Sig arm brace -- important legal update


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

kimberkid
July 10, 2014, 07:40 PM
I already have several SBR's & suppressors so I'm no virgin to NFA.

I was all set to send in form 1's to SBR an AK, C-93 pistol & V-51 pistol and another AR lower ... then came the Arm Brace, I put one on an AK, took it out & shot it and ever since have been asking myself, why bother with the expense, regulations and the frustrating wait?

If you enjoyed reading about "Sig arm brace -- important legal update" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dogtown tom
July 10, 2014, 08:18 PM
My thoughts are just the opposite. I can't see paying $150 for an "arm brace" when an SBR stamp is $200.

The arm brace is a poor substitute for a real shoulder stock.

wally
July 10, 2014, 08:36 PM
My thoughts are just the opposite. I can't see paying $150 for an "arm brace" when an SBR stamp is $200.

$150 s MSRP, you'll buy them for less at gun shows or on-line. Don't forget that a stock starts at ~$50 & up and needs to be added after you get the stamp.

I think the arm-brace is a great place to start, you can always do the stamp later and have something to shoot while waiting for the stamp. If you don't like shooting with the arm brace you probably won't like shooting the SBR either and the arm brace will likely be easier to sell than an SBR.

horsemen61
July 10, 2014, 09:00 PM
I am now more interested than ever before no huge wait oh yeah huge plus

basicblur
July 10, 2014, 09:29 PM
Still waiting on tax stamps for 3 silencers (almost 8 months now) - after buying, I started thinking about a SBR, but after doing my research, I just bought a Tavor and avoided all the headache, paperwork, time, legal hassles, and the darn thing is shorter than 'bout all SBR ARs.

I live in VA and belong to a gun club in NC, so there's the added hassle of asking the ATF "mother may I" to carry a SBR across the state line.

For anyone that's interested in the Arm Brace, I got an e-mail from SIG today - you can order from them for sale price of $124.95 (says regular is $139) and you get a free 36" Rifle Bag ($129 value).

You have to call (866) 619-1128 or (603) 418-8102 Monday through Friday, 8:30AM to 8:00PM EST.

Buzznrose
July 10, 2014, 10:01 PM
Ordered one today from Sig...$125 and the free case. I was gonna go the SBR NFA route and then really got turned off by all the added hassles (can't take it out of state without permission, can't pass it on to an heir, can't sell it easily, can't move to another state, etc.)

I'll deal with the brace...too many folks saying too many good things to believe its not at least worth the try....

Anmut
July 10, 2014, 10:07 PM
When it first came out I thought it was gimicky, but watching the reviews and shouldering a few AR's and AK's with them, I'm impressed. I'll probably be adding one to my PAP.

Superpsy
July 10, 2014, 10:09 PM
You can pass it on to heirs via trusts.

To answer the question, it definitely has....for ARs. ;)

dogtown tom
July 10, 2014, 10:31 PM
Buzznrose .......can't take it out of state without permission,
Sure you can.....just swap in a 16"bbl.


can't pass it on to an heirSeriously? Never heard of a Form 5 have ya?;)



....can't sell it easily,
It's VERY easy......just remove the short bbl and sell upper and lower separately. While ATF would like you to tell them you did this its not required.


.....can't move to another state, etc.)
Huh?:scrutiny: You need to reconsider the source of all your incorrect NFA information.

dogtown tom
July 10, 2014, 10:34 PM
Superpsy You can pass it on to heirs via trusts.
I don't believe trusts have "heirs".

If you die, any NFA firearms that were registered to you (an individual) can be transferred tax free to your heirs via a Form 5.

Buzznrose
July 10, 2014, 10:49 PM
Sure you can.....just swap in a 16"bbl


Seriously? Never heard of a Form 5 have ya?;)




It's VERY easy......just remove the short bbl and sell upper and lower separately. While ATF would like you to tell them you did this its not required.



Huh?:scrutiny: You need to reconsider the source of all your incorrect NFA information.

Okay, so two of your answers require changing the gun from an SBR to a 16" rifle...so you support my point

Passing on to heirs is not automatic, it requires more paperwork from the BATF

Remove and sell parts separately? Again, gotta change the configuration and deal with potentially separate buyers...

And the whole "trust" deal means I have to pay another fee for the thing...

All this to be able to put a stock on the gun that is, from many accounts, marginally better than the brace, functionally speaking. Sure, a b5 stock is better, but I'm not convinced its hundreds of dollars in fees and a 9 month wait better.

If we didn't have to deal with this stupid regulation nightmare, I'd be all down for a full blown mk18, but for now, I'll pass on the BATF BS and run the Sig brace

kimberkid
July 11, 2014, 01:54 AM
I wanted to get the feeling of the general population, and now that there is some conversation flowing here's my opinion ...

My answer is yes and no ... It depends on what it is.

I'm of the opinion some SBR's are more important than others ... The winner and the only one I'm going to SBR for now is the PAP-85 AK pistol I originally bought to SBR, then bought the Arm Brace for ... At this point I'll wait & see what develops with the ATF if anything ... and see what comes out for the HK line before I buy any more Arm Braces.

My reasons have already been mentioned above, but the main thing was the wait. I was all ready to extend the barrel on the AK pistol & add the required parts to make it 922r compliant which I would have to do anyway when I SBR'd it but this way I could play with it while I waited for the stamp, I'd already even bought the parts ... then I heard the ATF's position on the Arm Brace and decided what the hell.

In the center is the PAP-85, it was the first one. It's built with the SiG Arm Brace and a hinge from ACE Rifle Stocks so it will fold. The top one is an AMD-65 I built from a kit ... because it's a pistol I couldn't put the forward grip on it without doing the AOW thing so I modified a Romanian gas tube and put AKM hand guards on it.
Last but not least is the AR pistol and while I used an extended length pistol buffer tube, I wish it was about an inch longer.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/kimberkid/Toys/P7110697.jpg

justice06rr
July 11, 2014, 03:41 AM
My thoughts are just the opposite. I can't see paying $150 for an "arm brace" when an SBR stamp is $200.

The arm brace is a poor substitute for a real shoulder stock.


And my thoughts are the exact opposite. :)

You also are ommiting the other costs and hassles of registering an SBR, whether you use a Trust, CLEO approval, etc.

I've handled SBR's and also have an AR pistol with the SB15. The brace is not a "poor" subsitute at all if properly configured to the correct LOP. It actually works very well when shouldered with the correct LOP. There are a few options for pistol tubes now that allow a longer LOP using the brace.

The biggest downside of SBR's, is that you have to register them to the government after paying them a stupid tax stamp... and waiting for months.
Now if you have an SBR, then more power to you. But some of us like to fly under the radar, and don't like paying these gov't extortion fees.

Buzznrose
July 11, 2014, 09:16 AM
And my thoughts are the exact opposite. :)



You also are ommiting the other costs and hassles of registering an SBR, whether you use a Trust, CLEO approval, etc.



I've handled SBR's and also have an AR pistol with the SB15. The brace is not a "poor" subsitute at all if properly configured to the correct LOP. It actually works very well when shouldered with the correct LOP. There are a few options for pistol tubes now that allow a longer LOP using the brace.



The biggest downside of SBR's, is that you have to register them to the government after paying them a stupid tax stamp... and waiting for months.

Now if you have an SBR, then more power to you. But some of us like to fly under the radar, and don't like paying these gov't extortion fees.


Totally agree with this....

Would I prefer to put a quality adjustable stock on my AR pistol? Yes.

Is it worth the hassle over simply using the SB15 brace? Nope...not for me...

AlexanderA
July 11, 2014, 09:25 AM
This "arm brace" thing is making a mockery of the whole SBR/SBS category. By any reasonable standard, it's a "stock," even though, for technical reasons, the ATF has ruled that it's not a "stock" (I wouldn't put it past them to change their minds on this).

What this underlines is the need to simply remove SBR's/SBS's from the NFA entirely. They were originally placed in the NFA when it was proposed that the NFA regulate handguns, and the SBR/SBS regulation was a corollary to that, to the extent that handgun-like weapons could be made from long guns. Then handguns were taken out of the proposed NFA, but, perhaps through oversight, the SBR's/SBS's were left in.

Technology has bypassed the NFA in many ways. For example, modern semiautomatic rifles are just as effective as machine guns, in practical use. From a purely logical viewpoint, then, either we regulate AR-15's like FA M16's (which isn't going to happen, since that horse is already out of the barn), or we regulate neither of them.

Once we get past the emotion, the only reasonable thing is to simply repeal the entire NFA. It's long outlived its usefulness (if it ever had any to start with).

boricua9mm
July 11, 2014, 10:46 AM
You also are ommiting the other costs and hassles of registering an SBR, whether you use a Trust, CLEO approval, etc.

The only "hassle" of a trust is in the initial setup. It's flushing out the details with a lawyer, or going at it yourself by creating your own. Once you have a trust, a vacuum is created in your collection and you WILL be adding more NFA items.

I've handled SBR's and also have an AR pistol with the SB15. The brace is not a "poor" subsitute at all if properly configured to the correct LOP. It actually works very well when shouldered with the correct LOP. There are a few options for pistol tubes now that allow a longer LOP using the brace.

No offense to anyone, but many of us find the brace to be hideous. On an AR pistol, perhaps not as bad, but on anything else they look atrocious.

The biggest downside of SBR's, is that you have to register them to the government after paying them a stupid tax stamp... and waiting for months.
Now if you have an SBR, then more power to you. But some of us like to fly under the radar, and don't like paying these gov't extortion fees.

The Gov't radar excuse doesn't make much sense. Almost everyone on this board had filled out a Form 4473 at one point in their lives. Make no mistake, the Gov't already knows you have guns. The only ones they might not be aware of are ones that you've purchased in a face-to-face transaction where no phone calls or emails where involved. Heck, by us simply posting on this board, the Gov't knows we have guns.

If someone lives in a free state and has the opportunity to own NFA items, I can think of no reason not to. Life is short and you only get one go at it. The $200 tax stamp is a pittance in the long run, especially since most NFA purchases (especially Form 1 items) tend to be kept indefinitely.

Elkins45
July 11, 2014, 06:34 PM
The arm brace won't help me much if I want to SBR my 10/22.

TIMC
July 11, 2014, 07:55 PM
I was on the fence until I got one, I am really liking the Sig Brace on my AR pistol. I took it out for the first time Wednesday and really enjoyed shooting the gun more than ever. I am now thinking of doing an AK pistol as well.

This is my AR pistol.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/timc/8112A528-87B7-475C-BC3F-4CC4AC4B4FE2_zpsq1e5ssya.jpg

Theohazard
July 11, 2014, 08:35 PM
The arm brace won't help me much if I want to SBR my 10/22.
It could. All you need is a 10/22 stock with an AR-style collapsable stock and a "buffer tube" where you can cut off the notches. Once the notches are gone, the arm brace should fit just fine. And since you can no longer attach a stock to it, you don't have to worry about getting busted for constructive possession of an SBR.

dogmush
July 11, 2014, 09:41 PM
Yes. I mostly play with AR's.

I won't SBR another AR when I can just get the tube I want and put a brace on with the right LOP.

I will still SBR my GSG-5 (eventually). If I had AK's, maybe. My trust is going to end up silencers only unless I find a screaming deal on a machine gun.

Blade First
July 11, 2014, 10:36 PM
"No offense to anyone, but many of us find the brace to be hideous. On an AR pistol, perhaps not as bad, but on anything else they look atrocious."

No offense to you, but most of us find the brace to be an elegant solution. And, since you seem to miss the point entirely, the brace is used on a pistol, looks fine and solves multiple problems inherent in dealing with slow-as-molasses fed brxs.

On the other hand, you might man-up enough to actually communicate with the vet who designed the brace and, through sheer determination, rec'd a BATFE finding...the results of which are EXPLICITLY outlined in each brace shipped.

Whatever you and your putative "many" find "hideous", I'd suggest you can't quite adopt a rational conclusion. Emotion? Yes! Logic? No!!!

Buzznrose
July 11, 2014, 11:09 PM
"No offense to anyone, but many of us find the brace to be hideous. On an AR pistol, perhaps not as bad, but on anything else they look atrocious."

No offense to you, but most of us find the brace to be an elegant solution. And, since you seem to miss the point entirely, the brace is used on a pistol, looks fine and solves multiple problems inherent in dealing with slow-as-molasses fed brxs.

On the other hand, you might man-up enough to actually communicate with the vet who designed the brace and, through sheer determination, rec'd a BATFE finding...the results of which are EXPLICITLY outlined in each brace shipped.

Whatever you and your putative "many" find "hideous", I'd suggest you can't quite adopt a rational conclusion. Emotion? Yes! Logic? No!!!

Hideous? Seriously? Hideous would be Rosie O'Donnell in Daisy Duke shorts! And Elegant? I can't really think of anything that's made of plastic, nylon, and aluminum as elegant. Cool, maybe, but I don't see elegant.

But y'all are entitled to your opinions...as am I.

I see it as Practical, Functional, and Economical. For $125 plus $30 for a KAK buffer tube, I avoid the tax stamp, waiting period, and ATF scrutiny. I can take it from Texas to Arizona, up to Montana, and throughout the South without asking Uncle Sugar "Mother, May I?"

I agree that this law has way outlived its purpose, and that things might change in the future, but I choose to only deal in the reality of today, and that is that this brace is the best option for me as my situation and current laws stand.

hso
July 12, 2014, 07:52 AM
The only functional problem that can't be surmounted easily is it is not as comfortable to shoot as a stock.

That may be the deciding factor with some and it may not matter to others, but the pity is you have to invest in one to find out if you don't have a buddy with one to try.

boricua9mm
July 12, 2014, 08:17 AM
Blade First-

Your personal attacks are comical, but not unheard of here at THR.

It's hideous, deal with it. If everyone thought it was so elegant and beautiful, there wouldn't be any pending Form 1s on non-AR pistols. Yes, MANY people are SBRing pistols such as Dracos, M92s and Hellpups rather than mounting up a Brace. If you can't see that, then you must not pay much attention to the NFA world, which by the way, is the sub forum we're posting in.

You're kidding yourself acting like it's some gorgeous solution. If you really thought that you'd have chopped a slot in an M4 stock, run web belts through it and softened it up with reactive chemicals LONG before this ever came out.

Talking to the designer is irrelevant. If anyone here is actually handicapped and using it as designed, that's one thing, but I'm pretty sure the majority here are not using this brace from a state of disability. They're using them off the shoulder, which is fine and dandy. Better than an SBR? Not in my book nor the volumes of others, as evidenced on NFATracker. The numbers speak for themselves.

It's a damned accessory. Stop acting like I kicked your dog.

Manny
July 12, 2014, 10:24 AM
I bought the factory Sig 400 pistol with the arm brace, added a single point sling and weapon light and called it good to go. Very nice, handy weapon that I didn't have to fill out additional forms nor pay additional taxes to own. I like it.

basicblur
July 12, 2014, 10:28 AM
Well I sure wouldn't call it elegant...

I think iff'n I was to go that route, I'd possibly give it a go in 300 Blackout due to the short barrel ballistics of that particular round.

Arizona_Mike
July 12, 2014, 10:41 AM
Here are my thoughts:
1. The brace works suprisingly well as a shoulder stock regardless of how it looks. In fact it makes a much better stock and arm brace. Would I choose it above conventional options even after I get my stamp? No, unless there was a legal issue like hunting with NFA weapons.

2. I think I got mine for about $89 and am glad to have used it during the long wait which I went through at the worst time (it has gotten much better).

3. People really underestimate how easy it is to own NFA weapons and make a much bigger deal over complience than it is. It's not rocket science, you don't surrender your 4th Amendment rights or anything like the rummor mongers claim.

4. I've waited almost as long as current NFA wait times for parts and magazines (and much longer for match grade or custom-made barrels). Instant gratification seems to be a youthfully follw but logically if you want to do something that takes a long time (like going to school, building a carreer, or loosing weight) the same time is going to pass whether you do it or not.

4a. The OP seems to imply that the brace makes one less likely to get a stamp. Because it allows you to try things and provides some gratification during the wait, I can see it encouraging people to get a stamp.

Mike

aubie515
July 12, 2014, 02:22 PM
This is like Ford vs Chevy...some on both sides of the fence.

The brace flat out works.

After my last NFA item taking 3 months to get to SOT and the 11 months to process the paperwork. I'm done with NFA.

If you don't know about NFA, it's not our job to try to explain the benefits.

In the end it's a personal choice just like many things in life. For me, the brace is a great device and I'll be buying more.

herkyguy
July 12, 2014, 02:39 PM
I'm not really a fan of it. I dig my 16" barrel and my particular preference is a bit of a longer barrel. But then again, the whole NFA thing is moronic at best. Suppressors and short barrels should be over the counter transactions. Period.

TrailWolf
July 12, 2014, 04:05 PM
My thoughts are just the opposite. I can't see paying $150 for an "arm brace" when an SBR stamp is $200.

The arm brace is a poor substitute for a real shoulder stock.
Have you ever tried it? It is pretty damn good.

People always say - oh its just $200 for the stamp - don't forget the cost to set up the trust , lawyers feed, engraving the receiver etc. It adds up.

It is also very VERY nice to have an AR that keeps the "pistol" status - especially when you travel across states and do not have to worry about the legality.

Elkins45
July 12, 2014, 05:23 PM
It could. All you need is a 10/22 stock with an AR-style collapsable stock and a "buffer tube" where you can cut off the notches. Once the notches are gone, the arm brace should fit just fine. And since you can no longer attach a stock to it, you don't have to worry about getting busted for constructive possession of an SBR.
My 10/22 began life as a rifle--you can't just lop off the barrel, add an ugly stock with a fake buffer tube and declare it a pistol. It's an illegal SBR in that instance no matter what you call it.

You would have to start with a 10/22 that began life as a dedicated pistol receiver, like the Challenger. I already have a 10/22, so the stamp and barrel work would cost less than a new gun, and then I could use any stock I wanted.

Theohazard
July 12, 2014, 05:27 PM
My 10/22 began life as a rifle--you can't just lop off the barrel, add an ugly stock with a fake buffer tube and declare it a pistol. It's an illegal SBR in that instance no matter what you call it.
That's no longer true. Now you can make a rifle into a pistol and vice versa.

dogtown tom
July 12, 2014, 05:42 PM
TrailWolf Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
My thoughts are just the opposite. I can't see paying $150 for an "arm brace" when an SBR stamp is $200.

The arm brace is a poor substitute for a real shoulder stock.

Have you ever tried it? It is pretty damn good.
Yes, I have..........IMHO it's poor substitute for a real stock. YMMV

Elkins45
July 12, 2014, 07:38 PM
That's no longer true. Now you can make a rifle into a pistol and vice versa.
From the July 25, 2011 communication from ATF regarding the Thompson Center case:

Held further, a firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4), is made when a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length, is assembled or produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle. Such weapons must be registered and are subject to all requirements of the NFA.

Full text here: https://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

If there's a more recent ruling superseding this, please direct me to it. Otherwise I believe the text quoted above is contrary to your understanding. In a nutshell, you are correct ONLY in the case of a firearm (such as the T/C Contender) originally produced to be configured as both.

bikemutt
July 12, 2014, 10:05 PM
I use a Thordsen buffer tube cover with cheek rest on my pistol lower when shooting the 300 BLK 9" barrel. With a low recoil round like 300 BLK all shooting positions seem comfortable.

I handled a very nice looking Sig pistol yesterday, .308, with the arm brace included. I'm not sure I want to deal with a .308 pistol and an arm brace regardless of how I can operate it.

JT-AR-MG42
July 13, 2014, 03:21 AM
So help out a newcomer to this conversation here.

I've wanted an 'arm brace' on a Desert Eagle for a number of years.

If I can figure a way to hang that Sig brace on the wooden support attachment from the pistol's grip that I would need to add, then it is legal to be fired from the shoulder?
Or does this brace require being fitted to a tube or directly to the frame?

Even without my arm being through the brace?

One last, where might I read up on rulings concerning this brace.
Maybe a brace owner could post a copy of the accompanying letter here?

Looking to learn, Thanks for any possible info,
JT

bikemutt
July 13, 2014, 10:24 AM
So help out a newcomer to this conversation here.

I've wanted an 'arm brace' on a Desert Eagle for a number of years.

If I can figure a way to hang that Sig brace on the wooden support attachment from the pistol's grip that I would need to add, then it is legal to be fired from the shoulder?
Or does this brace require being fitted to a tube or directly to the frame?

Even without my arm being through the brace?

One last, where might I read up on rulings concerning this brace.
Maybe a brace owner could post a copy of the accompanying letter here?

Looking to learn, Thanks for any possible info,
JT
Here you go JT: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/04/03/arm-braces-pistols-legal-fired-shoudler/

Arizona_Mike
July 13, 2014, 04:49 PM
I think Theohazard is confused. You can go back and forth if you start with a pistol not with a rifle.

Mike

Theohazard
July 13, 2014, 07:52 PM
I believe the text quoted above is contrary to your understanding.


I think Theohazard is confused. You can go back and forth if you start with a pistol not with a rifle.
You guys are completely right. I should know better considering I used to work at an LGS. Honestly, ATF and NFA stuff is complicated enough that it's way too easy to confuse yourself if you don't keep up on it.

Elkins45
July 13, 2014, 11:33 PM
You guys are completely right. I should know better considering I used to work at an LGS. Honestly, ATF and NFA stuff is complicated enough that it's way too easy to confuse yourself if you don't keep up on it.
You want to know how I immediately suspected you were mistaken?

I read your response and thought, "That seems like a very reasonable and customer friendly position for a federal regulatory agency to take." That's when I knew it couldn't be true. :)

Actually I shouldn't say stuff like that. My limited dealings with ATF (submitted two Form 1 and a Form 4 on a trust) have been entirely uneventful. Slow, but that's not their fault.

justice06rr
July 16, 2014, 09:02 PM
Yes, I have..........IMHO it's poor substitute for a real stock. YMMV


It is not designed as a real stock (or SBR lower), nor was it meant to be a substitute for a real stock. It just happens to work well if properly configured. A few vendors now sell pistol tubes i.e. KAK tube which adds length to the SB15.

If you like your SBR lower with a standard stock, great.

But not everyone wants to go through the hassle with the ATF/NFA route, nor do we all want the government to have knowledge (and registration) of the firearms we own. And many law-abiding gun owners feel that the NFA laws are bogus. Somehow a 14.5"-barreled AR15 is much more dangerous than a standard 16" M4????



Anyway, here is my 10.5" pistol build with the same LOP compared to my current AR build (which will be a 16" Midlength). Both shoulder just the same.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/eiji81/1A%20New%20Rifle%20Pics/DSCI0159.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/eiji81/media/1A%20New%20Rifle%20Pics/DSCI0159.jpg.html)

Cooldill
July 17, 2014, 12:24 AM
It has for ARs.

I think it's very neat, I've always wanted a short AR with about a 10 inch bbl but never wanted to deal with all the NFA stuff.

rodinal220
July 17, 2014, 09:52 AM
SB-15 works great and I put one each on a BCM 11.5" upper and a parts build up with a DD 10.5" barrel,both run great.I used the KAK Industry Super SIG SB-15 dedicated pistol buffer tube.The whole NFA thing is really a joke for SBR/SBS/AOW,Suppressors,etc.

Elkins45
July 17, 2014, 12:35 PM
If you don't aready have some NFA stuff then maybe, but for $70 more than the cost of the brace you will have the stamp and won't have to worry about the legal status of the brace.

OTOH there is the advantage of not having to ask for permission to cross state lines with an NFA item.

How does the brace impact those states with "assault weapon" bans? Since its a pistol can you own one in a restrictive state like CA? Does it circumvent the rules because it isn't a rifle?

wally
July 17, 2014, 12:42 PM
If you don't aready have some NFA stuff then maybe, but for $70 more than the cost of the brace you will have the stamp and won't have to worry about the legal status of the brace.


Actually its ~$70 + ~$60 for the stock more to go the NFA route.

Elkins45
July 17, 2014, 02:57 PM
Actually its ~$70 + ~$60 for the stock more to go the NFA route.
I don't follow. The brace sells for around $130 and the stamp is $200. Are you adding the cost of a regular stock?

Vodoun da Vinci
July 17, 2014, 06:56 PM
To the original question, YES, I had no interest in the whole SBR deal because of the state I live in (Illinois) and the extra "hoops" involved in getting a tax stamp, getting permission to transport across state lines, etc. In Illinois, I'd have to get a C&R FFL, and a tax stamp and then I'd have to get permission every year as my training range is in Iowa. Way too much hoop jumping for me. I'm primarily interested in 9mm MP5 format guns...I'll have an AR-15 eventually but I'm fine with a 16" barrel.

So, I really had no intention of having an SBR and then the BATF rules that the brace is OK to be fired from the shoulder - It's not a stock and I was skeptical. Then I shot an MP5 pistol with a brace and in 9mm it's *WAY* better than shooting it in pistol form. I agree it's not quite what I want as if I had my druthers I'd druther have a folding stock but that's not gonna happen.

So, yeah, I'm in the "SBR" want but it'll be a pistol with Sig brace and that'll work out fine for me. It's not much cheaper but it is competitive price wise albeit a bit more expensive. I went from "I don't want an SBR'd MP5" to "I *got* to get me one of these!" on an MP5K pistol with Sig brace.

No tax stamp, no permission to transport, no C&R FFL hoops.

VooDoo

wally
July 18, 2014, 08:10 PM
I don't follow. The brace sells for around $130 and the stamp is $200. Are you adding the cost of a regular stock?
Bingo!

kimberkid
July 19, 2014, 12:23 AM
I agree it's not quite what I want as if I had my druthers I'd druther have a folding stock but that's not gonna happen.

No tax stamp, no permission to transport, no C&R FFL hoops.

VooDoo
VooDoo ... You can make it fold if you want, Atlantic is selling them with a folded/hinge ... I did this on my PAP M85 with a hinge & adapter for the tube to screw into I got from ACE Rifle Stocks ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/kimberkid/Toys/P6150695A.jpg

Vodoun da Vinci
July 20, 2014, 04:22 PM
I should have emphasized stock....I'm aware that we can have folding braces and that they are available (but I seriously thank you for the heads up - it's the thought that counts! :) ) in various folding configs now. My personal choice is a full on stock and the brace, while I think it's an awesome idea and works pretty dang well as a pseudo stock, is not quite "perfect" in that role.

It's a compromise for me but it's better than no "device" at all on the butt end of an MP5 and for that purpose fills the need 90%. I personally feel that the ATF ruling that braces are OK for the shoulder is one step away from removing the SBR from the NFA list but I think that is years away.

Until that time the brace will do in place of a stock on those firearms I prefer in an SBR configuration.

VooDoo

Hacker15E
July 20, 2014, 04:41 PM
My thoughts are just the opposite. I can't see paying $150 for an "arm brace" when an SBR stamp is $200.

The arm brace is a poor substitute for a real shoulder stock.

Let's not forget that that are a bunch of military folks who are moving state-to-state every couple of years, without much choice of which states they're being moved to.

That makes it nearly impossible for those people to own NFA firearms.

The brace suddenly now allows those same people to own SBR-like firearms.

kimberkid
July 20, 2014, 05:25 PM
. Until that time the brace will do in place of a stock on those firearms I prefer in an SBR configuration.

VooDoo

That's kind of what I'm doing from now on, however there are some guns like my V-51 pistol that needs a stock and is one I'm still going to SBR ... However my C-93 pistol and PTR-32 will be fine in a arm brace until they do away with SBR ... Just for grins I put my HK arm brace on my CA-89 just to see how it looks ... It's not bad but I SBR'd it back in 07 so I usually have a collapsable A3 stock on it ... The others only get a stock when they have my registered sear in them ... The V-51 is no fun in full auto and it's pretty brutal in semi with an arm brace which is why it will get the benefit of the SBR, a club-foot stock and 2-stage buffer.

Just for grins, here's a crapy picture of my CA-89 in an arm brace
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/kimberkid/Toys/MP5-1.jpg

ScottS
July 20, 2014, 09:15 PM
http://i56.tinypic.com/148ojh4.jpg

OMG, that which has been seen can't be unseen...

Maybe it's less paperwork, but man, that's one ugly MP5.

kimberkid
July 20, 2014, 10:34 PM
http://i56.tinypic.com/148ojh4.jpg

OMG, that which has been seen can't be unseen...

Maybe it's less paperwork, but man, that's one ugly MP5.
I'm really not sure how to take that ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/kimberkid/Smiles/Emoticons.gif


I mean, yeah, she's really ugly in that, but do you really want to hurt Elfriede's (Elfi) feelings.

Well, do ya?

Maybe you just need to see her as she really is ... IRL she's an SBR!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/kimberkid/Toys/P1010130.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/kimberkid/Toys/cannedCA89.jpg

ScottS
July 21, 2014, 04:25 PM
In real-life, she's very nice!

The MP5-platform is one of those rare examples where all the aesthetics come together perfectly. It's a thing of beauty.

NFA paperwork is a small price to pay to avoid that Sig brace.

Even though mine is just a lowly .22 variant, it's true to Tilo, Manfred, Georg, and Helmut.

http://i36.tinypic.com/qzmc5v.jpg

http://i36.tinypic.com/dz9xjq.jpg

http://i36.tinypic.com/2n222d4.jpg

And to stay on the general track of the thread, NFA paperwork is really such a non-event I can't see the attraction of the Sig brace, but that's me.

kimberkid
July 21, 2014, 05:35 PM
In real-life, she's very nice!

The MP5-platform is one of those rare examples where all the aesthetics come together perfectly. It's a thing of beauty.

NFA paperwork is a small price to pay to avoid that Sig brace.


I agree completely!
There are some firearms that the Arm Brace is less offensive. HOWEVER it really has no place on an HK, and the hinge makes it even more hideous.

On the other hand, the AR its not bad ... I submit a pistol build I've been working on for the last month or so:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/kimberkid/Toys/P7170712.jpg


Even the AK Pistol, without the folder doesn't look too bad:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v40/kimberkid/Toys/P1010705A.jpg

Of course, this is my opinion ... YMMV

Charger442
July 22, 2014, 09:45 AM
im a big opponent of the sig brace, and have expressed it on other forums, though i wont expound here. The misinformation in this thread is kinds ridiculous.

My point was always that anyone could own an AR pistol, and you could even shoulder it. and it actually shot pretty well with just the buffer tube. now all you guys are throwing 130 bucks plus a KAK tube on and thinking youve just shirked the government? Meh, to each their own.

I was already in the NFA game prior to these tacticool arm brace faux stock things coming out, I wouldnt change a thing about how i did it.

My magpul STR is extremely nice to shoot on my 11.5" DD barreled upper with Griffin Armament suppressor.

dogtown tom
July 22, 2014, 12:36 PM
Charger442 im a big opponent of the sig brace, and have expressed it on other forums, though i wont expound here. The misinformation in this thread is kinds ridiculous.
I can't stand the Sig Arm Brace either, but please point out the "misinformation" in this thread. :scrutiny:

kimberkid
July 23, 2014, 01:36 PM
im a big opponent of the sig brace, and have expressed it on other forums, though i wont expound here. The misinformation in this thread is kinds ridiculous.

My point was always that anyone could own an AR pistol, and you could even shoulder it. and it actually shot pretty well with just the buffer tube. now all you guys are throwing 130 bucks plus a KAK tube on and thinking youve just shirked the government? Meh, to each their own.

I was already in the NFA game prior to these tacticool arm brace faux stock things coming out, I wouldnt change a thing about how i did it.

My magpul STR is extremely nice to shoot on my 11.5" DD barreled upper with Griffin Armament suppressor.
I'm already in the NFA game as well, I have 7 SBR's.

I remember that I was stunned when I heard that you could shoot an AR pistol from the shoulder and thought the BATFE would reverse their position on that especially when I saw the foam covers and extended length pistol tubes. Personally I think the AR Pistol, with the tube only looks silly, but thats me. The Arm Brace makes it not only look better but balance better ... but thats not really the point, I get what you are saying pertaining to the AR.

The thing is that until the Arm Brace came along, there was no alternative for other firearms such as the AK, SiG and the HK to name just a few its been adapted to ... this gives people that live in states where SBR is not permitted an option.

The cost of an NFA stamp is only $200 but then you still have to add in the cost of the stock. On an AR its pretty cheap but on a SiG, thats another $165 and if you need an adaptor block another $100(so all of a sudden you are at $465 to SBR), on an HK a collapsable stock is another $200-$400 (so you are at $400-$600 to SBR) ... but to IMHO the biggest pain in the arse is tha wait time; its gotten redicilous and I don't know of a single class 3 dealer that will let his money be tied up for that long waiting on BTAFE approval. When I bought my M16 I had $12,000 tied up while it sat at my C3's for 5 months ...

Lastly, a point that many have made is that with the Arm Brace, you don't have to register with the BTAFE or ask permission the cross state lines as you do with any NFA item ... to some people that is a big deal in itself.

dogtown tom
July 24, 2014, 12:55 AM
kimberkid

The cost of an NFA stamp is only $200 but then you still have to add in the cost of the stock.....
Funny, but all rifles already come with a stock......and it's free BTW.;)

kimberkid
July 24, 2014, 02:03 AM
Funny, but all rifles already come with a stock......and it's free BTW.;)
Well, in the NFA game, and with the exception of the AR, which is what I thought we were talking about, the only three ways to do an SBR, buy it already made; start with a pistol, which does not come with a stock; or start with a rifle and have at least the barrel cut down ... either way you pay, unless your going to do a home hack job.

RussellC
July 24, 2014, 11:47 AM
I am interested in getting the Sig arm brace. Could someone school me here? What is the Proper "LOP" I keep seeing mentioned? Also, I see posts where "some of us find it hideous" really? Obviously your own self importance has blurred your thinking to the point you are confusing me with someone who gives a poop what you think of the appearance of my gun. Everyone's entitled, my AR rifles have M4 stocks on them, so I guess they are "hideous" as well! LOL

I assume the LOP is length of pull? I have seen a few you tubes where they use an A2 buffer tube, then tap the hole for a screw to hold in the spring and dentent that I guess is absent with the A2?

Thanks for any help on this "LOP" thing, Is it what allows the tube the brace goes on to be a little longer? Thanks again for any clarification!

Russellc

RussellC
July 24, 2014, 12:18 PM
I was on the fence until I got one, I am really liking the Sig Brace on my AR pistol. I took it out for the first time Wednesday and really enjoyed shooting the gun more than ever. I am now thinking of doing an AK pistol as well.

This is my AR pistol.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/timc/8112A528-87B7-475C-BC3F-4CC4AC4B4FE2_zpsq1e5ssya.jpg
Related to my question above, how did you gain the extra pull length between brace and receiver? Thanks<

Russellc

ny32182
July 24, 2014, 01:15 PM
Especially as someone who already has SBRs, no plans to get a sig "arm brace". And even if I didn't, trusts are a one time thing, super cheap if you want them to be, and I'd rather pay $200 and then be able to have whatever stock I want, whatever barrel I want, and whatever foregrip I want.

Plus, mark my words, the ATF has reversed "opinions" in the past, and will do so again... the day is coming when this will be judged a stock. There will be a WHOLE lot of completely worthless "arm braces" out there overnight when that happens.

Theohazard
July 24, 2014, 01:41 PM
how did you gain the extra pull length between brace and receiver?
You slide it forward or backward on the buffer tube to get it where you want it. The SB15 brace just slips over the tube and it fits very tight on a normal pistol buffer tube, so you can move it where you want it and it probably won't move. Some people put paracord or something else to act as a spacer on the forward part of the buffer tube to keep it from sliding forward under pressure.

dogtown tom
July 24, 2014, 05:49 PM
kimberkid Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
Funny, but all rifles already come with a stock......and it's free BTW.

Well, in the NFA game, and with the exception of the AR, which is what I thought we were talking about, the only three ways to do an SBR, buy it already made; start with a pistol, which does not come with a stock; or start with a rifle and have at least the barrel cut down ... either way you pay, unless your going to do a home hack job.
You forgot another less expensive method....
Simply remove your rifle length barrel from your AR and install a short barrel. if you are worried about that expense......sell the rifle length barrel.;)

RussellC
July 24, 2014, 05:58 PM
Ah, thanks for that tidbit. I was just thinking it was as short as could be, thanks for that info. I am a lawyer and could set up my own trust, but for a myriad of reasons, I want this too! No such short cuts for silencers, trust will be needed eventually!

Thanks again!

Russellc

Elkins45
July 24, 2014, 07:38 PM
You forgot another less expensive method....
Simply remove your rifle length barrel from your AR and install a short barrel. if you are worried about that expense......sell the rifle length barrel.;)
Wouldn't this be making an illegal SBR? Or did I miss the part where you got the Form 1 stamp?

Once a rifle, always a rifle.

dogtown tom
July 24, 2014, 08:50 PM
Elkins45 Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
You forgot another less expensive method....
Simply remove your rifle length barrel from your AR and install a short barrel. if you are worried about that expense......sell the rifle length barrel.

Wouldn't this be making an illegal SBR? Or did I miss the part where you got the Form 1 stamp?
If you'll read the post I quoted you'll note where kimberkid wrote: ..."Well, in the NFA game..." That pretty much means he's well aware of what is/is not required for SBR's.;)

kimberkid
July 25, 2014, 08:32 AM
Oops

kimberkid
July 25, 2014, 08:40 AM
What the heck is going on? I click the button to edit and I get a second post!

kimberkid
July 25, 2014, 08:44 AM
You forgot another less expensive method....
Simply remove your rifle length barrel from your AR and install a short barrel. if you are worried about that expense......sell the rifle length barrel.;)

First of all, I said:
"Well, in the NFA game, and with the exception of the AR", meaning I am talking about NFA and not talking about the AR.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
July 25, 2014, 08:47 AM
Yeah it changed my mind. I am thankful that Sig made the brace. I think it is changing some minds on short barreled AR's, AK's, etc.

http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff464/ChadJohnson1976/Firearms/012CA0D8-0D7F-485C-875D-F3502684C03D.jpg

Buzznrose
July 25, 2014, 09:00 AM
Guess to me, the bottom one is that the NFA is an outdated and restrictive law. Maybe some good in portions, but as far as suppressor and barrel lengths go, it should definitely be repealed. Those issues, IMO, are as stupid as mag limits and pistol grip requirements imposed by our socialist states like MA.

Until the law is rescinded, if ever, I'll take the easy road where possible, and for me, that's a Sig Brace.

Still contemplating a suppressor...

YMMV

wally
July 25, 2014, 06:22 PM
Funny, but all rifles already come with a stock......and it's free BTW.

But then you have to add the cost of a short barrel or the gunsmithing to shorten it which can't be done until you get the stamp. Not to mention sawing off an AR barrel may leave you needing to open up the gas port or add an adjustable gas block.

TIMC
July 25, 2014, 08:04 PM
Finished this one up today....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/timc/0825BC69-88D1-49B7-8645-24F3F9B1C961_zps8z7l34bu.jpg

TIMC
July 25, 2014, 08:07 PM
Related to my question above, how did you gain the extra pull length between brace and receiver? Thanks<

There is a dip in the brace as seen in the picture midway down the brace, the tube stops there and does not slide forward even under recoil. Then again there is not much of any recoil. Extended buffer tubes are available as well as seen in the AK pistol pic above.

dogtown tom
July 25, 2014, 10:22 PM
wally Quote:
Funny, but all rifles already come with a stock......and it's free BTW.

But then you have to add the cost of a short barrel or the gunsmithing to shorten it which can't be done until you get the stamp.
As I posted above, the cost of that short barrel can easily be recouped by selling the original barrel.;)

kimberkid
July 26, 2014, 01:25 AM
Wouldn't this be making an illegal SBR? Or did I miss the part where you got the Form 1 stamp?

Once a rifle, always a rifle.
But then you have to add the cost of a short barrel or the gunsmithing to shorten it which can't be done until you get the stamp. Not to mention sawing off an AR barrel may leave you needing to open up the gas port or add an adjustable gas block.
Elkins45- It wasn't real clear but I think he's talking about paying the $200 and submitting a form 1, making a legal SBR.

Wally- yes, for an AR I would just buy a short barrel or short barreled upper but any rifle other than the AR, you would have to add the cost of the gun smith to shorten it or install a short barrel as this is beyond what most people are capable of and making it reliable will most likely require opening up the gas port or adding an adjustable gas block ... which was the point I was trying to make.

IBEWBULL
July 26, 2014, 01:34 AM
The arm brace is just another fad/gimmick.
Just like the MAC 10 was 30 years ago.
An expensive toy with no practical use in my opinion.
Over the years my taste has gone to more old school types.
A 30 M1 carbine handles pretty fast for an OLD gun.
I can get it into action just fine.
So I guess the SBR never interested me.

TrailWolf
July 26, 2014, 02:23 AM
The arm brace is just another fad/gimmick.
Just like the MAC 10 was 30 years ago.
An expensive toy with no practical use in my opinion.
Over the years my taste has gone to more old school types.
A 30 M1 carbine handles pretty fast for an OLD gun.
I can get it into action just fine.
So I guess the SBR never interested me.

How is there no practical use for the sig brace? Have you tried it? Have you not seen any videos with it or read the numerous poets in this thread and forum?

I can shoot and run my 11.5 pistol w brace every bit as well as my 16" and just as comfortably.

I think there is a lot of butt-hurt among those who went the nfa route shortly before the brace hit or are waiting while the brace hit... Seems like a lot just want to hate it.

Try it and report back. If you post "I have tried it blah blah blah" prove it and post a proof of life pic.

Theohazard
July 26, 2014, 03:32 AM
An expensive toy with no practical use in my opinion.
That's simply incorrect, and it's not a matter of opinion: Whatever you may think about it, the SIG brace has plenty of practical use for many people.

I went shooting today with a friend who has a bunch of ARs. Most of them are normal 16" rifles, but he has a 12" 300 Blackout "pistol" with a SIG brace and an EOTech with a 3x magnifier on it. When I was shooting all of his various rifles, I never even noticed that his 300 Blackout had an arm brace and not a real stock; I just shouldered it and fired it normally without noticing the difference.

Is the SIG arm brace as good as a regular stock? No, of course not. But it definitely serves a purpose for people who want a short barrel without having to go through the process of registering an SBR.

Vodoun da Vinci
July 26, 2014, 07:42 AM
Is the SIG arm brace as good as a regular stock? No, of course not. But it definitely serves a purpose for people who want a short barrel without having to go through the process of registering an SBR.

And, believe it or not, not *all* of us can practically have an SBR. In Illinois I must get a C&R FFL (I gotta pay for that) then the $200 stamp and then I have to get yearly permission and apply to transport it across state lines as my training range is in another state. I'd rather have a "stock" for my MP5 variant but truthfully an arm brace, fired from the shoulder is as close as I'll get.

And it works just fine. It was no SBR for me until the brace concept was approved and now I'm on board for an SBR because of that. *And* I can transport my braced pistol across state lines with impunity and I can transfer it without hassle....no engraving, no hoop jumping. Not quite a full on stock but it's the only practical option for me and, frankly, I'm good with it.

VooDoo

TIMC
July 26, 2014, 11:58 AM
The arm brace is just another fad/gimmick.
Just like the MAC 10 was 30 years ago.
An expensive toy with no practical use in my opinion.
Over the years my taste has gone to more old school types.
A 30 M1 carbine handles pretty fast for an OLD gun.
I can get it into action just fine.
So I guess the SBR never interested me.

This is just an example of personal preference. I've owned a .30 carbine for more than 35 years and it rarely sees daylight. I do however love the sig brace and find these expensive toys a lot of fun but then again isn't that what we work hard for, so we can afford expensive toys? That no practical use thing pretty much fills the bill for everything in my life from my huge pickup that I don't haul stuff with to my wife! :D

Though they do make me happy!

Blade First
July 27, 2014, 02:09 PM
Facts are such stubborn things. :cool:

wally
July 27, 2014, 03:48 PM
The arm brace is just another fad/gimmick.
Just like the MAC 10 was 30 years ago.
An expensive toy with no practical use in my opinion.

You'd sing a different tune if you watched a pair of novice, petite female shooters ringing the steel plates on a dueling tree with my 9mm SBR and 9mm SIG brace pistol.

Neither can handle a 16" 9mm AR carbine very well -- too front heavy, and with 9mm pistols (PPQ or XDM) they average about 1 hit in 2-3 shots. Its no contest they are far more effective shooters with the SBR or SIG brace pistol.

RussellC
July 27, 2014, 04:50 PM
This is just an example of personal preference. I've owned a .30 carbine for more than 35 years and it rarely sees daylight. I do however love the sig brace and find these expensive toys a lot of fun but then again isn't that what we work hard for, so we can afford expensive toys? That no practical use thing pretty much fills the bill for everything in my life from my huge pickup that I don't haul stuff with to my wife! :D

Though they do make me happy!
Its just personal preference. I want the Sig brace for my next 300 blackout build ( pistol). On the other hand, I have no use at all for a 30 carbine. I have probably passed on buying one of those more than any other gun. I worked at JC penney's back when they sold guns and could have had one for a song. The little .22 caliber LR version interests me more. This is just my opinion, obviously some really like the 30 carbine.

Russellc

basicblur
July 27, 2014, 05:27 PM
Well they may not be pretty, but they do serve a purpose.

Gotta confess - I've been thinking about a 300 Blackout pistol - possibly keep it a pistol with the brace, or later SBR it?

Checked Rock River Arms the other day - no mention of 300 Blackout on their site. Sent 'em an e-mail asking if they had plans for a 300 Blackout pistol or SBR in the near future, and was told "nope".

Kinda put that idea on hold for a while in order to give more AR makers a chance to produce a 300 Blackout pistol (I think RRA may be missing the boat here?).

The possibility of the ATF doing a reversal on the brace has also given me a bit of a pause...

kimberkid
July 27, 2014, 09:38 PM
The possibility of the ATF doing a reversal on the brace has also given me a bit of a pause...
I think if they do that, they would have to change their position on extended pistol tubes all together as people have been putting them to their shoulders like a rifle ever since they came out ... I was surprised it passed mustard with the BATFE when I saw them with the foam pads on them. With the thousands of them that are out there now it would raise a huge **** storm if they retro-actively banned them now.

basicblur
July 27, 2014, 09:41 PM
With the thousands of them that are out there now it would raise a huge **** storm if they retro-actively banned them now.
Repeat after me...it's the government! (They don't care how much trouble it causes).

Until the brace came out, I had no use for an AR pistol.
If I were to go that route and the ATF reverses, I then have a $1k paperweight.

dogtown tom
July 27, 2014, 11:22 PM
basicblur .....If I were to go that route and the ATF reverses, I then have a $1k paperweight.
No, you would have an AR pistol that could easily be converted into a rifle for very little $$$.

Theohazard
July 28, 2014, 01:35 AM
I was surprised it passed mustard with the BATFE
I know it's just an auto-correct typo, but this cracked me up.

Anyway, I don't see the BATFE changing their mind on this. They can't control how people shoot their guns, so they're not going to say you can't shoulder it. All they can do is control how a firearm is designed. So the only way they'll ban it is if they decide it was actually designed as a stock to begin with, and that's an extreme call to make because SIG has been so consistant in marketing it as an arm brace.

basicblur
July 28, 2014, 08:38 AM
No, you would have an AR pistol that could easily be converted into a rifle for very little $$$.
Iff'n I'm not mistaken, it could be converted to a SBR for "very little money", but then I'd have to pay the $200 ATF fee, etc, and I'm again stuck with the problem of not being able to transport a few miles across the state line to reach my gun club without more ATF paperwork / delays.

Mebbe I could convert it to a non-SBR rifle, but I already have those, so why bother?

kimberkid
July 28, 2014, 11:37 AM
Mebbe I could convert it to a non-SBR rifle, but I already have those, so why bother?
I'm thinking you (the same thing I thought for myself) that owners of the Arm Brace would have the use of it until the BTAFE reverses their decision, if & when that ever happens ... As a gun owner, I've blown a lot more money for a lot less of a reason.

pjeski
July 28, 2014, 05:34 PM
Iff'n I'm not mistaken, it could be converted to a SBR for "very little money", but then I'd have to pay the $200 ATF fee, etc, and I'm again stuck with the problem of not being able to transport a few miles across the state line to reach my gun club without more ATF paperwork / delays.

Mebbe I could convert it to a non-SBR rifle, but I already have those, so why bother?
ATF 5320.20 can be submitted once for up to a year of repeated travel.

basicblur
July 28, 2014, 05:46 PM
ATF 5320.20 can be submitted once for up to a year of repeated travel.
Was well aware of that - ran across that when I thought I was going to have to fill it out to transport silencers across the state line.

It still doesn't negate the fact that it's just one more bureaucratic hoop to jump through simply to drive a few miles to shoot.

Blade First
July 30, 2014, 10:17 PM
"No, you would have an AR pistol that could easily be converted into a rifle for very little $$$."

That seems logical.

Buzznrose
July 31, 2014, 09:48 AM
This is just an example of personal preference. I've owned a .30 carbine for more than 35 years and it rarely sees daylight. I do however love the sig brace and find these expensive toys a lot of fun but then again isn't that what we work hard for, so we can afford expensive toys? That no practical use thing pretty much fills the bill for everything in my life from my huge pickup that I don't haul stuff with to my wife! :D



Though they do make me happy!


Tim, great post! I'm right there with ya on the whole "no practical use" thing...LOL!

HRnightmare
July 31, 2014, 10:19 AM
I am another opponent of the Sig Arm Brace. It was a cool design to get around a law...i suppose. I think the whole "it was created for a disabled Veteran story" is a crock or exaggerated but props on them because they aeem to be making a killing off of it.

Personally I paid the $200 for a real stock and the ability to adjust the length...not sure if thats available on the arm brace.

Granted I SBR'ed mine before the Sig brace came out, with the exception of my M92 that got SBR'd but I would stil ldo it the SBR way. It's $130ish for the stock and $200 for the paperwork... Well worth the exra couple bucks.

Personally the only advantage I see is for people in states that they are not allowed like CA, NY, MA, etc.

HRnightmare
July 31, 2014, 10:22 AM
Umm..you do. Transportingthem without prior approval is a crime. Regardless if the state you are going to allows SBR's. The approval usually takes about 4-5 weeks to get. Although I have called before when they lost it in the mail and the inspector let me email it to him, he approved it, sent it back and emailed me an approved copy.

Was well aware of that - ran across that when I thought I was going to have to fill it out to transport silencers across the state line.

It still doesn't negate the fact that it's just one more bureaucratic hoop to jump through simply to drive a few miles to shoot.

basicblur
July 31, 2014, 11:51 AM
Umm..you do. Transportingthem without prior approval is a crime.
Huh? I assume you're talking about transporting silencers across state lines?

If so, the ATF does not care, and you do not have to get approval to transport a silencer across a state line as you do a SBR.

When I got wind of this, I:
1. Called the ATF - the fellow on the line simply read from the ATF Guide (I was reading the PDF copy on my computer along with him) - he also read the back of form 5320-20 - he said he can find no mention of silencers, etc.
He then shot me up the line - gave me another number to call for more detailed info.
2. Called that number, and the gal seemed to have the answers on hand (did not simply read from the guide / back of the form as the previous agent did).
She told me you do NOT need permission from the ATF to transport a silencer across state lines (state laws still apply) - she said if I did fill out the form and send it in, it would be returned with a letter stating the form was not required.

Hearing that, I told her the letter was what I was after - I plan on keeping a copy of the letter from the ATF stating there is no law against transporting silencers across state lines (AFA the ATF is concerned) to show to any local LEOs that don't know the law / regulations.

If you'll look on the back of Form 1 under definitions, you'll see (emphasis mine):
(7) a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition;

If you'll look on the back of Form 5320-20 (Interstate Transportation of Firearms), you'll notice there is no mention of "silencers, mufflers, etc" as is on the back of Form 4.

Apparently (according to what the ATF is telling me is / is not required), it appears not mentioning silencers / mufflers, etc on Form 5320-20 is not an oversight - they are not mentioned (as they are on Form 1) because AFA the ATF is concerned, you can transport silencers across state lines without any additional paperwork, etc.

As stated, I've gone this far, so I'm not going to get tripped up by a little thing like not having paperwork for transporting a silencer across a state line (even though the ATF says it's not required).

I'll send in the paperwork, and I assume it will either be:
1. Filled out and sent back to me (if the ATF agent I talked to was incorrect).
2. The forms will be rejected and sent back to me with a cover letter stating they are not needed (this is what I'm after).

Whatever they send back to me, it will be with the rest of my paperwork that will follow the silencers.

HRnightmare
July 31, 2014, 04:51 PM
Fair enough if thats what they told you. However I was told specifically they WERE required for silencers AND I filled one out incorrectly and received a phone call telling me IT NEEDED to be corrected before traveling.

I guess it is like the do you need to engrave trust info on SBR's when it wasn't an SBR from the factory debacle. MAny say NO and many say yes, I have it in writing from the NFA that you do and was told in two seperate phone calls you do.

I went ahead and got mine done...rather have it and not need it!!! Meanwhile, the guy who did my engraving and who also produces suppressors as a Class 07 SOT ( I think thats the right title) told me he does not engrave his SBR's and it is NOT required.

MasterSergeantA
July 31, 2014, 05:19 PM
"I am another opponent of the Sig Arm Brace. It was a cool design to get around a law...i suppose. I think the whole "it was created for a disabled Veteran story" is a crock or exaggerated but props on them because they aeem to be making a killing off of it."

It was actually invented by a young veteran for just that purpose. He worked on the prototype with an orthopaedic prosthetics specialist who had experience with military amputees. He posted a number of pictures on AR15.com as it developed...and took a lot of gas over it from people who saw no purpose for it. Then the ATF approved it, Sig saw the money to be made from it and bought his patent, and now the people on AR15.com that beat him up are posting trying to find the best price so they can get theirs.

"Personally I paid the $200 for a real stock and the ability to adjust the length...not sure if thats available on the arm brace."

The length can be varied with the choice of buffer tube. But it wasn't made as a "real stock" so it doesn't need to be adjustable beyond that. And the $200 you paid was accompanied by at least one federal form and, unless you are a LLC or have a trust, photos fingerprint cards and the signature of a local CLEO. And then you waited...

"Granted I SBR'ed mine before the Sig brace came out, with the exception of my M92 that got SBR'd but I would stil ldo it the SBR way. It's $130ish for the stock and $200 for the paperwork... Well worth the exra couple bucks.

Personally the only advantage I see is for people in states that they are not allowed like CA, NY, MA, etc."

I'm not trying to start an argument as I have some AR and AK pistols and none of them have the brace. But it isn't just a couple of extra bucks. I could put the brace on my pistol and let one of my friends borrow it for a little range fun. You can't do that with any NFA item unless you tag along. I could buy the brace over the 'Net, put it on the pistol and head out to the range the same day without waiting 6-9 months for someone to approve it.

pjeski
July 31, 2014, 05:55 PM
You don't need 5320.20 for silencers or AOWs.

dogtown tom
July 31, 2014, 07:17 PM
HRnightmare Fair enough if thats what they told you. However I was told specifically they WERE required for silencers AND I filled one out incorrectly and received a phone call telling me IT NEEDED to be corrected before traveling.
Did you read the instructions on the form 5320.20?:rolleyes:
It's clearly stated what NFA firearms require the approval. AOW's and silencers do not. https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/atf-f-5320-20.pdf




I guess it is like the do you need to engrave trust info on SBR's when it wasn't an SBR from the factory debacle. MAny say NO and many say yes, I have it in writing from the NFA that you do and was told in two seperate phone calls you do.
Anyone who says no hasn't read a shred of ATF regulations. :scrutiny:





Meanwhile, the guy who did my engraving and who also produces suppressors as a Class 07 SOT ( I think thats the right title) told me he does not engrave his SBR's and it is NOT required.
:rolleyes: He's an idiot.

Elkins45
July 31, 2014, 11:01 PM
I went ahead and got mine done...rather have it and not need it!!! Meanwhile, the guy who did my engraving and who also produces suppressors as a Class 07 SOT ( I think thats the right title) told me he does not engrave his SBR's and it is NOT required.

This person clearly cannot read, or cannot comprehend.

HRnightmare
August 1, 2014, 11:08 AM
"I am another opponent of the Sig Arm Brace. It was a cool design to get around a law...i suppose. I think the whole "it was created for a disabled Veteran story" is a crock or exaggerated but props on them because they aeem to be making a killing off of it."

It was actually invented by a young veteran for just that purpose. He worked on the prototype with an orthopaedic prosthetics specialist who had experience with military amputees. He posted a number of pictures on AR15.com as it developed...and took a lot of gas over it from people who saw no purpose for it. Then the ATF approved it, Sig saw the money to be made from it and bought his patent, and now the people on AR15.com that beat him up are posting trying to find the best price so they can get theirs.

I was not aware, I assumed Sig had engineers that came up with it. Good on the inventor. He probably made a huge profit.

"Personally I paid the $200 for a real stock and the ability to adjust the length...not sure if thats available on the arm brace."

The length can be varied with the choice of buffer tube. But it wasn't made as a "real stock" so it doesn't need to be adjustable beyond that. And the $200 you paid was accompanied by at least one federal form and, unless you are a LLC or have a trust, photos fingerprint cards and the signature of a local CLEO. And then you waited...

I understand what it was made for, but for what most people are using it for, to circumevent the SBR process it does not have all the benefits of a real stock on a SBR.

"Granted I SBR'ed mine before the Sig brace came out, with the exception of my M92 that got SBR'd but I would stil ldo it the SBR way. It's $130ish for the stock and $200 for the paperwork... Well worth the exra couple bucks.

Personally the only advantage I see is for people in states that they are not allowed like CA, NY, MA, etc."

I'm not trying to start an argument as I have some AR and AK pistols and none of them have the brace. But it isn't just a couple of extra bucks. I could put the brace on my pistol and let one of my friends borrow it for a little range fun. You can't do that with any NFA item unless you tag along.

Incorrect. I can add them to the trust as Trustee's. Quite frankly there are ONLY three people who I would let them be in possession of my NFA items or any of my guns without me being present... A very good friend of mine, my father and my wife. My wife has ZERO interest, my father does not have the knowledge so he only goes to the range if I am going. So that leaves one.

I said $200 for a stock meaning the tax stamp. My AR's were rifles that I stuck a pistol upper on. Really didn't cost me anything but the stamp. The only one I had to go out and buy was when I added a stock to an AK pistol. It was abut $140 for an ace with a folding mechanism, $50 to have a gunsmith install it and $200 for the stamp. I wasn't upset since I got the pistol for less than $400 new. If I Arm braced it isntead of SBR I would have still needed to buy the brace and have someone drill and tap it into the frame. So it cost about the same as it would to buy the Sig Brace and tube and have it installed. Again...only additional cost was the stamp

I do have to concede that the time waiting on the approval is a disadvantage...but really an E-form takes about 4 months. I have WANTED to shoot my guns in SBR configuration before the approval...but I never NEEDED to. It didn't kill me to wait, especially considering I now have it done the way I want.

I stand by my previous statement that I don't regret doing them as an SBR and would do it again. I think the brace is gimmicky, I felt one and it feels awkward and wobbly when shouldered in my opinion. Plus, we hopefully all know the NFA branch has been known to change their mind on things.

HRnightmare
August 1, 2014, 11:10 AM
I didsagree with my engraver's opinion...but I have to agree that the answers I was given were confusing, misleading and even cotradictory...I think we all know the NFA is often confused by themselves.


Quote:
I went ahead and got mine done...rather have it and not need it!!! Meanwhile, the guy who did my engraving and who also produces suppressors as a Class 07 SOT ( I think thats the right title) told me he does not engrave his SBR's and it is NOT required.

This person clearly cannot read, or cannot comprehend.

HRnightmare
August 1, 2014, 11:19 AM
Anyone who says no hasn't read a shred of ATF regulations.

I have to say, he had me doubting myself for a long time. He says that the firearm is simply being halved and the person is not "producing" or manufacturing (i forget which word the NFA uses) anything. He gave the analogy that "if you buy a bunch of lego's and put them together, you didn't actually produce legos" you just took two pre manufactured legos and put them with each other...






Quote:
Meanwhile, the guy who did my engraving and who also produces suppressors as a Class 07 SOT ( I think thats the right title) told me he does not engrave his SBR's and it is NOT required.

He's an idiot.

He is not alone in that opinion... There are many like him. Again, I wan't sure which way was correct as I had been given multiple answers. I figured $80 to engrave and recoat the lower receiver...well worth the piece of mind and the chance it is required and I get arrestes or more likely the gun confiscated.

Theohazard
August 1, 2014, 12:00 PM
I'm not trying to start an argument as I have some AR and AK pistols and none of them have the brace. But it isn't just a couple of extra bucks. I could put the brace on my pistol and let one of my friends borrow it for a little range fun. You can't do that with any NFA item unless you tag along.
Incorrect.
No, he's not incorrect. If the person isn't on the Form 4 or they're not part of the trust, then they can't take your NFA item and borrow it without you being there in the general vicinity.
I can add them to the trust as Trustee's.
Really? Your advice is to just add the friends as trustees when they want to borrow your NFA item? I'm guessing a gun-trust lawyer would advise against doing that.

Sam1911
August 1, 2014, 12:35 PM
Quote:
Meanwhile, the guy who did my engraving and who also produces suppressors as a Class 07 SOT ( I think thats the right title) told me he does not engrave his SBR's and it is NOT required.

He's an idiot.

He is not alone in that opinion... There are many like him. Again, I wan't sure which way was correct as I had been given multiple answers. I figured $80 to engrave and recoat the lower receiver...well worth the piece of mind and the chance it is required and I get arrestes or more likely the gun confiscated.

Good heavens. Here's the writeup, with citations, about the matter as written by an attorney who specializes in this.

http://blog.princelaw.com/2008/09/10/batfe-engraving-requirements-for-a-short-barreled-rifleshotgun-sbr-sbs/

The required information on an Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) or Short Barreled Shotgun (SBS) is:

1. The model (if such one exists),

2. Caliber or gauge,

3. The manufacturer’s name (or recognized abbreviation), and if applicable

4. The city and state (or recognized abbreviation), where you as the manufacturer made the firearm, if it is domestically manufactured.

When you file the Form 5230.1, that's to MAKE AND REGISTER the firearm. Doing the conversion CREATES/MAKES an NFA firearm. Therfore it must be marked as required.

There isn't any controversy. Just some monumentally uninformed folks doing a dangerous disservice.

dogtown tom
August 1, 2014, 06:57 PM
HRnightmare Quote:
Anyone who says no hasn't read a shred of ATF regulations.

I have to say, he had me doubting myself for a long time. He says that the firearm is simply being halved and the person is not "producing" or manufacturing (i forget which word the NFA uses) anything. He gave the analogy that "if you buy a bunch of lego's and put them together, you didn't actually produce legos" you just took two pre manufactured legos and put them with each other...
He's an idiot and needs to read the regulations and rulings. ATF has held for quite some time that merely assembling an AR lower to an AR upper IS a manufacturing activity. His analogy of Legos is wholly and completely at odds with this ATF ruling:
https://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2009-1.pdf
In Revenue Ruling 55-342, ATF's predecessor agency interpreted the meaning of the terms "manufacturer" and "dealer" for the purpose of firearms licensing under the Federal Firearms Act, the precursor statute to the GCA. It was determined that a licensed dealer could assemble firearms from component parts on an individual basis, but could not engage in the business of assembling firearms from component parts in quantity lots for purposes of sale or distribution without a manufacturer's license. Since then, ATF has similarly and consistently interpreted the term "manufacturer" under the GCA to mean any person who engages in the business of making firearms, by casting, assembly, alteration, or otherwise, for the purpose of sale or distribution.

HRnightmare
August 3, 2014, 09:22 PM
Nope. I never gave that as advice... Simpy said it was able to be done.

Really? Your advice is to just add the friends as trustees when they want to borrow your NFA item? I'm guessing a gun-trust lawyer would advise against doing that.

ScottS
August 3, 2014, 09:49 PM
Really? Your advice is to just add the friends as trustees when they want to borrow your NFA item? I'm guessing a gun-trust lawyer would advise against doing that.

In fairness, what I read was "I'd never lend any weapon out, anyway, except maybe to my wife or father, and I could always add them to the trust."

Not everyone is casual about lending weapons out, so it's unfair to make an assumption that he would be adding trustees like sending out dinner invitations.

Sam: like you, I cannot understand the confusion about engraving. I'm always amazed when someone applies and pays a fee to make a firearm (i.e. a fills out a Form 1), and then argues, "Well, I'm not the maker." For the life of me, I cannot see how someone fails to connect those dots.

kimberkid
August 3, 2014, 10:37 PM
I'm always amazed when someone applies and pays a fee to make a firearm (i.e. a fills out a Form 1), and then argues, "Well, I'm not the maker." For the life of me, I cannot see how someone fails to connect those dots.
Ditto ... It is not an SBR until you make it into one ... therefore, you "made" it. Where is the confusion :confused:

Theohazard
August 4, 2014, 03:52 AM
Nope. I never gave that as advice... Simpy said it was able to be done.
OK, but you claimed he was incorrect because he said you can't just loan out an NFA item to a friend without tagging along, and your explanation was that he can just add them to the trust. Call that advice or not, but it's still a bad idea.

HRnightmare
August 6, 2014, 11:26 PM
He said it could not be done...I am just saying it can. If we have to get way off topic lets do it.

THE ONLY person listed on my trust is my father. That is SIMPLY because he lives in the same state. My wife isnt even listed because she doesn't care to understand SBR / silencer / MG rules nor would she bother going through the trouble. She would probably just hand them over to the local PD because god damned if she have to jump through a hoop to do something.

HRnightmare
August 6, 2014, 11:27 PM
When you file the Form 5230.1, that's to MAKE AND REGISTER the firearm. Doing the conversion CREATES/MAKES an NFA firearm. Therfore it must be marked as required.

There isn't any controversy. Just some monumentally uninformed folks doing a dangerous disservice.

Hwnce why it was easier for me just to pay the $35 each to engrave them AND it was beneficial as the need to rebuild them is what gave me the drive to learn to build an AR15...I have built probably ten since then.

HRnightmare
August 6, 2014, 11:35 PM
Did you read the instructions on the form 5320.20?
It's clearly stated what NFA firearms require the approval. AOW's and silencers do not

I am not arguing that it does not mention suppressors on 5320. It DOES NOT specifically say they and AOW's are excluded...BUT are you saying you can waltx right thru into NJ, MA, NY, CA etc with a silencer and there be no trouble if you were caught...Technically the 5320 doesn't see an issue with it...HOWEVER I STILL CALL BS a thousand times over.Legal or not I say you will be detained, the suppressor seized and you will deal with mounds and mounds of BS and will spend time some hours /days in a prison cell.

Theohazard
August 6, 2014, 11:51 PM
Did you read the instructions on the form 5320.20?
It's clearly stated what NFA firearms require the approval. AOW's and silencers do not

I am not arguing that it does not mention suppressors on 5320. It DOES NOT specifically say they and AOW's are excluded...BUT are you saying you can waltx right thru into NJ, MA, NY, CA etc with a silencer and there be no trouble if you were caught...Technically the 5320 doesn't see an issue with it...HOWEVER I STILL CALL BS a thousand times over.Legal or not I say you will be detained, the suppressor seized and you will deal with mounds and mounds of BS and will spend time some hours /days in a prison cell.
Of course he's not saying you can take your silencer to a state where they're banned. The 5320.20 -- along with the rest of the NFA provisions -- is federal law. There is no BATFE requirement to complete that form to transport a silencer or AOW across state lines. But of course you need to also follow all applicable state laws; nobody is saying otherwise.

HRnightmare, first you said it was "incorrect" when someone said you can't loan out your NFA item to your buddy if you're not present, and now this? This is all getting a little ridiculous.

Willie Sutton
August 7, 2014, 12:36 AM
BUT are you saying you can waltx right thru into NJ, MA, NY, CA etc with a silencer and there be no trouble if you were caught...


Under the FOPA, you can transit thru like with any other firearm.

Check the definition of a suppressor: It's a "firearm" as defined by federal law and as such the FOPA applies to transit thru states where suppressors are otherwise illegal. Exactly like carrying a rifle that meets the definition of an "assault rifle" or a large capacity handgun magazine. Just pass thru and keep on moving...


Willie

.

Theohazard
August 7, 2014, 01:46 AM
Good point Willie, but I think HRnightmare was somehow implying that dogtown tom was claiming that the 5320.20 allowed you to posses silencers and AOW in states where they're banned, which isn't what he was saying. But you're right that federal law allows you to transport federally-legal firearms through states where they're not legal, so long as you're just passing through.

HRnightmare
August 7, 2014, 09:12 AM
Willie - I understand what it says. I just lived in NY for 12 years. If you go through NY with a handgun I bet you are going to get hassled and delayed if they find it at best. If you go through NY with a suppressor and they find it I would bet my life savings you are going to end up in handcuffs, likely in jail and the suppressor will be confiscated. They will likely not make it easy to get back even when they find to be at fault. Look at DC.

AT least NYC and LI, upstate NY is a whole other attitude and opinion on guns for the most part.

Here is an example of NY's strong anti-gun opinion:
My uncle, a recently retired Battalion CHIEF with the FDNY was pulled over and had a revolver in his glove box. It was legal with ALL NY and NYC laws. He was pulled from the car, the gun was taken, two more officers gave him crap. It wasn't until he pulled his badge did they decide to "let him go without any trouble". I am not saying anyone is above the law but I am saying that if they hassle one of the top ranking public servants.

I live pretty far south in FL, it takes me about 9 hours to get to any other state. So I don't travel much outside the state except on military duty and business so suppressors, SBRs, and MG's don't come with me.

wally
August 7, 2014, 12:40 PM
BUT are you saying you can waltx right thru into NJ, MA, NY, CA etc with a silencer and there be no trouble if you were caught...


Under the FOPA, you can transit thru like with any other firearm.


I think the old saying "you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride!" would apply. Would likely cost a lot in legal fees too.

Willie Sutton
August 8, 2014, 11:13 PM
Willie - I understand what it says. I just lived in NY for 12 years. If you go through NY with a handgun I bet you are going to get hassled and delayed if they find it at best.


Know the law.

Know your rights.

Don't do stupid things.

Don't consent to searches.

Live long and prosper...


(Try driving to New Hampshire, Maine, or Vermont. all suppressor states, without driving thru New York. Then let me know how all those people in thost states take them south).


Willie

.

Elkins45
August 11, 2014, 08:44 AM
Willie - I understand what it says. I just lived in NY for 12 years. If you go through NY with a handgun I bet you are going to get hassled and delayed if they find it at best.


Know the law.

Know your rights.

Don't do stupid things.

Don't consent to searches.

Live long and prosper...


(Try driving to New Hampshire, Maine, or Vermont. all suppressor states, without driving thru New York. Then let me know how all those people in thost states take them south).


Willie

.
You are 100% legally right, of course, but I suspect that would be cold comfort as the cell door was clanging shut. And as the legal fees were piling up, and as your stuff rusted away in an evidence room, and as...

Most people are lucky in that the NY and NJ police can't pull over every out of state vehicle passing through, or find a pretense to pop the trunk of they ones they do. I agree with all of your advice, but for the unlucky ones who do everything right I still fear for them.

If I were passing thru I think would try to ship my silencer to my destination if at all possible instead of taking it thru myself. An ounce of prevention and all that...

basicblur
August 11, 2014, 11:22 AM
However I was told specifically they WERE required for silencers AND I filled one out incorrectly and received a phone call telling me IT NEEDED to be corrected before traveling.
I guess you get a different answer depending on what day it is!?

Referencing my earlier post...I finally got my tax stamps - figured I would call the ATF (NFA Branch / WV) to see if I could get the "cover letter" the gal on my earlier call told me they would send stating I do not need to fill out form 5320.20 for interstate transportation of silencers rather than send in the paperwork.

The fellow I got this time said that wouldn't happen - he said you do not need to fill out 5320.20 to transport silencers across state lines, but if you fill out the forms and send 'em in, they would approve them and send them back to you.

Nothing like adding to the confusion (of some) - I was hoping to get the cover letter stating the form was not needed (to keep with the silencers, and show any LEOs that did not know the laws / regulaltions), but since it's not needed, why bother getting a form to transport them? (it just adds to the confusion).

If what the fellow told me is true, then I guess that's why they completed your forms, even though they are not needed.

If I were to call tomorrow, guess I'd get a 3rd different answer...
(At least everyone has been consistent on the fact that you do NOT need the form for silencers).

Sam1911
August 11, 2014, 11:34 AM
Guys, the ATF FAQ, (as well as the law itself, if that matters), is pretty clear on this.

Q: Does the registered owner of a destructive device, machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle need authorization to lawfully transport such items interstate?
Yes, unless the owner is a qualified dealer, manufacturer or importer, or a licensed collector transporting only curios or relics. Prior approval must be obtained, even if the move is temporary. Approval is requested by either submitting a letter containing all necessary information, or by submitting ATF Form 5320.20 to the Bureau of ATF, NFA Branch. Possession of the firearms also must comply with all State and local laws.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a) (4), 27 CFR 478.28]

The transport law is in regard to a few specific firearms, and silencers are NOT among them.

Elkins45
August 11, 2014, 11:42 AM
Guys, the ATF FAQ, (as well as the law itself, if that matters), is pretty clear on this.



The transport law is in regard to a few specific firearms, and silencers are NOT among them.
I know that, but the question would be whether the person with the power to put you in jail knew it.

At a bare minimum I think it would be prudent to travel with printed copies of all the germane regs, and to have the online references bookmarked on any mobile device you happen to have.

I keep copies of all my stamps in my shooting bag just in case. I think I will now follow my own good advice and add copies of all the above stuff as well.

basicblur
August 11, 2014, 11:53 AM
I know that, but the question would be whether the person with the power to put you in jail knew it.
Yup...

When I originally contacted ATF, I was told:
1. 5320.20 is NOT needed for silencer transport.
2. If you fill out the form, we'll send it back with a letter stating it is not needed.

Today I was told the form would simply be OK'ed and returned to me (even though it's not needed).

I asked my lawyer about this way back on 1-16-14, and here's what he said:
As for whether or not you have a legal requirement to complete a Form 20 for suppressors, the KY trust lawyer is correct. You are not LEGALLY required to fill out a Form 20 for suppressors. Failing to do so is NOT a crime ... but it would go against the terms of my NFA trusts language.

The terms on my NFA trusts require the trustee to submit a Form 20 for ALL NFA items and here is why. The job of the trust is to protect the assets in the trust as well as your interests as the Settlor. Many local law enforcement officers who encounter an NFA item may have little or no knowledge of NFA laws. Having an approved Form 20 with the "blessing" of the ATF goes a long way to avoid lengthy encounters (or even confiscation) with such officers.

Finally, make sure that the state you are taking the item to does not have additional state-level requirements concerning suppressors.

So...it sounds like my lawyer wants me to fill out the form simply as a CYA move - this is why I was after the "cover letter" the original ATF agent told me I would receive.

I guess I'll go ahead and send the 5320.20 in, just to cover my behind.

BullfrogKen
August 12, 2014, 07:49 PM
Ok local cops don't enforce federal laws, and that transport law you are so worried about is a federal statute.

basicblur
August 12, 2014, 07:57 PM
Ok local cops don't enforce federal laws, and that transport law you are so worried about is a federal statute.
I'm not only worried about any local LEOs that might try to give me a hard time, but I'm not so sure a particular Federal agent that might run across me knows the law / regulations.

You never know if you're going to run across Andy Griffith or Barney Fife, and there are a LOT of Barney Fife's running around out there these days... :banghead:

kimberkid
August 13, 2014, 03:34 PM
Willie - I understand what it says. I just lived in NY for 12 years. If you go through NY with a handgun I bet you are going to get hassled and delayed if they find it at best.


Know the law.

Know your rights.

Don't do stupid things.

Don't consent to searches.

Live long and prosper...


(Try driving to New Hampshire, Maine, or Vermont. all suppressor states, without driving thru New York. Then let me know how all those people in thost states take them south).


Willie

.
Ditto ...

If you don't give them a reason to suspect or search for anything, most likely it will never become an issue ... life it too short to worry about stupid stuff like that.

At least I hope we haven't gotten to the point where we can be selected at randon and commanded to produce our "papers"

Ranb
August 23, 2014, 02:30 AM
I just got my SBR ATF e-form 1 back approved after waiting three weeks. An SBR sure beats the heck out of a silly arm brace. The $200 tax is peanuts compared to the cost of the ammo I will put through it in the next several years.

http://s171.photobucket.com/user/ranb40/media/firearms/ARSBR2_zps9c6c8dba.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0#/user/ranb40/media/firearms/ARSBR2_zps9c6c8dba.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0&_suid=1408774919702019077917482982432

http://s171.photobucket.com/user/ranb40/media/firearms/ARSBR2_zps9c6c8dba.jpg.html#/

Ranb

Tirod
August 23, 2014, 11:37 AM
Has the existence of the arm brace changed the way AR15 users might consider them, yes. It has grown exponentially since the determination that they can be shouldered. Thanks for the explanations concerning SBR stamps, transport, etc. It wasn't so obvious before how arbitrary and onerous some of the restrictions are. What a contrast to the carry and use of a pistol - which in this case is a breeze. And in many jurisdictions it's legal to carry them loaded, unlike a rifle which must be cased with ammo separate.

SIG has introduced another model to the lineup, which means they don't see it as stealing sales from the existing model, but adding sales. If that is a reflection on the styling of the first one, fine, if you don't like it, ok. The market is full of dress up stocks, handguards, and grips, and most are sold precisely because somebody doesn't like the hideous looks of Brand X. Taste isn't always a big discriminator in firearm sales, if I am to believe my eyes when I see a bright green and black zebra striped polymer frame on a pistol.

What we have is a gamechanger. What WAS a long wait for a short barreled rifle with extra fees and requirements is NOW a no big deal pistol build. What WAS a restricted and limited item is NOW another AR build genre with no holds barred, literally. Just pick a pistol buffer tube that you are legally comfortable with.

As long as this window of opportunity exists, why penalize yourself with the costs of a stamp, trust, inheritance, transport, and other hassles of an SBR, when the BATF just cut you a huge amount of slack?

Does it mean that someone who would never have bothered to apply for an SBR stamp is now interested? READ THE FORUMS - it's the hottest thing going now, and that's in a declining gun market. Those considering an AR build are waking up and seeing a huge opportunity. An "SBR" - for "free," no waiting or any more hassle other than building to one specific feature - a buffer tube that can't "accept" or be "easily modified" for a rifle stock.

It's about freedom, and this decision is a major surprise during what we thought was an anti gun administration. In just the last few months there are threads popping up in other forums, with a renewed interest in how to build an AR pistol, all because the wrist brace opened the opportunity. If all it takes is a wrist brace with pistol buffer and you save $200, ten months, a trust, transport hassles, etc., there would have to be a seriously compelling reason to endure the hassle. Which hasn't been yet revealed - and never really was.

bikemutt
August 23, 2014, 11:33 PM
I just got my SBR ATF e-form 1 back approved after waiting three weeks. An SBR sure beats the heck out of a silly arm brace. The $200 tax is peanuts compared to the cost of the ammo I will put through it in the next several years.

http://s171.photobucket.com/user/ranb40/media/firearms/ARSBR2_zps9c6c8dba.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0#/user/ranb40/media/firearms/ARSBR2_zps9c6c8dba.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0&_suid=1408774919702019077917482982432

http://s171.photobucket.com/user/ranb40/media/firearms/ARSBR2_zps9c6c8dba.jpg.html#/

Ranb
Let's say circumstances change and you have to sell your SBR, quick. Good luck.

I can sell my AR pistol in 5 minutes, may take a bit longer to ditch the arm brace I suppose.

Sam1911
August 23, 2014, 11:54 PM
Let's say circumstances change and you have to sell your SBR, quick. Good luck.pull the shorty upper off your SBR and it's not an NFA weapon any more. So you can sell it just as fast. The ATF says you aren't even required to notify them that it should be removed from the registry.

Ranb
August 24, 2014, 12:46 AM
Let's say circumstances change and you have to sell your SBR, quick. Good luck.
I've never considered having to dispose of a gun quickly, ever.

I did have a suppressed WASR (Romanian AK) on the market for over a year; no one wanted to buy it after test firing as the gas port was noisy. After the last "we're gong to grab your guns" scare a guy took me up on the offer of $600 (my cost for rifle, silencer and tax). He only wanted the rifle as he was scared of the BATFE (can't figure that one out) and didn't want to pay the tranfer tax.

Now I have a useless silencer that only fits on an AK with 9/16" threads and a bare barrel with the front sight set back. Anyone want it? Just $50 plus tax. :)

Ranb

Unlicensed Dremel
August 24, 2014, 11:03 AM
NO.

An actual tight shoulder hold is 3x as "practical-accurate".

It's that simple.

blueskyjaunte
August 24, 2014, 02:37 PM
"An actual tight should hold" is accomplished with a SIG arm brace as easily as it is accomplished with a standard short LOP buttstock.

bikemutt
August 24, 2014, 07:33 PM
pull the shorty upper off your SBR and it's not an NFA weapon any more. So you can sell it just as fast. The ATF says you aren't even required to notify them that it should be removed from the registry.

And the serialized lower?

Sam1911
August 24, 2014, 07:53 PM
The serialized lower is the only part that matters. If you remove the short barrel and put a 16"+ barrel on it, it is now a standard GCA rifle. You can transport it across state lines, take it to "no SBR" states, lend it to friends, or sell it if you wish, without doing any paperwork.

If you so choose, you can write a letter to the BATFE to let them know they can remove that gun from the registry.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-short-barreled-rifles-shotguns.html

Read numbers three, four, five.

BullfrogKen
August 24, 2014, 08:08 PM
Yup, yup, and yup. What Sam said.


It's only an SBR when it is fitted with a barrel under 16". Take that off and it's nothing more than a plain-jane, completely NFA-unregulated AR frame w/out a barrel. Put a standard, unregulated length barrel on it, and as far as the law is concerned all you have is an AR with some personalized stamp on it - either a name or the trust's name and such.

The owner can sell it, do whatever he wants with it, no $200 tax stamp needed. The seller can even do a face-to-face sale with no paperwork at all if his state allows such sales. The ATF merely suggests if it's been "un-made" an SBR that they be notified as a courtesy to remove it from the registry, but even that isn't required.

Sam1911
August 24, 2014, 08:26 PM
(Every once in a while you run across some bit of the NFA laws that's so EASY and logical you just can't believe it the first time you hear it. This is one of those! :))

bikemutt
August 24, 2014, 08:51 PM
(Every once in a while you run across some bit of the NFA laws that's so EASY and logical you just can't believe it the first time you hear it. This is one of those! :))
Yup. How can it be so arduous to get in, so easy to get out, very odd.

BullfrogKen
August 24, 2014, 09:04 PM
Yup, and instances like this point out exactly how silly the law is.


With the AR being the lego set that it is, you can sit at home with a 16.5" upper and a 14.5" upper playing the game, "now it's an SBR, now it's not; now it's an SBR, now it's not," 'till the cows come home.

And you'd be right.

It's only an SBR with a barrel less than 16" (and a shoulder stock attached). Take that off, and it's not. Really, it's not. Put a 16" or greater barrel on it and it truly is nothing more than a plain-jane AR. Perhaps with an engraving or stamped portion on it under the NFA regulation. But if it was bought as a factory-produced SBR it probably won't even have that. It'll look no different than any other AR in your gun safe.

And it can be treated exactly the same way, too.


However, if you want to talk about the silliness surrounding Thompson Contenders you'll really see the silliness in all this. "Now it's a pistol; now it's a rifle; now . . . I guess it "could be an SBR" if I put my pistol barrel back on it but that'll illegal so let's not do that . . . so now it's a rifle again. Now it's a pistol again. Oh wait , I'm not supposed to make a pistol out of a rifle. OK, um . . . so what do I do with all my pistol length barrels when I'm not permitted to make a pistol out of a rifle? Why did I buy this thing again???"

Sam1911
August 24, 2014, 09:22 PM
Fortunately they ditched that silliness a few years ago, so you can make your PISTOL into a rifle and then into a pistol.

Of course, it would be naughty to make your RIFLE into a pistol, then into a rifle, and then a pistol. Say what?

BullfrogKen
August 24, 2014, 09:56 PM
Yeah, but as I recall the ruling was limited to only to Thompson packages at first (one rifle barrel, one pistol barrel, and both a pistol grip and shoulder stock all sold as a complete package). Then a subsequent ATF administrative hearing/ruling/determination (my memory fails me) deemed that any T/C pistol manufactured and sold as a pistol, with the additional pistol paperwork, could be configured a rifle, then legally configured back into a pistol. But you had to retain possession of a T/C pistol grip while in possession of a barrel under 16", otherwise you were in constructive possession of an SBR.


But shame on you if you had all of those, took the pistol grip off and installed a shoulder stock onto it before removing the rifle barrel and installing your pistol-length barrel. You were a felon. At least for a minute or two until you popped the pin and took that 10" pistol barrel off.



bikemutt, it'll make a whole lot more sense when you begin thinking about SBRs differently. The whole rifle isn't an SBR. The receiver isn't what makes it an SBR. It's only an SBR when you take a receiver sold as a rifle and install a barrel less than 16" on it. And it's only an SBR while in that configuration. The NFA paperwork you file and the tax paid allows you to make in into that configuration without violating the NFA. And you only need it while it's in that configuration. You don't need any of that if it's not. Dispose of (sell, destroy, or give away) the barrel(s) under 16" and you no longer have that concern.


Now . . . the corollary to that is . . . say you own an AR rifle. And then you acquire a 14.5" M4 barrel which you keep in your possession and do not have an AR frame registered as a pistol. Or do not have an AR receiver registered as an SBR. You constructively have an SBR according the the BATFE's rules.


This law was created back when we didn't have the ease of making SBRs. Thompson Center didn't exist. The AR wasn't even a forethought. The lawmakers who wrote these laws envisioned people in their basements, sheds, and garages taking hacksaws to rifles and shotguns. Back then it took specific tools and knowledge to take a barrel off a rifle and fit another to it that still worked and fired safely. They never envisioned commercial firearms would be produced that could have barrels changed simply by popping a pin and buying another commercially-produced replacement that wouldn't require headspacing, or that those replacements might make a rifle that fell afoul of the NFA.

Elkins45
August 24, 2014, 11:52 PM
Please forgive the stupid question:

If I put a 16"+ upper on my AR may I put the short upper back on without filing another Form 1? Somewhere in the past I recall reading that a SBR is permanently "unmade" if you ever put a long barrel on it. That seems goofy and unenforceable to me, but I thought I would ask.

Sam1911
August 25, 2014, 06:45 AM
From the FAQ I linked to above:

Q: May the short barrel on an SBR or SBS be replaced with a long barrel for hunting or other purposes, with the intent of replacing the short barrel?
Yes, and you will not be required to again register the firearm before replacing the short barrel. ATF recommends written notification to the NFA Branch when a firearm’s configuration is permanently changed or removed from the purview of the NFA.

bikemutt
August 25, 2014, 09:13 AM
Alrighty then, now the SBR thing makes perfect sense :rolleyes:

Lets say I have an AR15 pistol lower I use with a 14" pistol upper and some day I'd really like to put a rifle stock on it and have an SBR, I'm assuming I'd have to fill out a form 4, or is there some other form since I'll be "manufacturing" an SBR?

Can I continue using the pistol lower (in a lawful configuration) while waiting 8+ months for approval?

Sam1911
August 25, 2014, 09:17 AM
If you are making it yourself, it's a Form 1, not 4. (Technically, form 5320.1)

Yes, you can do whatever (else) you want with it while you wait on the form to come back.

Just don't configure it as an SBR until you have that in hand.

Tirod
August 25, 2014, 12:49 PM
I'm not disagreeing that one can change the upper on an SBR and sell it. But what is required is that other upper - something the makes it legal to sell means another $450 upper to do it. Not everyone has one, they may have nothing to swap on. If it's going to "cost" the owner a rifle upper to quickly sell, and he doesn't have one, it's not a solution. It's still an SBR with all the legalities.

The pistol, however, could trade hands for the appropriate cash with no modifications, SB15 included. That does have it's downside if there are other state requirements, too. It's a pistol and falls under those provisions.

What I'm reading are a lot of folks trying to defend the SBR, when the SB15 could be the easier solution, certainly cheaper, and doesn't have to jump thru restrictive hurdles in time and BATF applications. I'm getting the sense some are being a little defensive about the new kid on the block and don't like that the next guy over on the range got his without all the hassle - and can shoot it just the same, plus carry it and transport it with less hassles.

There's a new AR15 being marketed in CA, it's got a mag in the well with standard drop button, rifle stock, etc all outlawed under the AWB. But it's not - by the simple expedient of being .17 caliber, not .223.

I suppose I'll be able to read how it's not "as good" because the AWB owners got the rug pulled out from under them in the social hierarchy, not that the gun is actually less capable.

Again - SB15's and pistol buffer interest is up, are SBR applications rising, too? Or, are AR15 fans moving to an easier to own weapon with less administrative and financial hassles? I read them voting with their dollars and buying into the wrist brace builds.

How much mentally contrived discomfort that SBR owners perceive in the region of the maximus gluteus isn't selling the SBR application process. The BATF has changed the rules and the wrist brace is definitely an answer to the problem. SIG took the chance with a tactical end run and we get the win.

Huge victory here guys, embrace it. Let's move on to derailing the other NFA provisions. I'm reading some SBR defenders exhibiting Stockholm syndrome - they are expressing empathy for the stamp process as if it's justifiable and how things should be done, not as a onerous and disagreeable imposition against our 2A rights.

Time for an attitude check.

Elkins45
August 25, 2014, 01:43 PM
I'm reading some SBR defenders exhibiting Stockholm syndrome - they are expressing empathy for the stamp process as if it's justifiable and how things should be done, not as a onerous and disagreeable imposition against our 2A rights.

I'm not reading that at all. As I said much earlier in the thread I don't see how the arm brace helps with my 10/22.

Note that I'm not opposed to the idea, but as I don't own a lower that started life as a pistol it wouldn't really be much of a financial benefit. Anything I gain from not needing a stamp would be used to buy one plus the brace and internal parts. I already own a second AR so once I had the stamp then all I would need would be the barrel...which would also be needed for a pistol build so it's a wash.

Now if I were in the market for a new AR it would be a viable option, but it simply is not a lawful option for the guns I currently own. SBR is.

wally
August 25, 2014, 02:17 PM
How can it be so arduous to get in, so easy to get out, very odd.

Since they rather you not have in the first place (the purpose of the arduous process), it makes actually makes a lot of since.


'm reading some SBR defenders exhibiting Stockholm syndrome - they are expressing empathy for the stamp process as if it's justifiable and how things should be done, Nonsense, I have both, and I like the SBR better, but the brace is a viable way to play if for whatever reason one doesn't want to go the NFA route.

Until you've actually shot them both side by side, saying how "ridiculous" they are is ridiculous.

ScottS
August 26, 2014, 09:49 AM
I'm not disagreeing that one can change the upper on an SBR and sell it. But what is required is that other upper - something the makes it legal to sell means another $450 upper to do it. Not everyone has one, they may have nothing to swap on. If it's going to "cost" the owner a rifle upper to quickly sell, and he doesn't have one, it's not a solution. It's still an SBR with all the legalities.


Uh...then why not just sell the upper? Suddenly, it's no longer an SBR. Then, if you really need to, sell the lower. Not that used lowers are going for much these days.

You don't have to have another upper. Once the SBR upper is gone, so is the SBR.

Charger442
August 26, 2014, 09:57 AM
There really is a ton of dumb excuses in here for why people love this sig brace.

FYI, it hasn't been "just recently" that you could shoulder a pistol. The Sig arm brace didn't make that magically legal. The ATF declared shouldering a pistol was not illegal years ago, thus you had people putting rubber cane tips on the pistol buffer tube. And cheek weld saddles.

Yall act like ar pistols are the newest screw you to the ATF and the best one that ever lived. Many of us have been shooting an AR pistol with a CAA tube saddle for years. Oh the total shock of that!

dogtown tom
August 26, 2014, 06:23 PM
Tirod ..... The BATF has changed the rules and the wrist brace is definitely an answer to the problem...
What rule did the ATF change in regards to the Sig Arm Brace?:scrutiny:

dogtown tom
August 27, 2014, 09:10 AM
For you Texans that think the Sig arm brace "is as good as an SBR" consider this: an AR pistol with a Sig arm brace is still a pistol. Open carry of handguns in Texas has restrictions that SBR's and rifles do not.

Throw that AR pistol in the window rack of your pickup or back seat of your Prius and you commit a violation of Texas law. A handgun cannot be in plain view in a motor vehicle.

I wonder how many of those OCT nincompoops didn't think about that?

Sam1911
August 27, 2014, 10:00 AM
Of course, that's TX, and other states have laws exactly opposite of that.

Gtscotty
August 27, 2014, 02:00 PM
I'm running out of reasons not to put in a form 1 on a stripped lower.... From this thread it looks like if I ever get tired of the SBR, I can sell the upper and really only be out the cost of the stripped lower and stamp. The Sig stock is cool, but for about the same cost it looks like I can go ahead and make the real deal.

Shawnpatrick
August 27, 2014, 02:18 PM
This thread sold me on an SBR instead of the arm brace as well. I had been considering the arm brace but after buying a $50 stripped lower and finding 300 BLK 10.5" uppers under $300 I was able to put together an SBR for about $700 including the tax stamp.

The pistol buffer was going to cost $40 plus $120 for the arm brace. I got a cheap stock+buffer tube for $40 so the tax stamp was only $80 more than the pistol with arm brace.

bikemutt
August 27, 2014, 04:17 PM
Sam, last I checked the change in WA making SBRs legal to own and use omitted the key word "manufacture". So, us pedestrians may not be allowed to manufacture an NFA item. The way around that is to have a certain class dealer manufacture one for you, but the lower would need to sit in his/her safe until the form 1 is approved, and then I assume until the form 4 is approved.

If all I had to do was fill out a form 1 and send it in I'd be all over an SBR, I just don't think we are quite there yet in WA. I'd be thrilled to discover I'm wrong :)

kimberkid
August 27, 2014, 05:10 PM
Uh...then why not just sell the upper? Suddenly, it's no longer an SBR. Then, if you really need to, sell the lower. Not that used lowers are going for much these days.

You don't have to have another upper. Once the SBR upper is gone, so is the SBR.
Slow down there partner ... sell the upper, fine EXCEPT you still have an SBR lower which is still on the registry and it is still bound by all the NFA laws you agreed to when you made it an SBR.

Theohazard
August 27, 2014, 05:28 PM
Sam, last I checked the change in WA making SBRs legal to own and use omitted the key word "manufacture". So, us pedestrians may not be allowed to manufacture an NFA item. The way around that is to have a certain class dealer manufacture one for you, but the lower would need to sit in his/her safe until the form 1 is approved, and then I assume until the form 4 is approved.

If all I had to do was fill out a form 1 and send it in I'd be all over an SBR, I just don't think we are quite there yet in WA. I'd be thrilled to discover I'm wrong :)
It looks like the law is currently being interpreted to allow us to manufacture SBRs as well; the ATF is returning approved SBR Form 1s to people all over the state. It's true that the law is unclear, but -- at least for now -- it's being interpreted by the state and the ATF to mean Form 1s are OK. Of course, that could always change until the law is clarified.

Sam1911
August 27, 2014, 05:51 PM
sell the upper, fine EXCEPT you still have an SBR lower which is still on the registry and it is still bound by all the NFA laws you agreed to when you made it an SBR.

Kimberkid, go back and read from post 142 down.

(Short version: Nope! :))

dogtown tom
August 27, 2014, 06:20 PM
Sam1911 Of course, that's TX, and other states have laws exactly opposite of that.
And that is precisely why I wrote "For you Texans...."and mentioned TEXAS law.;)


bikemutt Sam, last I checked the change in WA making SBRs legal to own and use omitted the key word "manufacture". So, us pedestrians may not be allowed to manufacture an NFA item. The way around that is to have a certain class dealer manufacture one for you, but the lower would need to sit in his/her safe until the form 1 is approved, and then I assume until the form 4 is approved.
A nonlicensee converting a rifle to SBR via a Form 1 is not a "manufacturer"..........he's a "maker". Manufacturers are required to hold an 07FFL.





.

Elkins45
August 27, 2014, 08:47 PM
This thread is a really good example of why THR is so great. I've learned a bunch of stuff and thoroughly enjoyed the conversation. There were several very good points brought out on both sides of the conversation that really made me think about stuff I would have not otherwise considered.

Ranb
August 27, 2014, 10:18 PM
People in WA are acquiring SBR's in part by making/registering them on ATF form 1's. It appears that the word acquire is being interpreted rather broadly. :) I like. Two ATF e-form 1's approved in less than a month's wait. Yeehaww.

Ranb

ScottS
August 29, 2014, 08:47 AM
Slow down there partner ... sell the upper, fine EXCEPT you still have an SBR lower which is still on the registry and it is still bound by all the NFA laws you agreed to when you made it an SBR.

Is it embarrassing to say condescending things like "Slow down there partner..." only to then say something that's already been proven factually incorrect in the very same thread? Just wondering...

Do a little research. It's only an SBR when it's an SBR, i.e. when it has the attributes that make it a Short Barreled Rifle under Title II. Absent the short-barreled upper it's simply an AR lower, albeit with some extra engraving. There is no legal requirement to have the resulting lower removed from the registry.

Or, as Sam so eloquently put it: Nope.

Ryanxia
September 4, 2014, 04:46 PM
Depends on the use. For a range toy, just use the brace (assuming AR/AK). If you're going to train with it, go with the SBR, the brace is sweet and holds up pretty well, but I think a stock would hold up better in the long run of abuse.

That being said;
I pad $94 for my Sig brace and buffer tube (so stock and tube you'd be buying on top of the tax stamp)
No wait time
No additional paperwork
AR/AK is still considered a pistol so if you have a CCW you can carry it loaded in vehicle if you'd like (I don't but like having the option lol).

TIMC
September 5, 2014, 07:38 PM
For you Texans that think the Sig arm brace "is as good as an SBR" consider this: an AR pistol with a Sig arm brace is still a pistol. Open carry of handguns in Texas has restrictions that SBR's and rifles do not.

Throw that AR pistol in the window rack of your pickup or back seat of your Prius and you commit a violation of Texas law. A handgun cannot be in plain view in a motor vehicle.

I wonder how many of those OCT nincompoops didn't think about that

Do they still even make window racks? I haven't seen one of those in years! I have a 3 gun rifle case that hangs off the back of the front seat in my Mega cab truck. The rifle case is black so it blends in with the black leather seats and with the Limo tint on the windows you can't see it.

Anyone with a rifle sticking up in the window is asking for someone to take it. Those days ar long gone.

Blade First
September 8, 2014, 08:59 PM
And so it goes...

kimberkid
September 8, 2014, 09:54 PM
Do they still even make window racks?
Yup, I saw one I Walmart yesterday, but they still didn't have any 22LR.

Tirod
September 11, 2014, 01:00 PM
If the lower is purchased as a pistol, then registered as an SBR, can you then sell the upper and use it again as a pistol without a stock on it? It's "once a rifle, always a rifle" correct?

Can the SB15 be used to carry a spare magazine? YES/NO, and your reasons based on other BATF letters, which admittedly don't apply to anyone except the addressee.

Can you use a spare mag carrier on the pistol buffer tube? The CAA and Thorsden combo comes to mind. Or, a web carrier than slips over the tube and holds one mag. For that matter, two.

I pose these questions because that is exactly what the SB15 decision did, and it has had in impact on who is and isn't going to submit for the SBR stamp. I can hunt in MO with a pistol in any firearms season, and carry it loaded in my car, I can only huntiwith carbine or SBR in MO during the November portion, the gun has to be transported cased and unloaded.

Depending on your state, you either have advantages one way or other. Right now, I like MO more than TX. Glad I live here.

Sam1911
September 11, 2014, 01:25 PM
If the lower is purchased as a pistol, then registered as an SBR, can you then sell the upper and use it again as a pistol without a stock on it? It's "once a rifle, always a rifle" correct? Nope. "Once a rifle..." (in regards to pistol conversions) went away with the rules adjustment in 2011: https://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf

And the ATF is very clear that once an SBR has had the barrel removed or swapped to a 16"+ barrel, it is no longer an NFA item.

Can the SB15 be used to carry a spare magazine? YES/NO, and your reasons based on other BATF letters, which admittedly don't apply to anyone except the addressee. What do you mean? The ATF defines the gun -- what it is and what is isn't. They've been clear that how you choose to use it doesn't have any bearing on whether it is a rifle, pistol, SBR, etc.

Can you use a spare mag carrier on the pistol buffer tube? The CAA and Thorsden combo comes to mind. Or, a web carrier than slips over the tube and holds one mag. For that matter, two.What do these things mean? Why would how you carry a magazine change anything about the legal status of the firearm?

Elkins45
September 11, 2014, 01:52 PM
And the ATF is very clear that once an SBR has had the barrel removed or swapped to a 16"+ barrel, it is no longer an NFA item.

This is one of the reasons I decided to engrave my trust information on the barrel rather than the lower on my Colt SBR AR. If needed I can put the original upper back on it and it bears no sign of having ever been an NFA item.

Sam1911
September 11, 2014, 01:57 PM
Well, true, but then you shouldn't be using it with any other short barrels (as it would then be an NFA weapon without proper serialization), and an AR screams for multiple setups.

Kind of a Catch 22, but I think I'd just deal with the engraving somewhere on the lower...

I mean, a replacement lower's what, $60 anyway at this point?

dogtown tom
September 11, 2014, 02:21 PM
Tirod If the lower is purchased as a pistol,
AR lowers, frames and receivers cannot be purchased as "a pistol".....they are "Other Firearms".



then registered as an SBR, can you then sell the upper and use it again as a pistol without a stock on it? It's "once a rifle, always a rifle" correct?
A firearm built first as pistol, may be converted to rifle, then back to pistol.
A firearm that is first a rifle, is always a rifle.



Can the SB15 be used to carry a spare magazine? YES/NO, and your reasons based on other BATF letters, which admittedly don't apply to anyone except the addressee.
The ability to carry a spare magazine isn't prohibited by any Federal law or ATF regulation.....so YES.:rolleyes:



Can you use a spare mag carrier on the pistol buffer tube? The CAA and Thorsden combo comes to mind. Or, a web carrier than slips over the tube and holds one mag. For that matter, two.
Sure. No Federal law that says you can't.

dogtown tom
September 11, 2014, 02:27 PM
Elkins45 Quote:
And the ATF is very clear that once an SBR has had the barrel removed or swapped to a 16"+ barrel, it is no longer an NFA item.

This is one of the reasons I decided to engrave my trust information on the barrel rather than the lower on my Colt SBR AR. If needed I can put the original upper back on it and it bears no sign of having ever been an NFA item.
Which costs more, an AR lower or a barrel?
Folks need to think about that when choosing a place to engrave the makers name and city. It is almost impossible to sell a receiver, barrel or upper that has someone other than the factory's name on it.

That's why I only buy factory SBR's and SBS's...........no one else's name.;)

Elkins45
September 11, 2014, 03:21 PM
Well, true, but then you shouldn't be using it with any other short barrels (as it would then be an NFA weapon without proper serialization), and an AR screams for multiple setups.

Kind of a Catch 22, but I think I'd just deal with the engraving somewhere on the lower...

I mean, a replacement lower's what, $60 anyway at this point?
Any other barrels will also be engraved.

Can you get a Colt lower that also comes with an approved Form 4 bearing it's serial number for $60?

Sam1911
September 11, 2014, 03:22 PM
;) Nope!

kimberkid
September 11, 2014, 08:29 PM
If the lower is purchased as a pistol, then registered as an SBR, can you then sell the upper and use it again as a pistol without a stock on it? It's "once a rifle, always a rifle" correct?


Not correct in the NFA world ... I didn't write a letter but I called in 2007 prior to doing my first SBR and was told:

If you buy it as a rifle it's always a rifle. You can SBR a pistol and have an SBR'd pistol removed from the registry and it becomes a pistol again ... However if you take that same receiver, then put a 16" or longer barrel on it, then it becomes a rifle and the "once a rifle, always a rifle" applies.

Your other questions, I don't know

Sam1911
September 11, 2014, 09:03 PM
Yes, in 2007, that was the rule.

In 2011 they published the change I posted above and that is no longer the rule.

If it starts as a pistol or "other" it doesn't ever fall into the "once a rifle, always a rifle" trap.

Tirod
September 12, 2014, 09:23 AM
So, if the rule doesn't exist, I can alter my 16" carbine by sliding off the stock, installing a 12" barrel, and call it a pistol. At any time I choose.

Correct?

Sam1911
September 12, 2014, 09:27 AM
Yup! So long as it started as a pistol or "other firearm."

(If it was sold originally as a stocked rifle, this doesn't apply.)

Sam1911
September 12, 2014, 09:34 AM
(The depths and legal contortions we'd have to go to to predict how this could ever be enforceable are pretty funny, but the ATF had to come up with something to tell people, so they chose to say if it was originally sold as a rifle, it's a rifle. Makes no practical sense, and probably couldn't survive a serious court challenge, but if they don't ever try to enforce it that won't matter.)

Tirod
September 12, 2014, 09:51 AM
It was sold as a stripped lower, and I believe at the time the form was marked rifle. About three years ago.

So, FIRST a rifle always a rifle? I'm still seeing two different answers. If I can't, then it's because a rifle can't be a pistol if the BATF determines it was first a rifle. Therefore all the rifle owners who convert their lowers to pistol configuration are doing so illegally.

Of course, we don't expect anyone to say they did. ;)

As for the mag carrier, instead of a wrist brace a box magazine pouch installed on the buffer tube with a 20 rounder in it. It's not a shoulder stock, it's a spare mag carrier. It would be under the tube with the bottom of the mag toward the shoulder.

Sam1911
September 12, 2014, 10:19 AM
... and I believe at the time the form was marked rifle.
Several points about that.
1) The dealer screwed up, if that's what he put on the form. The instructions are clear about receivers and he should have known better.
2) This points out the absurdity of any sort of rule that tries to apply to what a gun once was, sometime. What matters here? IF the BATFE ever tried to enforce this, what would they go by? The dealer's 4473? Well, that was filled out in error. The manufacturer's records? Well, they shipped a bare receiver. That's what it WAS, when it arrived at the dealer's shop. But, of course, EVERY AR15 starts the same way. There is no difference at all -- not one atom's worth -- between a pistol receiver and a rifle receiver.

So, FIRST a rifle always a rifle? I'm still seeing two different answers.Again, an absurdity of the way they say they want to try to enforce this. When you walked out of the dealer's shop it was (or should have been) an "other firearm." You then took it home and did WHAT with it? No one in the world could possibly say, definitively, except you. It probably is "covering your butt" to say you built it as a pistol first, but that's just your word against anyone else's word ... but NO ONE would have any better claim to make than you do, and you were there.

Especially considering that an AR15 "pistol" can be built with a rifle buffer tube, the difference is completely immaterial! Did you put your buffer tube on before you installed the stock? Of course you did. (You couldn't have done otherwise.) Then for a moment, at least, you'd constructed an "other firearm" at least, and maybe a handgun. (That would depend on whether the whole package was under or over 26".

I postulate that this is a completely unenforceable "rule" and they know it. They had to say something but "awww, shucks, we can't possibly say one way or the other," just ins't something they can admit. :)

If I can't, then it's because a rifle can't be a pistol if the BATF determines it was first a rifle. Therefore all the rifle owners who convert their lowers to pistol configuration are doing so illegally. Again, a distinction without any substance. The best that the BATFE could do is say that the manufacturer sold it as a complete rifle, and the dealer logged it as a rifle, so they have a case that it was FIRST a rifle.

Of course, we don't expect anyone to say they did. And proving one way or the other would be practically impossible for either prosecution or defense.

As for the mag carrier, instead of a wrist brace a box magazine pouch installed on the buffer tube with a 20 rounder in it. It's not a shoulder stock, it's a spare mag carrier. It would be under the tube with the bottom of the mag toward the shoulder.I haven't seen such a thing, but that's a mag carrier, not a stock.

MasterSergeantA
September 12, 2014, 04:27 PM
Sam,

I thought if you submitted a Form 1 to "make" a SBR from a pistol, that once completed as a "rifle" (albeit short-barreled) you could not "make" it back into a pistol again. I know that you can "make" the SBR from a rifle and then put it back into long barrel configuration and back and forth, but I thought it completely lost any connection to being a pistol once the Form 1 was approved.

Sam1911
September 12, 2014, 04:50 PM
Do you have any current decision that says so?

I understand why it could be viewed that way, but as you know, nothing about any of this hinges on how anyone could view it.

MasterSergeantA
September 12, 2014, 05:43 PM
I have no decision. I can send ATF a requerst for information. I was hoping someone here might know for certain. My 'understanding' was based on another post that may also have addressed the 922r aspects of "making" a firearm. Perhaps I got confused. (Happens a lot these days.)

Sam1911
September 12, 2014, 06:40 PM
Well, that's about what I've got to work with. A decision that says you don't "make" a rifle by taking something that is a firearm NOT a rifle and converting it.

And a decision that says if you make an NFA firearm (of that type) you can "unmake" it just by taking that naughty part off.

It is quite possible that this exact question has not been definitively answered.

MasterSergeantA
September 12, 2014, 08:14 PM
I understand. I read the opinion that stated a pistol could be converted to a rifle and back again. Logical. (Which made me think it was a prank at first.) And I know that if you get an approved Form 1 to "make" a SBR, you can remove the short barrel and "unmake" it. But when you do a Form 1 conversion from a "handgun" to a short-barreled rifle and have to put new 'manufacturer identification' on it, I can see the rule changing. I'll send them a letter and post it here when I get a reply. Thanks, Sam.

Sam1911
September 13, 2014, 12:45 AM
Au contraire, thank YOU! I'd love to hear when you get that letter back!

Elkins45
September 13, 2014, 01:09 AM
I understand. I read the opinion that stated a pistol could be converted to a rifle and back again. Logical. (Which made me think it was a prank at first.) And I know that if you get an approved Form 1 to "make" a SBR, you can remove the short barrel and "unmake" it. But when you do a Form 1 conversion from a "handgun" to a short-barreled rifle and have to put new 'manufacturer identification' on it, I can see the rule changing. I'll send them a letter and post it here when I get a reply. Thanks, Sam.
Be careful in asking a question if one of the possible answers is something you won't like. The reason steel wool and Chore Boy scrubbing pads are now considered non-replacable silencer parts is because somebody wrote a letter...

nw_aggie
September 13, 2014, 10:47 AM
So is there any way to determine how a stripped lower was originally registered? I've bought a few, and don't recall just how the form was filled out...similar to the poster above, it may have been checked as a rifle or may have as an other, I just don't know.

If I were to want to build a pistol, would I need to go get either another lower and have the form filled out as other, or obtain a pistol marked lower?

Tirod
September 13, 2014, 11:16 AM
In my specific circumstances, the lower was constructed into a rifle, pics posted online, with no intermediate step where it would be construed a pistol.

First a rifle, always a rifle.

Lowers ARE cheap enough, less than 10% of the total build budget, so it's really only an obstruction to those who are letting it be one. Barrels are commonly 3-4X that. And it you are building a pistol, there are a lot of optimizations that would be different than a carbine or rifle anyway. You could use all the same parts, but that doesn't mean you prefer it. A more vertical handgrip, almost no need for telescopic sights, a much more effective compensator, more ambidextrous controls, etc all come to mind. Being a pistol with much less shoulder stock leverage, an 80% poly lower becomes a higher possibility. It's NOT an entry carbine for CQB. Storage - legally loaded in the passenger compartment - can be enhanced with a LAW adapter. Goes to the thread on backpack carry.

There's only a few million recently deployed vets over the last ten years who picked up that habit.

Sam1911
September 13, 2014, 11:52 AM
So is there any way to determine how a stripped lower was originally registered?Well, the word "registered" is misleading, as few firearms are actually registered in the US. If you mean, what did the dealer check on his form 4473? Sure, you could find out.

I've bought a few, and don't recall just how the form was filled out...similar to the poster above, it may have been checked as a rifle or may have as an other, I just don't know. The thing is that shouldn't matter, in theory. It was whatever it was. What the dealer checked doesn't confer a different status upon it. It could be argued that it might be used as an indicator of something in a (never ever going to happen) investigation to prove that you've made a pistol out of a rifle, but in itself the form doesn't prove anything. Dealers make mistakes like that all the time, and that's what they are: mistakes. The form even tells them not to do that...

If I were to want to build a pistol, would I need to go get either another lower and have the form filled out as other, or obtain a pistol marked lower?The common answer is that if you want to build it as a pistol, you shouldn't if you FIRST built it as a rifle.

Now, as I pointed out before, before you put the shoulder stock on it you've probably built an "other firearm" (over 26", but no shoulder stock) because few people put the stock on before the buffer tube (;))... does that get you off the hook? Who knows?

You probably won't find any receivers anywhere to buy that are "marked" as a pistol, as AR receiver makers have no reason to do that.

And shucks...just because an AR-15 lower SAID "pistol" on it, doesn't mean you didn't first build it as a rifle ... so what's the value in this?

nw_aggie
September 13, 2014, 01:17 PM
Thanks.

Im pretty sure I've seen at least one lower stamped pistol on the side of it, why, I dunno,but that's what it said.

bikemutt
September 15, 2014, 12:26 PM
A Rock River LAR-9 pistol I recently acquired is marked "Pistol Only" on the lower receiver, first time I'd seen that.

Also bought a Seekins lower recently, the dealer suggested filling out a WA pistol form as there is a category "frame", this could be helpful if the time came where I had to "prove" it was a pistol first. Of course it's now "registered" (in WA).

dragon813gt
September 18, 2014, 09:07 PM
This has me wondering how my lower was marked. I was specifically asked if it was for a rifle or pistol. But this is because I would have to fill out a separate form for the PA State Police if it was going to be a pistol. I'm thinking I should have gone that route. But that makes selling it a pain because I would have to have it legally transferred at a FFL instead of a FTF transaction. I think I might just buy a lower for a pistol build anyway.

Tirod
September 24, 2014, 10:14 AM
The end result is that the SB15 has demonstrated to shooters they don't need to get a stamp to enjoy the benefits of an SBR, if they are willing to accept the lack of a conventional shoulder thingy that goes up.

There are pros and cons each way, but a pistol at this time has less restrictions on possession and transport than the SBR. The proponents of the SBR claim a lot of work arounds, but that is the point - work around the laws to enjoy the same freedoms the pistol owners can exercise straight up.

It seems many challenge that, and I'll say it again - they are immersed in the process as a way to gain more reputation. They are a Stamp holder. To me it's really a matter of whether we prefer to cooperate with a restrictive government agency, and it seems there a lot who do prefer it. I posted the BATF Elimination Act thread and there seems to be ample proof - nobody much enjoying the prospect of eliminating a bureaucracy that as outlived it's usefulness. No support we need to go forward with the idea. No positive input this could be the first step in eliminating the NFA and GCA altogether.

We'd rather live with the evil we have than work to change it. I think we need an attitude check.

As for the guns, there is no substantial difference between shooting an otherwise identically equipped SBR or a pistol that is being "misused" by shooting it at the shoulder. Especially for the reasons they are built, close range defense. That is why the wrist brace has caught so many people's attention - it provides the same shooting experience without the hassles and with increased freedoms.

The pistol with a wrist brace is a better bang for the buck than an SBR. It can be built as fast as your budget allows, and you can be using it about 4-7 months earlier. It can sell just as quickly, no other parts swapped on, and no one much the wiser. What I read in all the denials is exactly that - defenders of a paid privilege that is only granted by government.

Isn't that the basis of the conflict between the traditional rifle shooter and MSR's? And exactly why the CMP will never sell any M16, modified or not, even if it means closing it down?

There are shooters out there who would rather defend their privileges than expand our freedoms to their Constitutional fullness - as it was for their grandfathers and forefathers.

Sad times when I read so many who pick up the forms to fill out rather than simply avoid cooperating with the restricters of freedom, especially when it's an obvious decision. We'd rather debate the nuances of the law than simply acknowledge the law is wrong to begin with.

Where is the High Road in that?

dogtown tom
September 24, 2014, 11:50 AM
Tirod The end result is that the SB15 has demonstrated to shooters they don't need to get a stamp to enjoy the benefits of an SBR, if they are willing to accept the lack of a conventional shoulder thingy that goes up.
And the lack of a REAL shoulder stock and the benefits it brings is important to many.


There are pros and cons each way, but a pistol at this time has less restrictions on possession and transport than the SBR. The proponents of the SBR claim a lot of work arounds, but that is the point - work around the laws to enjoy the same freedoms the pistol owners can exercise straight up.
Do you feel those "work arounds" threaten your freedom? I don't. And having an SBR allows me to exercise quite a few more freedoms than does the owner of the arm brace.




It seems many challenge that, and I'll say it again - they are immersed in the process as a way to gain more reputation. They are a Stamp holder.
Nonsense. It's a freaking $200 tax. Considering the amount of $$$$ folks spend on guns that $200 is miniscule. Where on earth you get the idea that it helps someone "gain more reputation" is beyond rational thought. If it's simply jealousy that someone paid $200 for a tax stamp and waited a few months vs paying $150 for the Sig Arm brace and waited a week.............that's plain weird reasoning.






To me it's really a matter of whether we prefer to cooperate with a restrictive government agency, and it seems there a lot who do prefer it. I posted the BATF Elimination Act thread and there seems to be ample proof - nobody much enjoying the prospect of eliminating a bureaucracy that as outlived it's usefulness. No support we need to go forward with the idea. No positive input this could be the first step in eliminating the NFA and GCA altogether.
So your telling us you choose to cooperate only with those "restrictive government agency" regulations that you agree with?

It would be hypocritical for you to fill out a 4473 because that means you are cooperating with ATF..........right?:rolleyes:

Your "BATF Elimination Act" is a joke. Unless the GCA and NFA are eliminated first those Federal laws would still be in effect.........and another agency would be tasked with the enforcement of those laws. Be careful of what you wish for, because eliminating ATF and folding their responsibility into another existing or even new Federal agency may not work out like you think. Eliminate the GCA/NFA and the firearms regulation will solve itself.





We'd rather live with the evil we have than work to change it. I think we need an attitude check.
Where have you been the last decade?:scrutiny: There is an all time high in states allowing concealed carry, an ever increasing number allow open carry, the Heller decision, firearms carry in National Parks and the list goes on and on......heck even ATF says you can put a crappy stock on a pistol and call it an arm brace and use it as a shoulder stock. Whoodathunkit?

Seems to me that Second Amendment advocacy is charging full steam ahead. The NRA and Second Amendment Foundation haven't been shy about the power they wield on Capitol Hill. Who in this thread said they would rather "live with evil"?......not a soul. You just invented a straw man.





As for the guns, there is no substantial difference between shooting an otherwise identically equipped SBR or a pistol that is being "misused" by shooting it at the shoulder.
For some of us there is a HUGE difference......we don't like the Sig Arm Brace as a shoulder stock. If that hurts your feelings, sorry, but there is no need to question anyones "attitude" or denigrate them as a tax stamp snob.






Especially for the reasons they are built, close range defense. That is why the wrist brace has caught so many people's attention - it provides the same shooting experience without the hassles and with increased freedoms.
My only argument is that the Sig brace can provide a SIMILIAR shooting experience. And the "hassles" are so few as to be nearly inconsequential.







The pistol with a wrist brace is a better bang for the buck than an SBR.
I can swap shoulder stocks on my SBR........what options for length of pull, cheek weld, sling mounting, etc do you have on your AR pistol with Arm Brace?;)







It can be built as fast as your budget allows, and you can be using it about 4-7 months earlier.
Form 1's are being done in under THIRTY DAYS. Your "4-7 months earlier" argument just got whacked by that evil ATF.








Isn't that the basis of the conflict between the traditional rifle shooter and MSR's? And exactly why the CMP will never sell any M16, modified or not, even if it means closing it down?
Uhhhh........the CMP wasn't the one to decide that they couldn't sell M16's. Need to do some research on that one.;)







There are shooters out there who would rather defend their privileges than expand our freedoms.....
Name them.
Not one person in this thread has advocated anything of the sort. On the contrary, there probably isn't a member of this forum that wouldn't be happy to see the GCA and NFA go quietly into the sunset this evening. For you to suggest that those who pay tax stamps are somehow less freedom loving or less patriotic is sheer, utter and complete nonsense. It is also hypocritical.






Sad times when I read so many who pick up the forms to fill out rather than simply avoid cooperating with the restricters of freedom, especially when it's an obvious decision. We'd rather debate the nuances of the law than simply acknowledge the law is wrong to begin with.
Soooo.................you've never filled out a 4473? Applied for a concealed handgun permit? :scrutiny:






Where is the High Road in that?
Your rant is anything but the High Road.

Elkins45
September 24, 2014, 01:41 PM
Sad times when I read so many who pick up the forms to fill out rather than simply avoid cooperating with the restricters of freedom, especially when it's an obvious decision. We'd rather debate the nuances of the law than simply acknowledge the law is wrong to begin with.

I will repeat for a third time because it doesn't seem to be sinking in: your beloved arm brace doesn't help me with my 10/22.

Copernicus just called---he said the world doesn't revolve around your AR pistol.

aubie515
September 28, 2014, 04:33 PM
Too much talking and not enough pictures.

My first attempt at sponge camo.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/aubie515/camping012_zps568a6be4.jpg (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/aubie515/media/camping012_zps568a6be4.jpg.html)

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y21/aubie515/camping013_zps6e5cdeaa.jpg (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/aubie515/media/camping013_zps6e5cdeaa.jpg.html)

Artofgolf
September 30, 2014, 07:52 PM
Looks good so far :cool:

MasterSergeantA
October 1, 2014, 06:43 PM
I will repeat for a third time because it doesn't seem to be sinking in: your beloved arm brace doesn't help me with my 10/22.

Copernicus just called---he said the world doesn't revolve around your AR pistol.
As can be seen in the photo of the AK a few frames above, it is obvious that the arm brace is not only for the AR pistol. If you were to take a Ruger Charger pistol, attach an adapter to the rear of the stock for a buffer tube, and mount the buffer tube and arm brace, you would have the same thing. Doing so with a 10/22 rifle however would not make much sense since you would still have to maintain the 16" barrel length as a rifle. I may just have to do that myself, come to think of it!

kimberkid
October 1, 2014, 09:28 PM
As can be seen in the photo of the AK a few frames above, it is obvious that the arm brace is not only for the AR pistol.
Correct ... I've got Arm Braces on 1 AR, 2 AK's and 2 HK's ... One of the AK's and both the HK's are waiting on stamps that I applied for on 9-11-14

I'm not sure how you would put it on a 10-22; is there some sort of 10-22 stock that uses an AR collapsible stock? If not you could for sure put it on AR-22, HK MP5 clone or SiG-522

Elkins45
October 1, 2014, 10:19 PM
As can be seen in the photo of the AK a few frames above, it is obvious that the arm brace is not only for the AR pistol. If you were to take a Ruger Charger pistol, attach an adapter to the rear of the stock for a buffer tube, and mount the buffer tube and arm brace, you would have the same thing. Doing so with a 10/22 rifle however would not make much sense since you would still have to maintain the 16" barrel length as a rifle. I may just have to do that myself, come to think of it!

I own a couple of 10/22's already but I don't have a Charger. I could buy the $200 stamp and chop my existing 10/22 for significantly less cost than trying to find and purchase a Charger and then paying even more to engineer a brace.

Sometimes the economic advantage doesn't favor the workaround solution. In this case it would be cheaper for me to build the real thing than the faux one.

MasterSergeantA
October 2, 2014, 05:48 PM
I will agree with you on the cost. I intend to SBR one of my 10-22s for some of those reasons. But if a person lives in a non-SBR state, there aren't a lot of choices. I was speaking to the feasability of doing it, not the economy.

kimberkid: There are a few options for 10/22 stocks on the market that will allow the use of an AR stock. I believe that TAPCO makes one and Nordic Components does as well. Just a matter of putting on the pistol buffer tube and brace. As elkins said...not cheap.

Quiet
November 19, 2014, 12:51 PM
It appears that the BATFE FTB has a new director and has issued a new BATFE FTB Branch letter (dated 11-14-2014) regarding the arm brace. Seems to state that as long as the arm brace is not shouldered then it's a non-NFA weapon, but once it is shouldered it is a NFA weapon.

http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ATF-SIG-brace-letter.jpg

ny32182
November 19, 2014, 12:58 PM
Especially as someone who already has SBRs, no plans to get a sig "arm brace". And even if I didn't, trusts are a one time thing, super cheap if you want them to be, and I'd rather pay $200 and then be able to have whatever stock I want, whatever barrel I want, and whatever foregrip I want.

Plus, mark my words, the ATF has reversed "opinions" in the past, and will do so again... the day is coming when this will be judged a stock. There will be a WHOLE lot of completely worthless "arm braces" out there overnight when that happens.

Who would have ever seen this coming?

Theohazard
November 19, 2014, 01:16 PM
It appears that the BATFE FTB has a new director and has issued a new BATFE FTB Branch letter (dated 11-14-2014) regarding the arm brace. Seems to state that as long as the arm brace is not shouldered then it's a non-NFA weapon, but once it is shouldered it is a NFA weapon.

No, that letter is specifically in regards to putting an SB15 arm brace on an AOW like the Serbu Super Shorty or on a pistol-grip shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18" that that isn't an AOW or an SBS, but instead classifies as a "firearm with pistol grip". That letter has nothing to do with shouldering the SB15 when it's on a pistol.

Of course, that could change, but so far that letter doesn't change the fact that you can legally shoulder an AR pistol with a SIG arm brace.

Ryanxia
November 19, 2014, 02:35 PM
So, if the article is to be believed, in some cases how you hold your firearm dictates the classification of said firearm.

Paraphrasing from the article (ATF letter is image format):
should an individual utilize stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock.. firearm would then be classified as a short barrel shotgun..


Link:
http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industry/breaking-recent-atf-letter-on-sig-brace-calls-into-question-legality-of-shoulder-firing/

HRnightmare
November 19, 2014, 02:39 PM
No, that letter is specifically in regards to putting an SB15 arm brace on an AOW like the Serbu Super Shorty or on a pistol-grip shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18" that that isn't an AOW or an SBS, but instead classifies as a "firearm with pistol grip". That letter has nothing to do with shouldering the SB15 when it's on a pistol.

Of course, that could change, but so far that letter doesn't change the fact that you can legally shoulder an AR pistol with a SIG arm brace.

I agree what he is claiming the letter says and what it actually says are not the same.

ny32182
November 19, 2014, 02:40 PM
Give it another 15 minutes...

Ranger Roberts
November 19, 2014, 02:49 PM
I wonder if the forward pistol grip has anything to do with their decision. Then again I shouldn't try to introduce any sort of logic into a conversation concerning the ATF's decisions....

from the article:

The letter in question was specifically regarding a shotgun with an overall length greater than 26″ with a vertical grip attached

OpticsPlanet
November 19, 2014, 03:34 PM
Frustrating and interesting at the same time

Not to call the wonderful BATFE hypocrites, but if they state that the improper use of an accessory/part does not change the classification of a firearm (on an AR) then why have the switched their stance for the shotgun?

I don't see this impacting the AR community, but the inconsistencies should rile up the firearm community. The inconsistencies are unacceptable.

-Matt S

deadin
November 19, 2014, 04:45 PM
I'm confused. The article talks about a shotgun with an "over 26 inch length" It doesn't mention what the barrel length is. Last I heard if it is under 18 inches, it can't be a pistol in the first place, regardless of overall length.
Is it illegal to put a vertical grip on a regular shotgun??

MasterSergeantA
November 19, 2014, 06:06 PM
And the letter isn't talking about SBRs, but SBSs. I'd like to see what the submission was about.

Dr.Rob
November 19, 2014, 06:11 PM
Without an illustration of the shotgun it's hard to say.

The MFG of the shotgun claimed "ignorance" of the AR market (funny since that's the source of the Sig brace). It seems like they were trying to make/market a shorter than 18 inch barreled shotgun by keeping the OAL within spec, but utilizing the Sig brace. Sounds kind of like a modification of the AR style shotgun from Turkey?

Sam1911
November 19, 2014, 06:18 PM
Right. It seems like they're specifically saying this ruling applies only (for the purposes of this ruling ... ahem...) to >26" stock-less shotguns. Though they really give only clues as to why that might be so limited.

The scary thing is the somewhat new notion that you can indeed change the federal classification of your firearm by simply using the pistol brace to shoulder the gun. That's something that folks have been hollering COULD NOT BE!

I rather think that in terms of AR-15s that train has already sailed and they realize they can't get the cat back in the genie's bottle. (Uh, or whatever.)

But adapt that SIG brace to anything else? You're on your own.

------------------

I'd also take note that if you DO have a 27" long PGO "shotty" weapon it COULD be reclassified as a Title II "AOW" simply because you stuffed it under your coat! :uhoh:

In other words, if you perform a lawful act with your lawful firearm, your gun may be instantly reclassified into something you cannot lawfully own -- with a 10 year prison stint and $250,000 in fines attached! :eek:

Sam1911
November 19, 2014, 06:23 PM
merged

Theohazard
November 19, 2014, 06:57 PM
The scary thing is the somewhat new notion that you can indeed change the federal classification of your firearm by simply using the pistol brace to shoulder the gun. That's something that folks have been hollering COULD NOT BE!
I'll admit that I've been one of those folks. It only makes sense: After all, the ATF doesn't regulate how you shoot your gun, only how it's designed.

For example: A pistol is legally defined as being "designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand". That's why adding a vertical fore-grip to a pistol makes it an NFA-controlled AOW; now it's designed to be fired with two hands. But it's perfectly legal to fired a pistol with a two-handed grip, and that's because the ATF doesn't control how you shoot your guns, only how they're designed and configured.

If the ATF decides to claim that shouldering an AR pistol with a SIG arm brace makes it an illegal SBR, then doesn't that also mean that firing a regular pistol using a two-handed grip makes it an illegal AOW? But maybe I'm making the classic mistake of applying logic and reason to the ATF's interpretation and enforcement of the NFA...

deadin
November 19, 2014, 07:14 PM
But maybe I'm making the classic mistake of applying logic and reason to the ATF's interpretation and enforcement of the NFA...

Give that man a cigar!!!

Sam1911
November 19, 2014, 07:50 PM
Theo -- you're stepping smack-dab into the middle of the potholed swamp the BATFE finds itself in, trying to apply the NFA to an infinitely varied set of items that rarely make a whole lot of sense when shoe-horned into the odd categories defined by the NFA.

There is a deeply flawed logic that underlies any of the length-based and/or "concealable" definitions (or the stupid vertical foregrip issue), especially as handguns were removed from the NFA's purview before passage. More and more often folks are identifying spots where two practically identical -- and in some cases COMPLETELY identical -- items "have" to be regulated in drastically different ways, and with astonishingly harsh penalties applied.

Seems like the whole mess is getting about ready to be challenged in the courts and thrown out wholesale. But we just aren't QUITE there yet. I'd be willing to put money on it in the next decade, though.

barnbwt
November 19, 2014, 08:32 PM
"More and more often folks are identifying spots where two practically identical -- and in some cases COMPLETELY identical -- items "have" to be regulated in drastically different ways, and with astonishingly harsh penalties applied."
I believe the applicable terms are "arbitrary" and "capricious," though it's more the fault of the NFA writers than the ATF, who to be honest weren't given much of an option besides running an ad hoc regulatory system based in doublethink. They are literally the enforcers of the proverbial Catch 22 statute, and must therefore submit to its unknowable peculiarities themselves if they wish to uphold it :D

My dad practically had a stroke trying to make sense of this "NFA thing" when I first gave him the run down. He's an engineer, so like me, he couldn't stop himself from trying to logic his way through this problem. That's a good way to break your brain and end up in a ward, in my opinion. He concluded, as have I, that the only 'safe' solution is to unquestioningly follow the ATF's directives as best as you can, while maintaining as low a profile on their RADAR as possible. So yeah, pretty much abiding jack-booted tyranny :p

TCB

Quiet
November 20, 2014, 11:07 AM
The Black Ace Tactical submitted firearm seeking classification clarification was a chambered in 12Gague, was semi-auto, used detachable magazines, had a vertical forward grip, had a less than 16" smoothbore barrel, had a greater than 26" overall length, and did not have a shoulder stock but had an arm brace installed.

This firearm is classified as a Title 1 Other firearm.
Because it has a less than 16" barrel, greater than 26" overall length, and no shoulder stock.

The BATFE FTB letter seems to confirms that the firearm:
1. is not a Title 1 Shotgun
2. is not a Title 1 Handgun
3. is not a Title 2 AOW
4. when the arm brace is used as designed, remains a Title 1 Other
5. when the arm brace is shouldered, becomes a Title 2 SBS

Since "this classification pertains only to this type of firearm and its classification under Federal law", that would mean it also effects other types of Title 1 Other firearms and does not effect Title 1 Handguns.

george burns
November 24, 2014, 01:50 PM
I fear this will change again in a short time. My question is will it affect owners who have the grip prior to whatever letter comes next or will they be grandfathered in should the item become restricted. I thought the thread was closed, but as it's not, I pose the question.
Also if you make something legal, what right do you have to enforce how it is to be held?
That is a court case away. It's too particular to tell someone that they are holding the gun wrong, therefore they are going to jail.
Maybe the ATF is that peculiar, but no jury would convict a person knowing that they bought this thing and were then asked to hold it a certain way.
That's why I believe it may be banned altogether.

CoRoMo
November 24, 2014, 02:37 PM
will it affect owners who have the grip prior to whatever letter comes next
Yep. Google the Akins Accelerator.
will they be grandfathered in should the item become restricted.
Nope. Google the Akins Accelerator.
if you make something legal, what right do you have to enforce how it is to be held?
I have almost no idea what you are trying to ask here. Who is 'you' in that question?

Sam1911
November 24, 2014, 03:29 PM
I'll repeat my answer to George when he asked me via PM:

My question is if they make the brace illegal without a tax stamp, will the old ones be grandfathered in, or will you have to hand them in if you didn't want to file the paperwork?.

Well, all I can do is speculate, of course, but making the brace illegal would be a REALLY big problem for the ATF. For however scared we all are about the big bad BATFE coming to throw us in jail and confiscate our guns, they've never really had a situation where they were trying to confiscate or force registration of MANY TENS of THOUSANDS of something already in use.

With the old Akins accelerator, the owners had to turn them in. But there weren't ever very many sold to begin with and the political climate was very different and much more restrictive. Prosecuting and "rounding up" all the many, many, many SIG brace users and trying to find out if they shoulder their guns or not is just a logistical impossibility. BATFE wants no part of that. Besides, it would raise a political storm they (and the administration) do not want flaring up right now.

So in my opinion, the SIG brace is perfectly safe when used on AR-15 "pistols" as intended.

If your read the BATFE opinion letter carefully, it says they are talking about using one on something that is NOT a pistol, but an "other firearm" (in this case a pistol-grip only shotgun over 26" long) and that changes everything. In fact, they say that this ruling ONLY applies to that one specific type of firearm. NOT to anything classified as a "handgun."

tyeo098
November 24, 2014, 05:55 PM
Yep. Google the Akins Accelerator.
Nope. Google the Akins Accelerator.


You might want to do the same.

The reason the Akins was shut down was because he modified the design after getting ATF approval.

This required reexamination by the FTB, which Akins did not do since he already had the other letter in hand, and set out on production.

It wasn't a change of heart from the ATF that everyone is touting, the design changed and Akins did not seek reexamination of the new design.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/mr-bill-akins-and-the-akins-accelerator/

The ATF agreed to put its findings in writing, which they did. I want everyone to hear me correctly: the ATF put into writing their findings that the Akins rapid fire device was NOT a machine gun.
...
An engineer improved upon Mr. Akins’s device slightly by reducing some friction, which allowed the device to operate on a firearm that produced less recoil.
[engage mass production]
Here Come the Feds

You check each step when you walk a fine line.

B!ngoFuelUSN
November 25, 2014, 11:28 PM
I guess I feel less optimistic than others. From a NFA and gun-regulation-crowd perspective, the BATF opened Pandora's box when they allowed the brace. Now they are stuck with the dichotomy of SBR's and tax stamps, and SBR-like uses and no stamp or regulation. It does of course underscore the inconsistency and thoughtlessness of part or all of the NFA, but that is not likely to be the subject of a BATF review.
So could the BATF halt the shipment of new braces for use with new or previously owned pistols? You bet.
Could the BATF leave the brace legal but regulate HOW you hold a gun when firing it? Doubt it. It would surely cause a groundswell of lawsuits due to the precedent it would set.
Could the BATF make them all illegal and force their return? I suspect that ship has sailed.
Does this recent letter from the BATF demonstrate that their evaluation will be limited only to the firm asking for a ruling? Not even close. It is just a convenient opportunity to begin taking steps to close Pandora's box. Or at least (and hopefully in the worst case) not open it any further.
But as I said in a prior post, the more the members of the firearm community overtly claim that the only or likely use of the brace is as a faux-stock, despite the error of that statement, the more gasoline we will be pouring on the BATF fire.
B

justice06rr
November 26, 2014, 05:18 AM
Good points Sam.

I think for now we are safe with the SB15/SB47.

But all it takes is someone or some company stupid enough to try to push the limits and get the attention of the BATFE. We don't need that right now, and I hope the Sig braces remain legal for a long time.

As Sam said, its a logistical nightmare for the BATFE to go after each arm brace owner to confiscate them. Not that they can't do it, but it will face hard resistance. They would most likely not try to confiscate the sig brace if they retract their original ruling, but issue a recall to try to force current owners to turn in their sig braces.

Also, its almost impossible to find out all the people who bought a Sig brace. The ATF would have to go through people's financial transactions if they bought the brace with a credit card (which is another issue on its own). If someone bought a sig brace cash e.g. from another person or a gun show, there is no real record of that sale and it'll be impossible to track.

Anyway, hopefully nothing else will come out of that last ruling with the shotgun

USAF_Vet
November 26, 2014, 05:47 AM
ATF doesn't have to track down the people who purchased it. They can declare it NFA, open an amnesty period for (hopefully) no fee registration to get your NFA stamp, then rely on attrition for the rest of them.

I'm pretty sure there are many thousands of pre Hughes/ pre NFA machine guns out there quietly sitting in safes. Owners can't take them out and shoot them without running the risk of a prison term. The Sig brace, if regulated as NFA by ATF, wouldn't be the logistical nightmare involved in rounding up thousands and thousands of foam rubber pieces. They leave it to you to turn it in, register it, or hide it and potentially become a felon.

justice06rr
November 26, 2014, 06:17 AM
That's what I meant.

They won't go after the Sig brace owners, they'll just make it illegal for personal use. Anyone caught will be arrested or whatever punishment they wish to come up with.

So I guess now is a good time to buy more SB15's...

Carl N. Brown
November 26, 2014, 08:35 AM
Post #220 Question: "Is it illegal to put a vertical grip on a regular shotgun??"

No. Since a "regular shotgun" is designed as a non-concealable long gun and originally designed to be fired with two hands, adding a vertical handgrip is not a "change" in legal status at the federal level (local laws may vary).

Title I handgun and other firearm (PGO) and Title II AOW, SBS and SBR federal regulation classifications were intended to control concealable firearms. Converting a handgun or AOW shotshell pistol to two-handed operation or shoulder-fired is a change in federal legal status.

rodinal220
November 26, 2014, 10:09 AM
"Post #220 Question: "Is it illegal to put a vertical grip on a regular shotgun??"

Not according to Federal law or BATFE.They have been selling those things for 30+ years without BATFE getting their panties in a bunch.

http://www.tacstar.com/home/shotgun-grips-ind.php

BATFE could reclassify AR/AK pistols with the SIG Brace like they did with the Striker 12/StreetSweeper,USAS12 shotguns.They did offer a lengthy tax free Amnesty period.

I hope they do not and the SIG brace leads to the NFA going the way of the Do-Do bird.

The whole idea of regulating barrel length on ANY firearm is ridiculous. It serves no purpose.

kimberkid
November 26, 2014, 03:37 PM
[QUOTE=rodinal220;9703137I hope they do not and the SIG brace leads to the NFA going the way of the Do-Do bird.

The whole idea of barrel length on ANY firearm is ridiculous. It serves no purpose.[/QUOTE]

NFA only punishes the law abiding citizen ... What I would like to see is NFA going the way of CCW ... I'll probably get yelled at but ... I do believe Fully Automatic Weapons, Destructive Devices and the like should have some regulation. What I would like to see is an NFA card like a CCW card, you present it when purchasing and there is no waiting like in Kansas, we present our CCW and fill out a 7743 doesn't have to be called in ... in Kansas, CCW regulations are more stringent than class 1 or 2.

IIRC the idea of barrel length was tied to conceal-ability ... i.e. its easier to conceal an rifle SBR'd with a 10" barrel than that of one with a 16" or 20" barrel ... but then again if someone wants to find a way, they will.

Quiet
December 26, 2014, 02:19 PM
BATFE FTB has new leadership.

The old FTB director issued the previous letters regarding the SB15 arm brace.

The new FTB director is now issuing letters reversing the previous letters.

According to the new spate of FTB letters...
Arm brace installed on a Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other = legal.
Arm brace installed on a Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other and used as designed (strapped to forearm of shooting hand) = legal.
Arm brace installed on Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other and shouldered = illegal SBR/SBS.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Sig_Brace_Page_1_of_3.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Sig_Brace_Page_2_of_3.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Sig_Brace_Page_3_of_3.jpg

ApacheCoTodd
December 26, 2014, 05:33 PM
The fella next to me at the Small Arms Review show in Phoenix was kickin' butt selling them. The whopping number of people that IMMEDIATELY put it to their shoulders blew me away. Couldn't help themselves.

As far as the "letters" of clarifications form the BATFE... they're generally worth less than the paper they're printed on as they represent no truly firm position on the part of the BATFE nor the Federal Government in general not to mention; municipal, county or state governments.

Buck an' a half for a SIG "brace"... I always thought of it as a $150.00 down payment on a potential legal defense bill down the road.


I'll take the cost, wait, etc... of the firm legal position of SBR registration.

Todd.

ronrod71
December 26, 2014, 07:17 PM
This Arm Brace letter classification keeps changing; only a matter of time before it changes for the restrictive worst.

justice06rr
December 26, 2014, 08:27 PM
Interesting.

There is still yet to be a test case of someone being prosecuted for shouldering an AR pistol with the Sigbrace. The reversal letter is disconcerting, but we will have to see what weight of the law it holds.

The SB15 itself is still legal when used as intended.

Bartholomew Roberts
December 26, 2014, 09:17 PM
Ha. Good luck enforcing that ruling. ATF is picking their battles poorly these days.

Double Naught Spy
December 26, 2014, 11:38 PM
Ha. Good luck enforcing that ruling.

They will get plenty of people via youtube videos.

Tirod
December 27, 2014, 12:39 AM
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/robert-farago/atf-dont-use-sig-brace-as-shoulder-stock-without-nfa-stamp/

It seems that the ATF answered another letter about the SIG Brace and things aren't as clear cut as it seemed.

For those who planned to get the SBR stamp or were avoiding the Brace, nothing has changed.

It was the large number of newer short barrel shooters who have an issue about braces, grips, and usage. If you still have a question, then write a letter to the ATF. They will clear it up for you. :evil:

Bartholomew Roberts
December 27, 2014, 01:35 AM
They will get plenty of people via youtube videos

Even with a Youtube video of somebody using a SIG brace as a stock, you've got some problems - how do you prove the firearm in the video wasn't a registered SBR? Or conversely, how do you prove the firearm in the video is the same AR pistol a person now possesses?

And ATF is opening a giant can of worms if they do try to enforce it.

Styx
December 27, 2014, 04:51 AM
BATFE FTB has new leadership.

The old FTB director issued the previous letters regarding the SB15 arm brace.

The new FTB director is now issuing letters reversing the previous letters.

According to the new spate of FTB letters...
Arm brace installed on a Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other = legal.
Arm brace installed on a Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other and used as designed (strapped to forearm of shooting hand) = legal.
Arm brace installed on Title 1 Handgun or Title 1 Other and shouldered = illegal SBR/SBS.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Sig_Brace_Page_1_of_3.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Sig_Brace_Page_2_of_3.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Sig_Brace_Page_3_of_3.jpg
What's the difference in using the arm brace as a shoulder stock vs using the buffer tube as a shoulder stock? Either they can make the arm brace legal or illegal. Do they have any power to say how an admittedly legal part to a firearm is "used" is illegal w/o any government regulation?

Sam1911
December 27, 2014, 09:01 AM
What's the difference in using the arm brace as a shoulder stock vs using the buffer tube as a shoulder stock?
Very good question. If it is "designed or re-designed to be fired from the shoulder" then it becomes a rife, by the text of the law. So does the fact that the object IS fired from the shoulder, in fact, "redesigning" it to be so? If so, then any AR pistol COULD be. And I suppose the only way to tell is seeing the act of DOING so? Messy business, this.

Either they can make the arm brace legal or illegal.
Well, no, there's lots of precedent out in the world for items which are legal to own, but not to USE a certain way. In this case, there is clearly A legal way to use it. And, now, perhaps an illegal one as well. :scrutiny:

Do they have any power to say how an admittedly legal part to a firearm is "used" is illegal w/o any government regulation?They do have very broad powers to interpret/administer the text of the law. In this case they're almost hamstrung BY the law itself. The text of the NFA does seem to say that if you're shouldering the item, it IS a rifle. They've been skirting/ignoring this for several years now, though.

If you enjoyed reading about "Sig arm brace -- important legal update" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!