Sig arm brace -- important legal update

[Sam1911]

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?

 

[dogtown tom]

barnbwt

"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.

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.

 

[dogtown tom]

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.

 

[Sam1911]

I'll grant you that they're talking about adding a vertical grip to a regular GCA handgun.

A pistol with a second vertical grip becomes an AOW.

Right.

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.)

 

[HRnightmare]

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!

 

[dogtown tom]

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.

"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.

 

[armoredman]

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.

 

[Sam1911]

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 ..."?

 

[Ryanxia]

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.

 

[Sam1911]

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.

 

[Ryanxia]

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.

 

[Sam1911]

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.

 

[BK]

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.

 

[armoredman]

And those same magazine "rebuild' kits are now illegal in Cali, correct?

 

[HankB]

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.

 

[Sam1911]

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