Atf open letter on the redesign of “stabilizing braces”

[barnbwt]

"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?"
The ATF ruled a "stock", intended for the groin area would not change pistol status, so it is a valid question. But typically, in these 'technical' areas, a court will tend to defer to the 'experts' which in this case happen to be the ATF (I guess since the Tech Branch aren't the prosecutors, they can claim no conflict of interest). That is why safety sears are held to always be autosears (machineguns)

TCB

 

[Ryanxia]

The only reason I brought up the chest part is because we know chin stocks (as stupid as they are, are legal) so I'm just wondering where exactly the line is.

As far the as the stock example I made, let me rephrase.
If Magpul made a separate STR and labeled it a balancing device (or whatever) the design would not be for it to be fired from the shoulder, merely to balance for easier one handed shooting, therefore it should be lawful to have on your pistol. AR pistols can be front heavy in most configurations.
Same logic right?

 

[Sam1911]

If Magpul made a separate STR and labeled it a balancing device (or whatever) the design would not be for it to be fired from the shoulder, merely to balance for easier one handed shooting, therefore it should be lawful to have on your pistol. AR pistols can be front heavy in most configurations.
Same logic right?

Sure. If MagPul convinced the BATFE that their device was intended to be that specific thing, and not some other thing, and the device plausibly did what it claimed, BATFE might indeed allow it.

But it would come with the same caveats. Don't use it as a stock.

 

[Reinz]

This is no surprise at all. It was a matter of time. I couldn't believe they allowed it in the first place, given the current climate of things.

 

[1KPerDay]

I hope the inevitable lawsuit results in them coming to their senses, rather than further amendments stating that you can't use a rifle or shotgun in ways it wasn't INTENDED... i.e., firing from the hip, etc.

 

[DeepSouth]

Reading this thread, and the last one for that matter has been like watching people try to unscramble an egg. I never realized I at how bad the law was, it is truly terrible.

 

[wally]

This administration wants to ignore the criminals walking across our borders and make criminals out of law abiding folks over how they hold their pistols when shooting!

 

[9mmepiphany]

I'm going to merge this thread in Autoloaders with the thread in Legal. It really is more a Legal thread than an Autoloader one

 

[ol' scratch]

Is resting the buffer tube on your shoulder considered using it as a stock?

 

[barnbwt]

Why not ask the ATF? Theirs is the only opinion that matters, after all...

TCB

 

[JohnKSa]

Is resting the buffer tube on your shoulder considered using it as a stock?

If there's not a stock attached to your pistol then holding any normal part of your pistol against your shoulder is not going to be considered using that part as a stock.

On the other hand, if you attach something to the rear of your pistol (i.e. where a stock would attach) that looks and functions like a shoulder stock, and then hold that item to your shoulder (i.e. use it like a shoulder stock), you will likely get to talk to the BATF about it eventually. And I strongly suspect that during the "talk" they won't be convinced it's not a stock even if you tell them that: "It is really called a 'Humdinger35' (or whatever), not a 'stock'." and that: "It is actually designed to be a battery holder for the batteries you use for your red dot sight (or whatever), and not to function as a stock."

 

[USAF_Vet]

Might be time to reevaluate the AR chin stock gadget.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/09/03/a-chin-stock-for-ar-15-no-shoulder-needed/

 

[OilyPablo]

Ironically my firearm trust was formed Tuesday Jan 20 and my Sig Brace arrived on Wed Jan 21. The SBR process starts soon and it won't involve the Sig Brace. This hobby is relaxing!

 

[cluttonfred]

I don't own one of these braces and have no interest in doing so. That said, honestly, is anyone really surprised at how this has turned out? Google "pistol arm brace" images and see how many photos show people using them as shoulder stocks. The whole thing is just an issue of buyers and sellers wanting to put one over on "the man" with a nod and wink. Personally, I am surprised that the ATF didn't just outlaw their possession without a tax stamp and be done with it. Ruling that they are not in themselves illegal if used as advertised actually seems pretty enlightened under the circumstance.

 

[Ryanxia]

Sig released a statement regarding the ATF's recent letter.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/01/21/sig-makes-statement-batfe-pistol-brace-controversy/

“We question ATF’s reversal in position that the classification of the brace may be altered by its use. We are reviewing the legal precedents and justification for this position, and will address our concerns with ATF in the near future.

“We will vigorously defend the classification of all of our products and our consumers’ right to use them in accordance with the law. If we find that the open letter opinion is outside the scope of the law, we will seek further review.”

I like this quote in the comments.

The new ruling redefines the word "redesign" in order to make this "logic." To clear up the current logic, shouldering a pistol makes it a SBR, two handing a pistol makes it an AoW, and one handing a rifle with a pistol grip (like the standard AR15) is making a pistol out of a rifle.

 

[Willie Sutton]

"Personally, I am surprised that the ATF didn't just outlaw their possession without a tax stamp and be done with it."


^^ We have a Winner.

This is exactly what the BATFE *should* do, in my humble opinion. It walks and quacks like a duck... it's a duck. Sorry guys, but... it's a duck.



"The whole thing is just an issue of buyers and sellers wanting to put one over on "the man" with a nod and wink."

And you can thank "Mall Ninja and the Neckbeards" on Youtube for providing sufficient graphic imagry of themselves thumbing their noses at the BATFE for the attention drawn to this product being used in a manner not as per its "design". In fact, why don't you try to find a Youtube vide of it being used by someone "as designed". Then compare the ratio of similar videos with it being shouldered.



I'm surprised they were not deemed to be contraband in their entirety.


And *I* resent the NFA just as much as anyone. Really.


Willie

.

 

[HRnightmare]

hope the inevitable lawsuit results in them coming to their senses, rather than further amendments stating that you can't use a rifle or shotgun in ways it wasn't INTENDED... i.e., firing from the hip, etc.

Lawsuit from Sig has been filed. However you 1. have a very anti gun administration that will likely not allow them to back down. 2. the government is fighting the lawsuit and does not care how long it drags on or how much $ it takes. They have a point to prove and they are fighting with OUR money. They have no incentive or regard to stop the bleeding as would a civilian organization where it is affecting profit margins.

 

[Ryanxia]

Do those of you who want the Sig brace banned even know why it was invented? To enable veterans (and others) with only the use of one hand to still be able to fire their AR15. Just because it causes some red tape headache for those who choose to own one is no reason it should be illegal to own. If you don't want to be involved with the debate, walk away, simple as that.

 

[Sam1911]

And you can thank "Mall Ninja and the Neckbeards" on Youtube for providing sufficient graphic imagry of themselves thumbing their noses at the BATFE for the attention drawn to this product being used in a manner not as per its "design". In fact, why don't you try to find a Youtube vide of it being used by someone "as designed". Then compare the ratio of similar videos with it being shouldered.

I don't see a need for such angry sounding denigration of (seemingly) all those who have explored this idea in text and deed and video over the last couple of years. It isn't a bad idea, devoid of real benefit. Sure there are silly and ignorant shooters who've worked with these but a lot of pretty smart and knowledgeable people have too.

Let's not paint with too broad and black a brush.

 

[Apachedriver]

"Personally, I am surprised that the ATF didn't just outlaw their possession without a tax stamp and be done with it."


^^ We have a Winner.

This is exactly what the BATFE *should* do, in my humble opinion.

Interesting. The solution is for the govt to further regulate and legislate the collective instead of holding an offending individual accountable for their actions with regards to this brace.

I don't have one, don't plan to ever get one, and I don't care if others have one to use as they please as long as no one else endangered. If they act contrary to what ATF has established as legal use, then let them answer up for it.

 

[chiggerbyt]

Do those of you who want the Sig brace banned even know why it was invented? To enable veterans (and others) with only the use of one hand to still be able to fire their AR15. Just because it causes some red tape headache for those who choose to own one is no reason it should be illegal to own. If you don't want to be involved with the debate, walk away, simple as that.

Just throwing this out. Maybe there could be disability exceptions to all of this? Somewhat like what some states do to allow crossbows during archery season. Requiring a medical (Dr's.) letter? Throwing the baby out with the wash if it helps disabled people to participate in the firearms community? Is that what we should do by banning the whole concept?
Edited to add: I was once at an archery tournament where one of the contestants only had one arm. He pulled the bowstring back with his teeth biting a leather tab while holding the bow with his other arm. Some contestants complained saying he had an unfair advantage. I just had to shake my head and walk away muttering more power to him for competing.

 

[Sam1911]

Just throwing this out. Maybe there could be disability exceptions to all of this? Somewhat like what some states do to allow crossbows during archery season. Requiring a medical (Dr's.) letter? Throwing the baby out with the wash if it helps disabled people to participate in the firearms community? Is that what we should do by banning the whole concept?

FORTUNATELY (yes, fortunately) the BATFE has been surprisingly lenient about this and has NOT banned the device for the use it was patented to fulfill. And you don't even have to be disabled to use it that way.


Some of us here seem to have stumbled blindly off the trail in suggesting that BATFE "should" ban them. Come back to earth, folks! Your friends love ya...don't walk toward the light...!

 

[Jackal]

I for one have now ditched the Sig brace on my personal AR pistol. When using the cheek weld and not shouldering (a 2 inch gap from my shoulder), I dont need some bonehead LEO (not saying all LEO are boneheads, but we all know they are out there) to see me from the wrong angle and think I have shouldered it.... Way too many easy ways to misjudge that situation.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I'll offer this.

While not a great believer in the Chapman (improved Weaver) stance, it certainly has applications when using the SIG Brace attached to an AR pistol...and there would be no mistaking using it with this stance and shouldering the brace

 

[Willie Sutton]

"I don't see a need for such angry sounding denigration of (seemingly) all those who have explored this idea in text and deed and video over the last couple of years."


I'm not angry, I'm simply bemused. Our "community" has gone out of its way to twist the nose of the BATFE, with predictable results. Many of the videos and other publication of the *misuse* of this product has been done in childish ways. It's to this that I refer,


Willie

.