barrel is not only LOUD as all git out, it compromises velocity, accuracy, and increases the muzzle flash.

[AJMD429]

So. . . if you don't have a firearm at the construction site, and some psycho attacks you while you're holding a NAIL GUN, don't dare use it to defend yourself, or according to the ATF, you will have "manufactured a NFA weapon"...........

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning.

“Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing antipersonnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

Lots of 'Sig Arm Braces' now by the way...


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/0 ... il-rifles/

There are articles out there minimizing the impact of the 'revision', but I think it is a dangerous precedent.

[AJMD429]

I honestly fail to see the attraction to an AR pistol anyways. IMO, the shortest barrel that is even practical on an AR would be a minimum of 12-14". An AR with a 7-9" barrel is not only LOUD as all git out, it compromises velocity, accuracy, and increases the muzzle flash.

I would not want one in 223, but having one in 300 Blk and using subsonics is AWESOME...

It is not loud (even supersonic 300 Blk loads seem quieter than 223's out of my 20" AR, and subsonics I'd be ok using without hearing protection if necessary).

It IS accurate - I can't shoot this well at 50 yards with any of my other handguns...!!
(two groups, one before sight adjustment)


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=61670

300 Blk is really perfect for the AR pistol format, but I agree, 223 in a 'pistol' is too noisy and not a good match. Maybe with a built-in integrally-suppressed barrel and subsonic ammo, but adding a suppressor to an AR 'pistol' makes it nearly as bulky as a carbine anyway, and I'm not thinking there is all that much subsonic 223's have to offer for what I'd ever be doing. On the other hand, 300 Blk seems like a good home-protection firearm in an AR pistol format. Easy to shoot, high capacity, not deafening, and probably intimidating enough that sometimes you won't have to actually pull the trigger.

[Grizz]

I've read articles saying that an 8" barrel is sufficient for 300 BLK subsonics out to 300 yards. the little cracker is so efficient it seems that more barrel is not needed unless more distance is wanted. for that the supersonics take over, but I don't know anything specific about barrel length and performance of the supers.

I have read a number of times that a 16" barrel is completely wasted on the 300.

For me the idea of an AR pistol is that I can carry it loaded, condition one, with as many mags as I desire, in my car, concealed, legally. That's what the big deal is.

An alternative is a pistol AK. But they don't seem to give the 400 meter heart stopper performance of the 300.

Grizz

[AJMD429]

An alternative is a pistol AK. But they don't seem to give the 400 meter heart stopper performance of the 300.

I agree (from what I've read) and what I've seen in the 300 Blk's I've owned (three AR rifles, an Encore 16" rifle, and the AR pistol); the Encore was accurate if you seat the bullets out (farther than would fit in an AR magazine), and the AR pistol was the most accurate so far (using 180 grain subsonics) of the 'AR' ones.

It seems strange that the AK 7.62 Rus wouldn't out-perform the AR 300 Blk in terms of 'performance' since they both shoot similar-diameter bullets and the AK has the option of more powder/horsepower when needed for the heavy bullets or higher velocities. I can see how it would not be as accurate, just due to the 'platform' differences. Still, in a PISTOL, especially one not necessarily used for 'target' or 'hunting' (where hearing protection is easily applied), but rather for 'protection' (where hearing protection is not likely to be donned) - I would rather have a reliable SUBSONIC 30 (or greater) caliber, high-capacity, firearm.

In that sense, a 45 ACP or properly loaded 45 Colt, 44 Special, etc. would suffice, in a PISTOL that can be trusted to be reliable out to at least 50 yards and preferably 100.

That is why I still vacillate between my Para P-14 and my 300 Blk AR-Pistol... Certainly the P-14 is easier to conceal, and with 20-round magazines (15's fit flush but 20's stick out about an inch), a P-14 with a 15-rounder installed and three or four 20-rounders in a pouch makes for a good 'vehicle-gun' in the worst circumstances (well, maybe in the worst circumstances, I might rather have my M1-A or an AR carbine in 223 (and hearing protection)).

Tough Choice.........

75 rounds of 45 ACP (15 rounds of 45 ACP with another 60 rounds in three spare magazines)


http://para-usa.com/2013/firearms/tacti ... ps1445.php

or 120 rounds of 300 Blk (30 rounds of 300 Blk with another 90 if I have three spares)
(the 100 rounder looks cool , but is just TOO bulky for practical use, plus functions better with real 223 than 300 Blk)



The AR pistol IS more accurate at 50 yards, but the 1911 double-stack has concealability that dwarfs the AR, even if it has more ordinary straight magazines.

I guess since we live in AMERICA, we (unless we live in police-states like New York, California, Illinois, or New Jersey) get the choice, so shouldn't complain...

[Grizz]

I like that you have both. it's all about 'choice' ya know . . .

I think the lethality is there either way, but accurate block parties are better served by the ar package, in my imagination. my recent middle of the night jaunt to the seattle airport found me with my 45 on my hip and my 9mm on my ankle. I would not have felt over-equipped to have a 300 along, and would have been comforted if I had to do any unanticipated walking.

[carbluesnake]

The whole reason for a pistol is to fight your way to a rifle. Rifles just carry more power than pistols (I know there are exceptions). The idea of a 45 AND a compact rifle in a vehicle is a great idea. I know some would say you have too much equipment. Better have a plan B and never need it, than have only a plan A, and it all goes to .......! If it can happen, it will happen, especially in a gunfight. That is why people train to clear malfunctions, shoot one handed, and shoot weak handed. The SBR in 300 seems to be a great idea, and you do have accuracy in the short barrels, and blast is greatly minimized in a 300.

[jhrosier]

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock,
and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor
has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary
to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

When I read the above, It seemed to be familiar, so I did some further research and found the original quote.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

Now I am beginning to understand....

Jack

[carbluesnake]

Jack, you are a piece of work. In a few words, you said it all. Congrats!

[FWiedner]

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock,
and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor
has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary
to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

When I read the above, It seemed to be familiar, so I did some further research and found the original quote.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

Now I am beginning to understand....

Jack

The difference is that Humpty had no legal authority.

[Old Ironsights]

Neither do the BATmen... at least not Constitutional Authority.

They've just got SWAT teams.

[AJMD429]

Neither do the BATmen... at least not Constitutional Authority.

They've just got SWAT teams.

They just adhere to Mao's philosophy - that all power eminates from the barrel of a gun...

[AJMD429]

More on this - https://youtu.be/tK6YJ3BD2-8

[jdad]

I don't know if I would want to challenge the interpretation. I don't think the ATF (or the IRS for that matter) has any sense of humor.

Right or wrong who really wants to invite the "man" into their lives.

[Richardx]

Don't poke the bear.

[AJMD429]

Don't poke the bear.

That's kinda what I figure. Only I'd say "wolf" rather than bear....