jerkface11
Member
So if shouldering an arm brace makes it a stock does gripping the magwell make it a forward grip?
Atf open letter on the redesign of “stabilizing braces”
- Thread starter dogtown tom
- Start date
- Status
DeepSouth
Random Guy
Somewhat on topic.
CA man charged with owning SBR for having pistol brace equipped AR pistol
Like I said, somewhat on topic..... Somehow I don't see this being the test case.
CA man charged with owning SBR for having pistol brace equipped AR pistol
Like I said, somewhat on topic..... Somehow I don't see this being the test case.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"According to ATF policy, "unmaking" your SBR does make it NOT an NFA item."
Just curious; according to the above statement in conjunction with the letter, how could the ATF bring charges without photographic evidence of misuse --the instant you unshoulder the gun to be cuffed, it ceases to be contraband, right? And even with photographs of you using it, there would be the burden of proving the gun is yours (or does shouldering a buddy's rifle still put the 'manufacture' charges back on you?), that the physical evidence brought to court is the same, as well as intent if they don't wish the case thrown back on them by sympathetic judges/juries. So unless you bear witness against yourself, this ruling seems like it'd be fairly unenforceable in most cases. Reason number fifteen why this particular ruling is a stupid way for the Bureau to get what they are after, which is for SIG braces to stop being used as stocks.
Ruling them to be stocks removes all doubt and gets them treated properly by law-abiding citizens, same as any other stock that makes a pistol into an SBR. Also has the benefit of making the attachment of a physical object the 'crime' as is the case with all other short barrel issues)
One other fun fact worth mentioning (funny fact, more like), is that devices built to seat the rear of the gun on 'other' body parts than the shoulder apparently don't qualify as stocks, either, not being 'designed to fire from the shoulder' after all. Rather humorous bureaucratic boilerplate letter on that one. Oh, and another letter involved either a chin or collar bone mounting point, with the ATF demurring on the question of where the 'shoulder' on a person actually starts. We can quote the law and 'common sense' all we like, but these are very important questions when mindlessly complying with a statute, and the ATF has been steadfast in its refusal to be clear on the enforcement boundaries.
I wouldn't think so ill of them trying to be effective at their jobs as lawmen, if they would have some consideration in making it easier for me to continue being a law abiding citizen, rather than seeking to ensnare me.
TCB
Just curious; according to the above statement in conjunction with the letter, how could the ATF bring charges without photographic evidence of misuse --the instant you unshoulder the gun to be cuffed, it ceases to be contraband, right? And even with photographs of you using it, there would be the burden of proving the gun is yours (or does shouldering a buddy's rifle still put the 'manufacture' charges back on you?), that the physical evidence brought to court is the same, as well as intent if they don't wish the case thrown back on them by sympathetic judges/juries. So unless you bear witness against yourself, this ruling seems like it'd be fairly unenforceable in most cases. Reason number fifteen why this particular ruling is a stupid way for the Bureau to get what they are after, which is for SIG braces to stop being used as stocks.
Ruling them to be stocks removes all doubt and gets them treated properly by law-abiding citizens, same as any other stock that makes a pistol into an SBR. Also has the benefit of making the attachment of a physical object the 'crime' as is the case with all other short barrel issues)
One other fun fact worth mentioning (funny fact, more like), is that devices built to seat the rear of the gun on 'other' body parts than the shoulder apparently don't qualify as stocks, either, not being 'designed to fire from the shoulder' after all. Rather humorous bureaucratic boilerplate letter on that one. Oh, and another letter involved either a chin or collar bone mounting point, with the ATF demurring on the question of where the 'shoulder' on a person actually starts. We can quote the law and 'common sense' all we like, but these are very important questions when mindlessly complying with a statute, and the ATF has been steadfast in its refusal to be clear on the enforcement boundaries.
I wouldn't think so ill of them trying to be effective at their jobs as lawmen, if they would have some consideration in making it easier for me to continue being a law abiding citizen, rather than seeking to ensnare me.
TCB
Armor Snail
Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2013
- Messages
- 530
Its not about making people stop using them as stocks.
Its about them feeling slighted by not getting the $200 off each bloke who does.
Its about them feeling slighted by not getting the $200 off each bloke who does.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"So if shouldering an arm brace makes it a stock does gripping the magwell make it a forward grip?"
Nope, but only through the generosity of the ATF (for now). I suppose if you designed a forward-magwell to be gripped, with like finger grooves or something, that you could run afoul, though. The ATF has been consistent-ish in holding that parts necessary for a gun's operation not be held against it as far as NFA issues (well, unless you count safety sears that prevent OOBD in FAL's and PS90's). So bare buffer tubes and magazines/magwells haven't come under scrutiny (or bipods, surprisingly). It's always made me wonder if someone could get the Tavor sold as a pistol if the length was kept under 26", since it does have essentially the same layout as a big Uzi without the mag. The ATF would probably request you have nails sticking out of the backplate, or something
I'd better not ask, though, or they might rule the Uzi is a bullpup carbine even without shoulder stock attachment. I'd hate to be the guy to 'ruin' it for the rest of you
"Its about them feeling slighted by not getting the $200 off each bloke who does."
You'd think the Bureau would be fiscally biased toward approving as many NFA forms as possible, but that would be ignoring the historical evidence of a small, overburdened workforce and antiquated (until very recently paper-based) process that makes your big city DMV's look like the model of efficiency. They've been far more motivated and creative with regards to sting operations. For instance, you can't get an FFL without a fairly convincing pretense of being a real business, even though the criteria are largely subjective and licensing/fees bring in a lot of scratch (thousands a year just for ITAR). You'd think they'd love having as many people under their strict gaze as possible, but such is not the case.
TCB
Nope, but only through the generosity of the ATF (for now). I suppose if you designed a forward-magwell to be gripped, with like finger grooves or something, that you could run afoul, though. The ATF has been consistent-ish in holding that parts necessary for a gun's operation not be held against it as far as NFA issues (well, unless you count safety sears that prevent OOBD in FAL's and PS90's). So bare buffer tubes and magazines/magwells haven't come under scrutiny (or bipods, surprisingly). It's always made me wonder if someone could get the Tavor sold as a pistol if the length was kept under 26", since it does have essentially the same layout as a big Uzi without the mag. The ATF would probably request you have nails sticking out of the backplate, or something
I'd better not ask, though, or they might rule the Uzi is a bullpup carbine even without shoulder stock attachment. I'd hate to be the guy to 'ruin' it for the rest of you
"Its about them feeling slighted by not getting the $200 off each bloke who does."
You'd think the Bureau would be fiscally biased toward approving as many NFA forms as possible, but that would be ignoring the historical evidence of a small, overburdened workforce and antiquated (until very recently paper-based) process that makes your big city DMV's look like the model of efficiency. They've been far more motivated and creative with regards to sting operations. For instance, you can't get an FFL without a fairly convincing pretense of being a real business, even though the criteria are largely subjective and licensing/fees bring in a lot of scratch (thousands a year just for ITAR). You'd think they'd love having as many people under their strict gaze as possible, but such is not the case.
TCB
Last edited:
jerkface11
Member
A handgun is "designed to be fired with one hand" So does that mean that if I use both hands on my glock I've redesigned it?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Apparently not, as the NFA definition of pistol doesn't ever use the word "re-designed." Of course, if you accept that an AR "pistol" is a handgun to begin with, it shouldn't apply there, either.
Such a mess.
Such a mess.
The ATF statement says: "The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked."
"Use as a shoulder stock" obviously means pressing it against your shoulder.
"Use as a shoulder stock" obviously means pressing it against your shoulder.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
The semantics of this get convoluted. The law on rifles talks about "...designed or re-designed to be..." which is pretty easily understood.
The law doesn't say anything about designing or re-designing an accessory, but it doesn't have to. The ATF is simply saying "if it's used as a stock, it's a stock."
Remember this? What's this?
The law doesn't say anything about designing or re-designing an accessory, but it doesn't have to. The ATF is simply saying "if it's used as a stock, it's a stock."
Remember this? What's this?
Youse guys that are dancing on the head of a pin looking to wiggle worm the semantics of the letter need to go be the test case.
It may suck, but it is what it is, and nobody shouldn't have seen this coming. We're talking about the agency that said a shoestring can be a machine gun.
It may suck, but it is what it is, and nobody shouldn't have seen this coming. We're talking about the agency that said a shoestring can be a machine gun.
gunsandreligion
Member
As may have been said before, the march letter was the interpretation by one agent, or a individual letter. This is the actual decision, and while I believe it will not prevent crime, I do think they did have the right to do this. Either way, I prefer a sling on the back to a shoulderd brace, so as long as thats legal I wont cry too hard, the sig only looks cooler. Now if they really want to prevent crime by sbr's, they should ban hacksaws.
gunsandreligion
Member
I do think the stint of the sig brace was valuble to us nonetheless. I feel like it raised awareness to the nfa and may help gain awareness and support for any attempt to lift the restrictions on sbr's in more favorable political conditions.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oh, I do too! I think each of these little squalls both raises awareness in our community and also pushes us inevitably closer to positive legislative action on the NFA. Not today or tomorrow, but if our momentum holds and the right legislator pushes the right bill, we'll see SBRs and SBSs and silencers out of federal registration.
HankB
Member
DeepSouth said:
What I found interesting about the link was this line:
IANAL . . . does this mean that vertical foregrips on a pistol do not make an AOW? Or is it one of those rulings that's only applicable in one judicial district? (No, I'm not looking to become a test case if the matter is at all uncertain.)
DeepSouth
Random Guy
^^^^^
I so did not catch that!!
I just skimmed through it.
I so did not catch that!!
I just skimmed through it.
gunsandreligion
Member
yes the number of people Ive met who actually know what SBR even means now is much much larger. I think we just have to get the right timing and keep educating people, and definately length laws and hopefully silencers will be deregulated.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Remember this? [shovel-ready AK] What's this?"
It's an attachment that would land you in the clink if the AK had been built with a <16" barrel, therefore we can safely conclude it is a "shoulder stock" built from a "<expletive-deleted>-shovel" to quote the builder. It was built and intended to function as a shoulder stock (or perhaps, bayonet thrust amplifier), which it does. Attaching it to a pistol configured receiver without the intention of use as a stock would not matter to the ATF, no whether or not the user actually mis/used it as one. So I'm not getting how they believe the SIG brace is different in this regard (you know, unless they're being arbitrary and capricious).
"Youse guys that are dancing on the head of a pin looking to wiggle worm the semantics of the letter need to go be the test case."
Ooh! Ooh! I want to get my dog killed and stabbed in prison, first! You do realize this statement is akin to the "if 380's so weak, why don't you go stand in front of one?" line, right? Besides, the only "wiggling" being done is by the ATF; the rest of us are really just trying to figure out what unintended consequences they just dumped in our laps (legality of bump fire and two-hand grips are very valid concerns if you follow the plain logic of this ruling)
"We're talking about the agency that said a shoestring can be a machine gun."
Another case where the courts smacked them upside the head, if I recall correctly (although it did take like ten years. Even a 'test case' volunteer isn't a guarantee of justice, which when delayed is still denied). And even as far as the shoestring, the ATF was ultimately forced into the position that the addition of the string made the machine gun, not tensioning it with your hand as is required to obtain rapid fire. Before, they tried to claim proximity of a reciprocating-bolt firearm and a flexible cable constituted intent to manufacture ("constructive possession").
"IANAL . . . does this mean that vertical foregrips on a pistol do not make an AOW?"
Wow, wouldja lookit that? The courts made a ruling and the ATF kept on doing its thing! Why, that's almost exactly like the T/C Supreme Court ruling *they insisted applied only to the T/C gun model in question, despite the issue being important enough to bend the court's ear for a ruling. There are still people who think you need special size barrel attachments for things like STENs, so an original "SBR barrel" cannot be installed (think about the logic behind that statement for a moment). That really was how certain gun builds used to be constrained.
More details on the AOW case...
"26. A “pistol” is defined in Section 5845 as
A weapon originally designed, made and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one
hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of or
permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock
designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle** to and
extending below the line of the bore(s). 27 CFR 178.11
(emphasis added).
27. Even after being modified with grips, the pistols are still “pistols” as defined above and not “any other weapon” as defined by 26 U.S.C. section 5845(e)."
"Despite this ruling, the ATF’s official position is still that a pistol with a forward grip is an Any Other Weapon and they will arrest and prosecute you to the tune of ten years in jail and a $250K fine."
They also claim there have been multiple instances of the 'ol "once a machinegun always a machinegun" line being dismissed by courts; hasn't deterred the Bureau. Why, it seems like there is a veritable laundry list of ATF overreaches that persist solely by our fear of reprisals.
TCB
*Several years later, the ATF finally relented on this, and thus we all regained the right to configure a pistol into a long gun and back, legally. They still claim that a long gun cannot be similarly reconfigured without tax/registration, even when the two are physically indistinguishable; this is the type of "incredible result" cited as a reason for rejecting the above machine gun 'rule'
**wait, does that mean Uzi's can't be pistols, since the grip is perpendicular? Jeez, these outmoded definitions are painful...
It's an attachment that would land you in the clink if the AK had been built with a <16" barrel, therefore we can safely conclude it is a "shoulder stock" built from a "<expletive-deleted>-shovel" to quote the builder. It was built and intended to function as a shoulder stock (or perhaps, bayonet thrust amplifier), which it does. Attaching it to a pistol configured receiver without the intention of use as a stock would not matter to the ATF, no whether or not the user actually mis/used it as one. So I'm not getting how they believe the SIG brace is different in this regard (you know, unless they're being arbitrary and capricious).
"Youse guys that are dancing on the head of a pin looking to wiggle worm the semantics of the letter need to go be the test case."
Ooh! Ooh! I want to get my dog killed and stabbed in prison, first! You do realize this statement is akin to the "if 380's so weak, why don't you go stand in front of one?" line, right? Besides, the only "wiggling" being done is by the ATF; the rest of us are really just trying to figure out what unintended consequences they just dumped in our laps (legality of bump fire and two-hand grips are very valid concerns if you follow the plain logic of this ruling)
"We're talking about the agency that said a shoestring can be a machine gun."
Another case where the courts smacked them upside the head, if I recall correctly (although it did take like ten years. Even a 'test case' volunteer isn't a guarantee of justice, which when delayed is still denied). And even as far as the shoestring, the ATF was ultimately forced into the position that the addition of the string made the machine gun, not tensioning it with your hand as is required to obtain rapid fire. Before, they tried to claim proximity of a reciprocating-bolt firearm and a flexible cable constituted intent to manufacture ("constructive possession").
"IANAL . . . does this mean that vertical foregrips on a pistol do not make an AOW?"
Wow, wouldja lookit that? The courts made a ruling and the ATF kept on doing its thing! Why, that's almost exactly like the T/C Supreme Court ruling *they insisted applied only to the T/C gun model in question, despite the issue being important enough to bend the court's ear for a ruling. There are still people who think you need special size barrel attachments for things like STENs, so an original "SBR barrel" cannot be installed (think about the logic behind that statement for a moment). That really was how certain gun builds used to be constrained.
More details on the AOW case...
"26. A “pistol” is defined in Section 5845 as
A weapon originally designed, made and intended to fire a
projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one
hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of or
permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock
designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle** to and
extending below the line of the bore(s). 27 CFR 178.11
(emphasis added).
27. Even after being modified with grips, the pistols are still “pistols” as defined above and not “any other weapon” as defined by 26 U.S.C. section 5845(e)."
"Despite this ruling, the ATF’s official position is still that a pistol with a forward grip is an Any Other Weapon and they will arrest and prosecute you to the tune of ten years in jail and a $250K fine."
They also claim there have been multiple instances of the 'ol "once a machinegun always a machinegun" line being dismissed by courts; hasn't deterred the Bureau. Why, it seems like there is a veritable laundry list of ATF overreaches that persist solely by our fear of reprisals.
TCB
*Several years later, the ATF finally relented on this, and thus we all regained the right to configure a pistol into a long gun and back, legally. They still claim that a long gun cannot be similarly reconfigured without tax/registration, even when the two are physically indistinguishable; this is the type of "incredible result" cited as a reason for rejecting the above machine gun 'rule'
**wait, does that mean Uzi's can't be pistols, since the grip is perpendicular? Jeez, these outmoded definitions are painful...
"Arbitrary and capricious" is exactly the sort of relief that the companies who are offering braces and guns that use them can exercise:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...pistol-arm-brace-decision-declaratory-relief/
It's part of the checks and balances to keep a regulatory agency in control.
The point of the Friday afternoon PR release should be obvious - to kill any incentive for buyers attending the SHOT Show which started today. If the Brace is "illegal," then the guns and braces offered for sale WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATF BEFOREHAND won't have orders placed for them.
It's still an anti gun administration, just what do we expect?
With the major players all in Vegas and in close proximity, do you think they are planning to just back down and take a bath on the production tooling, materials, and research they have already committed? You think their phones won't already be ringing with offers to represent them in court?
No doubt there are judges who can see the case made that the reversal is nothing more than an attempt to damage their business with no legal precedent. The Courts aren't lackeys of whoever is the current party in power, never have been. And the American system of governance has checks and balances to keep one player from getting too big for his britches.
This is far from over, and a letter far from a final decision based on law. There is one sad part of it all, tho - the owners who are running scared selling their braces because they might be "that guy" who gets prosecuted. The odds are more likely they will have a traffic accident this year.
What is sadder are all the posters who have given up their citizenship to kowtow to what they see as an oppressive government and waving the spectre of "you don't want to be that guy they prosecute!"
How is supposed to be - citizens afraid of their government or a government that does what the citizens tell it?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...pistol-arm-brace-decision-declaratory-relief/
It's part of the checks and balances to keep a regulatory agency in control.
The point of the Friday afternoon PR release should be obvious - to kill any incentive for buyers attending the SHOT Show which started today. If the Brace is "illegal," then the guns and braces offered for sale WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATF BEFOREHAND won't have orders placed for them.
It's still an anti gun administration, just what do we expect?
With the major players all in Vegas and in close proximity, do you think they are planning to just back down and take a bath on the production tooling, materials, and research they have already committed? You think their phones won't already be ringing with offers to represent them in court?
No doubt there are judges who can see the case made that the reversal is nothing more than an attempt to damage their business with no legal precedent. The Courts aren't lackeys of whoever is the current party in power, never have been. And the American system of governance has checks and balances to keep one player from getting too big for his britches.
This is far from over, and a letter far from a final decision based on law. There is one sad part of it all, tho - the owners who are running scared selling their braces because they might be "that guy" who gets prosecuted. The odds are more likely they will have a traffic accident this year.
What is sadder are all the posters who have given up their citizenship to kowtow to what they see as an oppressive government and waving the spectre of "you don't want to be that guy they prosecute!"
How is supposed to be - citizens afraid of their government or a government that does what the citizens tell it?
ol' scratch
Member
ATF reverses ruling on Sig Brace
The ATF ruled a few months back that there was no improper way to shoot a pistol with a Sig brace. Well, they changed their minds. ATF now claims you must have a tax stamp and register your pistol as an SBR if you shoulder your pistol with the Sig brace.
:banghead: http://patriotoutdoornews.com/12510...se-sig-brace-shoulder-stock-without-nfa-stamp
The ATF ruled a few months back that there was no improper way to shoot a pistol with a Sig brace. Well, they changed their minds. ATF now claims you must have a tax stamp and register your pistol as an SBR if you shoulder your pistol with the Sig brace.
:banghead: http://patriotoutdoornews.com/12510...se-sig-brace-shoulder-stock-without-nfa-stampsmalls
Member
It would have been much cleaner if they simply came out and stated they were ruling them as a stock and to turn them in. Ignoring the conventional pistol configuration, does this mean you can't shoulder an AR pistol on the standard buffer tube? The tube was designed to simply encase the bcg and spring, not to be shouldered. If you use it as a stock, haven't you broken their ruling just as much as if you shouldered a brace? Neither item was intended to be used from the shoulder. If you fire a standard pistol while rested on the shoulder, does that too change the intended use and therefore redesign the pistol into an SBR? From what I read, the issue is using a pistol as a shouldered firearm makes it an SBR. Is there a reason to believe shooting a revolver resting on a shoulder wouldn't equally break the definition of their ruling?
I never bought the brace and my questions/part in this debate is simply to debate. I have no desire to test the waters of the legal system. When my options are to go about my business quietly or get arrested and hope I can prove my point in court, I'm taking the former option. I never did buy the Brace, though I thought about it for quite a while as crossing state lines with a pistol is much less of a pain than with an SBR (and my firearms cross the state line often when traveling to relatives property). I have no issue waiting and paying for a tax stamp rather than playing "press your luck" with the brace if I must have a shouldered firearm with a barrel less than 16".
I never bought the brace and my questions/part in this debate is simply to debate. I have no desire to test the waters of the legal system. When my options are to go about my business quietly or get arrested and hope I can prove my point in court, I'm taking the former option. I never did buy the Brace, though I thought about it for quite a while as crossing state lines with a pistol is much less of a pain than with an SBR (and my firearms cross the state line often when traveling to relatives property). I have no issue waiting and paying for a tax stamp rather than playing "press your luck" with the brace if I must have a shouldered firearm with a barrel less than 16".
Two points I hope someone explores.
Since intent seems to be the name of the game, we should be able to add a Magpul STR stock as a balancing item to a pistol still intended and designed to be fired one handed. Since it's designed to be fired one handed and not shoulder fired, it shouldn't be considered an SBR right?
Second, if someone tucks a Sig brace to their chest (not shoulder) then they should be in the clear right?
I know these are far fetches, but any optimal way we can comply with these new clarifications of the law may be helpful at some point.
When the first AR pistols were being sold lots of people said not to rock the boat and now they are quite common.
Since intent seems to be the name of the game, we should be able to add a Magpul STR stock as a balancing item to a pistol still intended and designed to be fired one handed. Since it's designed to be fired one handed and not shoulder fired, it shouldn't be considered an SBR right?
Second, if someone tucks a Sig brace to their chest (not shoulder) then they should be in the clear right?
I know these are far fetches, but any optimal way we can comply with these new clarifications of the law may be helpful at some point.
When the first AR pistols were being sold lots of people said not to rock the boat and now they are quite common.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I don't see "intent" as "the name of the game" at all.
If you add a stock to a pistol you've created an NFA "Firearm."
If you add this brace to a pistol, we'll grant the assumption that you are using it as the manufacture patented it -- to brace your arm.
If you use it as a STOCK, it's a stock, and you've created an NFA "Firearm."
This really isn't all that complicated to understand. We just don't like it.
They did use the word "intend" in the last part, but it was simply as a conversational convenience. If you're going to do this because you want to (i.e.: you intend to) shoulder the weapon, get your Form 1 in order first. But intent itself isn't the controlling issue. Whether you shoulder it or not is the controlling issue.
Again, if they'd come out and said all that, clearly, two years ago not one of us would have been surprised or all that outraged. We're just P.O.'d now because for two years they let a mistake slide.
Not really. Again, the definition of an SBR includes "designed or re-designed" to be fired from the shoulder. If you're doing something with that gun to let you fired it from the shoulder ... BINGO.
I assume you're just being silly here. You think the Court is going to quibble about where exactly your "shoulder" stops and your "chest" begins? Why waste the effort on such trivia?
- Status
