Quantcast
Has the Arm Brace changed your mind about SBR-ing? IMPORTANT LEGAL UPDATE - Page 10 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Legal

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 19, 2014, 08:14 PM   #226
deadin
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 13, 2005
Location: Ocean Shores, WA
Posts: 1,925
Quote:
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!!!
deadin is offline  
Old November 19, 2014, 08:50 PM   #227
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 29,080
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.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old November 19, 2014, 09:32 PM   #228
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,703
"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

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

TCB
__________________
"Don't rock the boat; the only way we ever achieve change is by doing absolutely nothing...over a long period of time"

"I just took an action to change the law"
--President Barack Obama on exceeding his authority, 11/25/2014
Now, how about we get the next guy to stop enforcing the NFA in its entirety? Precedent and all that...
barnbwt is online now  
Old November 20, 2014, 12:07 PM   #229
Quiet
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 29, 2007
Location: bouncing between the 909 & the 702
Posts: 2,971
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.
__________________
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Quiet is offline  
Old November 24, 2014, 02:50 PM   #230
george burns
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 26, 2014
Posts: 627
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.
george burns is offline  
Old November 24, 2014, 03:37 PM   #231
CoRoMo
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 21, 2007
Location: Colorafornia
Posts: 8,680
Quote:
will it affect owners who have the grip prior to whatever letter comes next
Yep. Google the Akins Accelerator.
Quote:
will they be grandfathered in should the item become restricted.
Nope. Google the Akins Accelerator.
Quote:
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?
__________________
The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period!
Ted Nugent
CoRoMo is offline  
Old November 24, 2014, 04:29 PM   #232
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 29,080
I'll repeat my answer to George when he asked me via PM:

Quote:
Originally Posted by george burns
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."
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old November 24, 2014, 06:55 PM   #233
tyeo098
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 5, 2010
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoRoMo View Post
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-...s-accelerator/

Quote:
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.
__________________
Buy me a beer with DogeCoin: D6EeoEKcZJL234UhVFRV8Uy6HnfNurBS2y or BitCoin 17iQsUv7RoWVmDynfBS9qF88NxT4ETvhUn
Quote:
The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the second only applies to muskets? Wat?

Last edited by tyeo098; November 24, 2014 at 07:05 PM.
tyeo098 is offline  
Old November 26, 2014, 12:28 AM   #234
B!ngoFuelUSN
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 7, 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 214
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
B!ngoFuelUSN is offline  
Old November 26, 2014, 06:18 AM   #235
justice06rr
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 7, 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,355
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
justice06rr is offline  
Old November 26, 2014, 06:47 AM   #236
USAF_Vet
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 6, 2011
Location: Gun Lake, Michigan
Posts: 4,239
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.
__________________
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me.

Brown coats unite!
USAF_Vet is online now  
Old November 26, 2014, 07:17 AM   #237
justice06rr
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 7, 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,355
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...
justice06rr is offline  
Old November 26, 2014, 09:35 AM   #238
Carl N. Brown
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 10, 2005
Location: Kingsport Tennessee
Posts: 6,806
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.
__________________
Cogito me cogitare; ergo, cogito me esse.
Carl N. Brown is offline  
Old November 26, 2014, 11:09 AM   #239
rodinal220
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 9, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,102
"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.

Last edited by rodinal220; November 27, 2014 at 05:19 PM.
rodinal220 is offline  
Old November 26, 2014, 04:37 PM   #240
kimberkid
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 5, 2010
Posts: 701
[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.
__________________
If you really want something you'll find a way ...
... if you don't you'll find an excuse.
kimberkid is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.