Quantcast
Sig arm brace -- important legal update - Page 14 - 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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 31, 2014, 01:23 PM   #326
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 29,752
Quote:
The NFA defined 26"OAL and 18" bbl length as the limits to "concealable" in 1934. Merely being able to hide a shotgun or rifle under your clothing is not the standard outlined in Federal law.
Of course. That's not what they're talking about (rifles and shotguns). This specifically applies to other "Firearms" and AOWs, as I said.

According to this BATFE letter, an other "Firearm" (GCA, not NFA) does indeed become a concealable AOW if "actually concealed on the person."

Clear now?
__________________
-- 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

Last edited by Sam1911; December 31, 2014 at 01:29 PM.
Sam1911 is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 01:45 PM   #327
dogtown tom
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 15, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,729
Quote:
barnbwt

Quote:
"But it doesn't bar all indirect purchases, as you can still purchase a gun as a legitimate gift."
Surprise gift, maybe, since it appears all traces of pre-arrangement for the gift must be obscured...
Nonsense.
Nothing in Federal law or ATF regs requires or even suggests that the gift must be a "surprise".

You confuse the gift exemption with what Mr. Abramski actually did...........he bought a firearm for his uncle using his uncles $$$$. It was in no way a gift and therefore the purchase was in violation of Federal law.

If Mr. Abramski's uncle hadn't written "for Glock 19" on the memo line of his check Mr. Abramski wouldn't be sitting in jail.




Quote:
Once again, some very convoluted and contradictory logic was made in the recent case to justify different treatment for the same end result because of a different route taken (if we paid tax on FFL transfers, the argument might have merit, but we don't). Again, it doesn't matter to us lil folk if the rules are wrong, insane, or incomprehensible, they are the rules we are bound by until we change them. Doesn't mean they are not wrong or insane, though.
If you've read the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act the ATF regulations do not seem wrong, insane or incomprehensible. ATF determination letters are an attempt to put the intent of Congress (at the time of passage) into how the regulation applies to a particular question.

When I first heard of the Sig Arm Brace I wasn't puzzled at all that ATF had determined it not a shoulder stock........but I had not actually seen a picture yet. As it was described to me it sounded like a perfect device to assist someone with a disability to hold a heavy handgun. Since I work with students who have gross motor delays or physical disabilities, I'm accustomed to seeing adapted equipment of assistive devices.

Once I actually saw the Sig Arm Brace my opinion took a 180...........it's a crappy shoulder stock with Velcro! I immediately knew why it was presented as an "arm brace".......that would enhance the likelihood the ATF would not rule it a shoulder stock.

Now, a year or so later, ATF sees everyone bragging about their new pistol with a Sig Arm Brace.......and they delight in telling the gun community how wonderful it is as a shoulder stock. Instead of letting the lion sleep, more than a few jackwagons felt the need to get clarification on using the SAB.......now ATF sees that the device originally presented as an adapted device for shooters with a disability, was in fact a shoulder stock that could also be used as an arm brace.

I fully understand why ATF would alter its original determination.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me!

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military, police, firefighters or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 01:53 PM   #328
dogtown tom
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 15, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,729
Quote:
Sam1911 .....According to this BATFE letter, an other "Firearm" (GCA, not NFA) does indeed become a concealable AOW if "actually concealed on the person."...
No, that's NOT what that first paragraph says.
A pistol with a second vertical grip becomes an AOW.
It is NOT an "Other firearm" because it is an AOW. Whether it can be concealed has no bearing because...........IT'S ALREADY an AOW.

Read the law and ATF regulations......it's THAT clear.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me!

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military, police, firefighters or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 02:11 PM   #329
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 29,752
I'll grant you that they're talking about adding a vertical grip to a regular GCA handgun.

Quote:
A pistol with a second vertical grip becomes an AOW.
Right.

Quote:
It is NOT an "Other firearm" because it is an AOW. Whether it can be concealed has no bearing because...........IT'S ALREADY an AOW.
If it is a conventional handgun, say a Glock 17 with a 4.5" barrel, and you add a vertical forward grip, YES, it is an AOW.

But they're saying specifically two things there about classifying that weapon as an AOW:

"...if its overall length is less than 26" ..."

OR <--- (Boolean operator that signifies that either of the preceding and following conditions create the specified effect.)

"... it is actually concealed on the person."



If its length is over 26" it is not an AOW. It is a GCA other "firearm" at that point. And a GCA other "firearm" can be any of several types of things, as you know. (PGO "shotgun-like object", semi-auto M1919 with no stock, bare AR receiver, etc.)

However ... and my whole reason for pointing this out ... if that other "firearm" is "actually concealed on the person," it is then an AOW. They say so RIGHT THERE.



If in their eyes, concealing an other "firearm" (like a 27" stockless weapon with a forward vertical grip) didn't create a Title II AOW, why did they write that?

That entire last clause is pointless and extraneous if they are not illustrating by it a second manner in which some thing that is not an AOW becomes an AOW.



(Not saying I agree or disagree with them. I'm pointing out what they wrote.)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ATF-SIG-brace-letter.jpg (9.1 KB, 405 views)
__________________
-- 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

Last edited by Sam1911; December 31, 2014 at 02:20 PM.
Sam1911 is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 02:20 PM   #330
HRnightmare
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 30, 2014
Posts: 466
Quote:
Wonder how this is going to play out?
I read this yesterday....they also antagonize and rub the "work around" in the face of the NFA.

I watched a youtube video the other day by a guy named HOSSUSMC or USMCHOSS. He used the terms skirting, avoiding, screwing, work-around and mocking when talking about the use of a Sig arm brace as a stock probably 110 times in 3 minutes.


THIS kind of stuff is why I believe they will change their opinion legally and declare it a shoulder stock soon!
HRnightmare is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 02:25 PM   #331
dogtown tom
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 15, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,729
Quote:
If in their eyes, concealing an other "firearm" (like a 27" stockless weapon with a forward vertical grip) didn't create a Title II AOW, why did they write that?
Because the letter wasn't written asking about a 27" firearm......the determination request asked about a PISTOL.

Quote:
"A firearm of this type......"
And the firearm they are describing is a pistol with a second vertical grip.

If you hold that concealing a Title 1 firearm (such as a PGO shotgun) becomes an AOW when it is concealed........please provide a citation to the Federal law, the ATF regulation or a court case that says anything remotely close.

You won't find it because no law, regulation or court case has ever said anything of the sort.
You are misreading that paragraph.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me!

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military, police, firefighters or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 02:40 PM   #332
armoredman
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 19, 2003
Location: proud to be in AZ
Posts: 15,773
Quote:
If 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse', is 'Ignorance of this week's bureaucratic interpretation, which is wholly contrary to last week's' an excuse?
We may well end up with the type of morass that consumes Seattle, with the authorities unable to figure out what that Bloomberg monstrosity even says, much less enforce it. Eventually nobody will be able to figure out what it is the law actually reads which will lead t one of two ends - authorities can, (as ATFE does today), make their own rulings on whatever aspect of the law they wish, and innocent civilians will be swept along by it regardless of the clear letter of the law, or we get what all those county sheriffs have stood up to say, "we won't enforce these stupid laws in our counties"...which could also be interesting.
Not grandstanding or Chicken Little-ing, just pointing out things that have already happened and how they could also happen with this stuff. Do you think your county sheriff will arrest you for shouldering your AR pistol with brace at the range? If you use your PAP pistol with brace in a self defense situation, will you be no-true-billed or prosecuted, with that being the only defining issue? Who knows? I know one major importer with a new pistol on the market who is asking for clarification from ATFE about 922(r) with regards to SBR a pistol.
The nice thing about living here in Free AZ is if I choose to single point sling an AR style pistol and carry it concealed, or register it as an SBR, I can carry either concealed without permit.
This will be truly interesting to watch play out.
__________________
If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

http://czfirearms.us/ The original CZ Forum, new address.
armoredman is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 02:41 PM   #333
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 29,752
Quote:
Because the letter wasn't written asking about a 27" firearm......the determination request asked about a PISTOL.
Then there was no reason to list TWO qualifying features: 1) Under 26" and 2) actually concealed on the person.

I completely agree with you that there the phrase "actually concealed on the person" does not appear in the law.

It does appear in this letter. With the word "or" behind it.

The sentence can be broken into two parts because of the "or."

"A firearm of this type is properly classified an AOW if its overall length is less than 26 inches ..." (Totally agree. No confusion. The corollary to that is, a firearm of this type is NOT classified an AOW if its overall length is greater than 26".)

And:

"A firearm of this type is properly classified an AOW if ... it is actually concealed on the person."

If the firearm of this type is less than 26 inches overall, concealing it on the person is completely irrelevant. It is an AOW, period. There is no point in specifying a further qualification.

But they do. And they use "or," which illustrates that being less than 26 inches is not the only way such a firearm would become an AOW.

The only logical way to read that is, "if the firearm is GREATER than 26 inches overall, it can also be an AOW if it is actually concealed on the person."

That's not the law, precisely, but it is what they wrote.



...I keep re-reading this to see where my logic or comprehension of their clauses is flawed, and I don't see it. How do you dissect this paragraph and interpret the clause after "...OR if ..."?
__________________
-- 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 December 31, 2014, 04:13 PM   #334
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,329
Quote:
If the firearm of this type is less than 26 inches overall, concealing it on the person is completely irrelevant. It is an AOW, period. There is no point in specifying a further qualification.
The letter says 'of this type' which is still referring to the firearm with the forward pistol grip. A firearm without a forward pistol grip would not be 'of this type'. But that's just how dogtown tom and I are reading it.
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 04:21 PM   #335
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 29,752
Quote:
The letter says 'of this type' which is still referring to the firearm with the forward pistol grip. A firearm without a forward pistol grip would not be 'of this type'. But that's just how dogtown tom and I are reading it.
Ok, and that's fine. Let's say this paragraph only applies to firearms that have forward vertical grips.

We still have the question of the two separate clauses, "less than 26 inches" and "or actually concealed on the person." That, to me, says if you construct a non-stocked firearm with a forward pistol grip it would become an AOW in two cases. EITHER of two cases.

What do those two distinct phrases mean to you? Tom says I'm misreading the paragraph, and I may be, but to buy that I need to hear another interpretation of the words they actually wrote down.
__________________
-- 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 December 31, 2014, 04:26 PM   #336
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Location: In the trenches for Liberty.
Posts: 3,329
I read that part the same way as you Sam, that this type of firearm would be considered an AOW if it is concealed on the person. Whether that's enforceable or not, who knows. This is still just one person writing this letter, people make mistakes.

They sell the AR-15 pistols over 26" long with vertical foregrips, can they really say that hanging it off your chest with a sling and putting a winter coat on for a few minutes causes you to be evading taxes? That would be tough.
__________________
Join NRA Today!
Right now there are anti & pro gun laws being proposed in YOUR State, get involved!

www.odb.org
Ryanxia is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 05:14 PM   #337
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 29,752
Yeah! True. Of course they also say that you should call up the manufacturer to find out if a stripped AR receiver was EVER built into a rifle. Because if it was, making it into a pistol would be a felony. Which is unenforcible and stupid because a manufacturer could never tell you what someone else might have done with that receiver.

Bad law. Bad deal trying to make regulations based on it.
__________________
-- 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

Last edited by Sam1911; December 31, 2014 at 07:05 PM.
Sam1911 is offline  
Old December 31, 2014, 10:32 PM   #338
BK
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 27, 2002
Location: Blood of the Apache
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRnightmare View Post
I watched a youtube video the other day by a guy named HOSSUSMC or USMCHOSS. He used the terms skirting, avoiding, screwing, work-around and mocking when talking about the use of...


THIS kind of stuff is why I believe they will change their opinion legally and declare it a shoulder stock soon!
I used to think the same thing about selling 30rd Pmags to California buyers as "California-compliant magazine parts kits". I thought it was a blatant way to flaunt the written text of the law, a work-around, skirting, etc. I started a thread some years ago thinking that way. But in reality it is actually a fitting and completely legal act. I've since done a great amount of business providing Cali residents with such products.

Those who seized the opportunity provided by the first letter's ruling were 100% law abiding regardless of the descriptions they uttered.
BK is offline  
Old January 4, 2015, 01:30 PM   #339
armoredman
Member
 
 
Join Date: November 19, 2003
Location: proud to be in AZ
Posts: 15,773
And those same magazine "rebuild' kits are now illegal in Cali, correct?
__________________
If total government control equals safety, why are prisons so dangerous?

http://czfirearms.us/ The original CZ Forum, new address.
armoredman is offline  
Old January 8, 2015, 12:51 PM   #340
HankB
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 29, 2003
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 4,892
A couple of gun rags have now weighed in on use of the SIG brace.

In the February 2015 issue of Guns & Ammo, the "Mail Call" column's editor writes about Daniel Defense's AR-platform pistols (he likes them) and then in this context goes on to mention " . . . lawful shoulder use of Sig Sauer's revolutionary pistol brace . . . " and goes on to say that he doesn't know " . . . why anyone would be willing to twiddle his thumbs for a government-registered SBR."

Not to be out done, in the March/April 2015 issue of American Handgunner magazine, in an article covering the Sig P516 close combat weapons system, the author states that according to a ruling by the BATF's Firearms Technology Branch, the SIG brace does not classify the host gun as a short-barreled rifle " . . . even if used as a short buttstock in tactical applications . . . "

The author also observes that the buttstock bears " . . . a striking resemblance to a collapsed M4 stock . . . "

So . . . since we have at least two gun rags weighing in on the issue now, I guess everything is perfectly clear.
__________________
Pay attention - the inmates really are running the asylum.
HankB is offline  
Old January 16, 2015, 06:51 PM   #341
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 29,752
I'm closing this and re-directing discussion to the new thread which puts the discussion on a more concrete footing: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=771196
__________________
-- 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  
Closed Thread


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 04:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, 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.