SBR's, braces, and the ATF

[Sam1911]

Whiny posers who want to look bad and get away with it. And this is why we have Moms Against Gun groups saying "we can't tell who is a good guy, so we want them all to be banned."

Good job at selling responsible gun ownership, dudes. You bought a prosthetic adapter for one armed veterans and use it as a rifle because you won't try harder to be more accurate, and all the while basking in the admiration of your buddies who elevated you in their esteem?

You got problems and you made things worse for yourself. Too bad.

Good lord. So much projection in this. Kind of like the "bubbas and neckbeards" comments from others.

IF the ATF had continued to allow it, using the SIG brace to get around the NFA was a fine idea. It really works pretty well, and delivers a lot of control. (laughable comments that since Jerry Miculek once shot a target at 400 meters with a pistol, I don't need a stock, notwithstanding.) For the period where this device was considered legal for that use, it was a good compromise.

I know a lady who is wheel-chair bound and was building a short-barreled AR "pistol" for home defense purposes, and bought the SIG brace to allow her to shoulder the weapon. Several of very knowledgeable and highly-trained shooters in my circle advised her on that and it was just about exactly what she most needed for her purpose.

Now she can't do that, and will have to either file with the BATFE, which is way more hassle than this non-gun nut enthusiast lady is going to get into, or deal with the fact that she's got a heavy, semi-useless range toy instead of a capable short carbine/PDW.

(Or rebuild it into a 16" carbine which is ungainly for her in her chair and household.)

We don't need all the denigration of our fellow shooters who were early adopters of this idea. It is just wrong, and childish, and further divides us.

 

[barnbwt]

"Just get the stamp"
a) not an option in some places
b) much like saying "just itemize your taxes on paper forms"
c) morally questionable, since you cede some of your rights in the process

"Whiny posers who want to look bad and get away with it. And this is why we have Moms Against Gun groups saying "we can't tell who is a good guy, so we want them all to be banned."

Good job at selling responsible gun ownership, dudes. You bought a prosthetic adapter for one armed veterans and use it as a rifle because you won't try harder to be more accurate, and all the while basking in the admiration of your buddies who elevated you in their esteem?"

a) Mom's think we're all bad, that's why they can't tell
b) The ATF told everyone they could do what they were doing
c) Have you ever shot a rifle? Very odd commentary

 

[armoredman]

It should never have been legal to begin with, but then to me an AR pistol with the buffer tube probably shouldn't be either because i have seen people shoulder fire them.

I, being born and raised in a Free State, believe the exact opposite, that firearms and accessories by definition should be legal.

You have to request permission in advance to transport it across state lines. State laws in your area may require it to be unloaded and cased out of reach for anti poaching enforcement. A pistol falls under CCW provisions, it can be loaded, up front, and in MO, with a CCW permit, open carried throughout the State.

The beauty of being in a Free State - a lawfully possessed item on the National Registry may be carried concealed/loaded/unconcealed without a permit by a law abiding citizen in this state. I am also quite certain nobody wants to lose their NFA item to the tender mercies of the PD evidence room for years while fighting a self defense case, (BTW, did I mention we have no civil liability for justified acts?), but for those who have the time/money to have multiples, and you really feel the want to carry your M-4gery under your duster, go for it.

At the SHOT show someone was talking about ANOTHER opinion letter from ATFE that came out after the Jan 16th one, but I have seen nothing about it other than SHOT rumor. Didn't have a chance to talk to AFTE while I was there, couldn't even find their booth. I would have liked to have a Brace on a Scorpion EVO S1, but if ATFE agrees it can be SBR without running afoul of 922(r), then I'll go that route instead.

 

[Ryanxia]

To me it's extremely simple.

1) There is a legitimate use for the Sig brace to be placed on a pistol.

2) How someone holds an object should not dictate if it is legal or not.

The latest ruling by the ATF is (in my personal opinion) a form of tyranny.
If this latest ruling is allowed to stand (and thus, 2handed shooting a pistol/1handed shooting a rifle also being illegal because they've now been redesigned) they could legally (but not realistically) arrest tens of thousands of the gun owners in the country on tax evasion right now (proof of such illegal acts being on youtube, in magazines, in facebook pictures, on websites, etc.) Remember, this was a 'clarification' not a new law, so there's no exemption from past law breaking.

In any case, I think the conversation's been beaten enough until the courts settle it (assuming Sig & friends files suit).

 

[Sam1911]

To me it's extremely simple.

And, I assume you'd add:

3) If you add something to a pistol that you're using as a shoulder stock, then it is a shoulder stock and the law says that's a regulated NFA "Firearm."


It IS pretty simple. Sort of. Isn't it?


Remember this?



That's not a stock! That's a shovel handle.

Well, you're using it as a stock...it's a stock.

 

[Ryanxia]

So Sam, by your opinion your Glock/Revolver/1911 is fine when you're firing it one handed until you decide to fire it two handed, then you've got an AOW and it is also regulated now just like your AR15 pistol with a Sig brace, and that is how it should be, correct? I mean, you're using it as an AOW.

Oh but I only hold my handgun with two hands when I want better stability, that's nothing like the Sig br.... oh wait.

 

[Sam1911]

Nope. You aren't using it as an AOW. That argument is pretty specious. An example of what I spoke of before -- trying to stretch the point to an absolute extreme that the BATFE is not even pretending is on the table.

They even expressly allow you to add forward grips on pistols -- even angled ones. Just not vertical ones.

That is so wholly different from adding a stock-like item, and using it as a STOCK, and then trying to pretend that it isn't the very thing you're using it AS.

It's jailhouse lawyer parsing of terms and it won't get any of us anywhere. It might impress the boys down a the gun shop with how smart you sound but it won't make a single bit of difference.

 

[Darkbob]

FTB classifies weapons based on their physical design characteristics.

FTB has previously determined (see FTB #99146) that the firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extention of an AR-15 type pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon.

Further, certain firearm accessories such as the SIG stability brace have not been classified by the FTB as shoulder stocks and, therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change.

The previous quotes are from former Chief of the Firearms Tech Branch of the ATF, Earl Griffith, one heck of a jailhouse lawyer. The quotes were copied from a transcript of the original letter approving the use of the Brace.

He said that using it as a stock doesn't change the classification of the weapon, and that using it improperly does not constitute a design change.

I understand that the brace was used by many to skirt the intent of the law, and it did. But it did not skirt the letter of the law, as acknowledged by the ATF's former tech branch chief.

 

[Sam1911]

former

The operative word there.

 

[Ryanxia]

Nope. You aren't using it as an AOW. That argument is pretty specious. An example of what I spoke of before -- trying to stretch the point to an absolute extreme that the BATFE is not even pretending is on the table.

It's jailhouse lawyer parsing of terms and it won't get any of us anywhere. It might impress the boys down a the gun shop with how smart you sound but it won't make a single bit of difference.

Actually, the boys down at the gun shop ARE impressed.

Seriously though, can I ask what difference the 2hand AOW and the shouldering of a pistol is in your view? I know they'll never go that far but in my view, if the way you operate one firearm determines the legality, why couldn't they legally prosecute it with another firearm? I'm not thinking in terms of 'oh that's different, they'll let you slide.' I'm thinking in terms of, if we accept this, it sets a precedence down the road.

Just curious on other points of view, I really do want to hear why you think it's different. (And we can use the 1 handing a rifle instead of 2 handing an AOW if it gets you past the AFG piece)

 

[hso]

Sam,

I'm of two minds here. The folks that looked at the stabilization brace and put it to their shoulder to find out how it worked in that position were exercising natural curiosity. The first few that posted it <might have been individually simply putting that "discovery" on the internet/tongue in cheek> while the pile of others were showing off or flaunting the law. They made the purchase to subvert the law impossible for BATFE to ignore. The BATFE, OTOH, has now gone from the simple warning that providing evidence of willfully flaunting the rules against unregistered SBRs can result in prosecution to contradicting interpretations based on a whole body of interps about large pistols, stocks, braces, etc that the earlier interps were supported by. Fundamental change in policy undermining a body of work on all those interpretations. That's a significant policy change.

 

[Ryanxia]

Well said HSO. We're all here, on the same side, trying to preserve Liberty.

In my perspective and to almost everyone I know, it's not common sense that rules but the technicality of the law. On that basis, our generation is trying to preserve our Freedom.

After all, its not our opinions that dictate law, but the opinion of those empowered by our government. In a perfect world, this ruling would mean nothing more than what it says, but we know that its just a precursor to much more. We're trying to see how this affects our future.

Anyways I'm glad that we have an open forum to discuss and debate these issues, and hopefully learn from them. I learn quite a bit from THR.

 

[Sam1911]

if the way you operate one firearm determines the legality, why couldn't they legally prosecute it with another firearm?

I suppose they could. But I don't see anything in the pistol and AOW definitions so clear cut, so unequivocal, as the "designed or re-designed" phrasing of the rifle definition as spelled out in the NFA.

And they've had 37 forevers to say anything of the sort about handguns and never have. They have pretty steadfastly maintained their position on adding stocks (or chunks of material that you then use to shoulder your "pistol") since 1934, including fighting hard over it in US v. Thompson in the previous decade.

That's why I say there's no validity in turning things around and stretching the question out to the farthest possible ends you could imagine (like 2-handing a pistol makes it an AOW). Could it possibly be if you read the law with your tongue held just the right way and squinting your left eye? Maybe you can. But this shoulder stocks question is so far from that extreme that, if they'd ruled this way from the start, none of us would have blinked once about it.

I'm thinking in terms of, if we accept this, it sets a precedence down the road.

I don't see it. Setting aside the fact that our "acceptance" of this isn't much of a concern of theirs, this doesn't seem to set any new precedent. This is the same position they've held universally since 1934, except for a brief leave of their senses for the last two years or so. Stick something on your gun and use it as a stock, that's an illegal modification. The only new precedent to be seen is the clarification that an action, not just a modification, could redefine how a weapon is classified. IF they're going to allow the brace to be used for some lawful purpose, then they really HAVE to say what you do with it matters.

If anything we probably should be surprised they're being so "liberal" as to say there is an approved use of the brace that makes it NOT automatically against the law.

In my perspective and to almost everyone I know, it's not common sense that rules but the technicality of the law

Again, it comes down to a law being written long ago that is highly flawed and cannot deal simply with all the permutations of the art of gun making that we've developed over the decades. We could ask our law-makers to re-write NFA'34 into something that spells out in black letter text how every possible variation shall be decided ... but I don't think Congress will tackle that, and I'm not sure I would want them to.

 

[Sam1911]

I know they'll never go that far but in my view, if the way you operate one firearm determines the legality, why couldn't they legally prosecute it with another firearm? I'm not thinking in terms of 'oh that's different, they'll let you slide.' I'm thinking in terms of, if we accept this, it sets a precedence down the road.

... but we know that its just a precursor to much more. We're trying to see how this affects our future.

Ryanxia, I keep turning this over, and maybe I'm missing what you're really saying. Each time I've heard the "what if I hold my pistol with two hands?" line in the last couple months I've taken it as obvious that this is just a rhetorical question. A use of the reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity) tactic to try and conflate something that's obviously not reality with this new declaration as a way to refute the logic of the ruling. To that end, I see it as being a waste of time. The texts of the laws defining these things aren't similar enough to be interpreted that way.

And (almost more importantly) on one hand they're holding to an interpretation that's pretty consistent with the last 80 years of precedent, and on the other they'd be refuting 80 years of unwavering precedent.

But maybe I've misunderstood your reason for suggesting it. Are you instead fearing that this new ruling means that they WILL redefine handgun use? That they WILL enforce an interpretation that would either outlaw, or bring under the NFA, any handgun that gets fired with two hands on the gun? I don't want to accuse you of saying that if you aren't, but maybe explain better what it is you do think could be restricted or redefined if this ruling was somehow more broadly applied?

 

[Sam1911]

It might impress the boys down a the gun shop with how smart you sound

Actually, the boys down at the gun shop ARE impressed.

And Jeez, re-reading that exchange, I must apologize. I would not ever mean to insult or ridicule you, and it sort of looks like I did. I meant "you" as in "we." WE, the gunnies with a legitimately pretty deep understanding of these things, have started to run with this line of talk, and we can lay it on pretty heavy with our pals. (Thus, impressing the boys at the local gun counter. )

But like any time we get too wound up in a layman's reading of such issues, we run the risk of making a lot of hay out of a red herring (man, I love a muddled metaphor! ) and being more confusing than enlightening.

No, I don't think it is useful to explore the "but what if I hold my pistol with two hands?" line of reasoning as though it is equivalent or analogous to the using-brace-as-a-stock declaration. It introduces a suggestion that isn't anywhere close to being real and isn't likely to ever be on the table in your or my lifetimes.

If it was ever discussed in an internal debate within the BATFE as they've been sorting out how to proceed, it might have been useful as a rhetorical point to help shape that discussion. A clearly absurd idea, brought up to help bind the conversation's limits.

But out in the world it seems to be an ineffectual talking point.

Either, "they can't do this because then they'd have to outlaw holding a pistol with two hands..." (yes they can do this, and no, they wouldn't) or "well, look out because the next thing they'll do is apply this to pistols..." (and no, they won't -- not even on the radar).

So, all that to say, I think WE all need to be circumspect when running with these ideas and not be "too smart by half"(or jailhouse lawyers as I said before) holding out as realistic theories which are at the 1% extremes of possibility.

 

[Averageman]

If I put a Cow in my Ford Mustang does it suddenly become a pick up Truck?
If so do I then pay the lower tax rate for plates and insurance because I have used it in a manner that constituted a "redesign" ?
I'm just thinking here that this will not pass the smell test if it gets to the Supreme Court.

 

[Spats McGee]

I'm just thinking here that this will not pass the smell test if it gets to the Supreme Court.

Perhaps not, but there's a lot of ground between here and SCOTUS.

 

[Sam1911]

If I put a Cow in my Ford Mustang does it suddenly become a pick up Truck?
If so do I then pay the lower tax rate for plates and insurance because I have used it in a manner that constituted a "redesign" ?
I'm just thinking here that this will not pass the smell test if it gets to the Supreme Court.

Reading this, I'm not clear which side of the debate you're arguing from.

If you put a cow (item used as a stock) on your mustang (pistol) does it become a pickup (SBR)? The analogy is unclear because I don't know of federal laws expressly defining those terms or changing the legality of one vs. the other.

 

[Sam1911]

Any idea why the wheelchair bound lady can't just use a regular handgun like the rest of us do? It would be far, far handier for her than some AR clunk of a "handgun".

Like most folks, she feels she would be more accurate and faster on target with a short carbine than she would be with a handgun.

I've argued here many times that with enough realistic practice with a handgun you can actually engage close-range threats faster and just as accurately with a handgun than a carbine, but that's only true if you have developed handgunning skills to do so -- and still many or most knowledgeable people disagree with me on that.

So, for this non-gun-enthusiast lady, a carbine seems a better choice.




Though, that is all really -- REALLY -- beside the point of this discussion.

 

[HRnightmare]

just don't understand why they would be an advantage over a true SBR

The advantage is saving $200 tax stamp fee, filing the paperwork and waiting several months, getting Chief LEO or Sheriff or Judge's signature and doing fingerprints, etc. and of course many do not like having a "registered" gun.

Personally I always thought the brace was a gimick, it did not feel right and when I tested one, it did not have the ability to change the length of pull. I also could not believe we did not see this ATF pee'ing contest coming. I sure did!

 

[HRnightmare]

Also, not sure if it was previously added but Sig filed to sue the ATF about their recent "change of opinion"

Perhaps not, but there's a lot of ground between here and SCOTUS.

And time and money!!! Unfortunately the ATF will be using the lawyers and spending the money to send executives to fight the lawsuit with endless amounts of $. Where Sig, a for profit company has to take from earned revenue to fight it. There is a real chance Sig may eventually come to the conclusion that it is not turning out in their favor and dropping the lawsuit to make the financial bleeding stop. Sadly, the ATF is going to be using mine and everyone else's money so it hurts them much much less. And there is a very administration to include the top brass of the DOJ (and his predeccessor will likely be as well) that has an agenda to drive and probably won't roll over easily.

 

[Sam1911]

Also, not sure if it was previously added but Sig filed to sue the ATF about their recent "change of opinion"

You might have missed this in the other thread, but I don't believe SIG actually has filed any lawsuit about that.

They issued a statement saying they thought the ATF's decision was outside the law, but I can't find any info that says they've really filed any suit.

And I personally have a hard time seeing what their case would be or their standing to sue. They've not been stopped from making or selling these, and ATF expressly says they are legal to use as SIG themselves markets them. The only negative impact on their business would be from lost sales now because people can't use them in a way SIG never suggested.

Sort of like a silverware maker suing the DEA because the DEA says it isn't legal to use a spoon to cook up your smack. The spoon is legal and the designed and advertised purpose of the spoon is not affected at all. So what standing would the maker have to sue because an agency says MIS-use of the product is unlawful?

 

[Darkbob]

Sam1911, to use your analogy of using a spoon to cook smack, the ATF's decision is like telling the the drug cooker that he has "re-designed" his spoon into a drug cooking device. When, in reality, we all know he hasn't re-designed anything. He's just using it in a way that it wasn't designed for.

The ATF is trying to say that using something in a way that it wasn't designed for "Re-Designs" it! No, using something doesn't redesign it, it's just using it.

The ATF is trying to change the meaning of a word (redesign) so that the word fits into the letter of their law, because the brace is able to get around the intent of the law.

 

[barnbwt]

It's also worth asking why the tail wags the dog in one direction only; why doesn't putting a stock on a pistol and failing to use it as intended "redesign" that device into a non SBR until shouldered? All thr ATFs arguments fall back on "because we say so" here, and that's why I'm not buying their ultimate legal durability.

Sam, would the shoulder shovel stock be a grip if held with the free hand? Certainly not an SBR, but still an AOW

TCB

 

[armoredman]

I know they'll never go that far...

Never, ever, EVER use this phrase in connection with government...ever. You're daring them. Look back in history and see what governments have done that people would have said they would never go that far. Get an anti gun Admin that really has nothing to lose, such as one that has expanded on the Imperial Powers the current Admin has assumed to a ridiculous degree, and you might see things so incredible it will boggle your mind. Think not? Remember the definition of "affecting interstate commerce" that Congress has twisted to apply to absolutely everything?

Sorry, just had to get that out there, back to the older, wiser heads discussion, of course.