SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) A direct quote from the ATF……... "For the following reasons, we have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR: The Firearms technology Branch classifies weapons based on their physical design characteristics. While the usage/functionality of the weapon does influence the intended design, it is not the sole criteria for determining the classification of a weapon. Generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon." This pertaining to the use of the SB47 on a pistol. Now please explain to me why putting a stock on would be any different. They clearly say firing a pistol from the shoulder is ok, correct me, but doesn't it take a stock to do so. "we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon." To be fired from the shoulder by me for my individual use I would require the use of a stock for my individual purpose. What am I missing here? Edited December 1, 2014 by SHOTGUN MESSIAH Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BigChongus 765 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 What am I missing here? About $200 a stamp. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted December 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 What am I missing here? About $200 a stamp. SEE LARGE TEXT. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
csspecs 1,987 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 The shoulder stock is made to be used as a stock, thus its a rifle and must have a barrel over 16" The SB47 is a wrist brace for a pistol, thus its still a pistol despite someone misusing the device as a pseudo stock. Complaining at this point will only get rid of the SB47 and will not eliminate the NFA SBR laws.. So please just keep quiet about it. If you want to complain about SBRs make it a separate argument 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted December 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Not complaining, just pointing out wordage that was used. Im looking for a logical answer as to how one is supposed to shoot a pistol from the shoulder without a stock. They clearly are not naming any one certain pistol but all pistols as a whole. And I quote"we have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR:" So my question is….how is one supposed to fire a pistol from the shoulder without some form of stock. This does not necessarily pertain to only the use of the SB47. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 Honestly man it's pretty clear what train of logic is being used and it's plainly spelled out. Not trying to be a dick about it, but I don't know how to parse it for you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted December 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 Honestly man it's pretty clear what train of logic is being used and it's plainly spelled out. Not trying to be a dick about it, but I don't know how to parse it for you. well lets have a drink of whisky and talk about it. Meet me up at Burkes Pub in Benson. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
YOT 3,743 Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 It's a government agency. Logic does not come into play. 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 A direct quote from the ATF……... "For the following reasons, we have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR: The Firearms technology Branch classifies weapons based on their physical design characteristics. While the usage/functionality of the weapon does influence the intended design, it is not the sole criteria for determining the classification of a weapon. Generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon." This pertaining to the use of the SB47 on a pistol. Now please explain to me why putting a stock on would be any different. They clearly say firing a pistol from the shoulder is ok, correct me, but doesn't it take a stock to do so. "we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon." To be fired from the shoulder by me for my individual use I would require the use of a stock for my individual purpose. What am I missing here? Think of it this way: Putting a auto sear in a pistol creates a machine gun. You have changed the physical characteristic of the pistol. Pulling the trigger equally fast does NOT change the physical characteristics. So NO NFA is required. Even if theoretically you could achieve the same rate of fire. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted December 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) That is a good point but, how do they expect you to shoulder a pistol without a stock? It is totally impossible and unsafe. It's like they are contradicting their own words. If you really really really read into that statement, it is a total contradiction. It's like saying don't eat your steak with your hands but you can't use a knife & fork either. Edited December 2, 2014 by SHOTGUN MESSIAH Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bobthetomato 15 Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 So by the same logic if you don't shoulder a SBR is it really a rifle? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted December 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 So by the same logic if you don't shoulder a SBR is it really a rifle? I would say yes because you have collapsable stocks on rifles and shotguns that can be fired without shouldering. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zagumennyyilya 51 Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 This thread can be pretty much summed up with this explanation, use logic and you can come up with many answers but it will get you nowhere. A guy named Bill has been working at the same company for 17 years. The company was recently sold and a bunch of young guys were brought in to take over management. One day a memo was circulated from the front office saying that ALL employees MUST obtain at least an Associates degree in order to stay employed with the company. Bill graduated from high school and never needed college to excel in his chosen trade, very upset by the memo, bill approached his immediate supervisor. The supervisor told Bill that it was no big deal, and that he would even go to the local community college with him to help get things started, Bill agreed to accept his help and felt somewhat relieved. Next day Bill and his supervisor went to get Bill signed up for some classes. Bill explained to the supervisor that he was old, crotchety, and couldn’t remember shit, therefore he would probably not do very well, and would probably actually fail all of the classes of higher learning. The supervisor told Bill that a counselor would help to match some basic classes which would be fitting to his education level. Bill met with the counselor and he gave Bill an aptitude test, which Bill did surprisingly well on. The counselor told bill that he should sign up for logic classes. Bill looks at the counselor and says, at the risk of sounding ignorant, just what in the hell do you mean by logic? The counselor says I’ll explain it for you through a series of questions and answers; Counselor: So Bill, are you married? Bill: Yes, I’m married to a wonderful woman for over thirty years now. Counselor: Logic says that if you are married, you probably have a couple of kids. Bill: Yes, that’s correct, we in fact have three wonderful children. Counselor: Logic says that since you are married and have children, that you probably own your home. Bill: Yes, my wife and I do own the place. Counselor: Logic says that if you are married, have children, and own your home, you probably own a weedeater too. Bill: Yes, that’s right again, I see how this works, I think I’m gonna like this logic stuff. Next day Bill shows up at work with a big smile and in a great mood, the supervisor asks Bill how it went with the counselor, Bill says it went great, I signed up for logic classes. The supervisor looks at Bill with a puzzled look and says, logic huh, well what do ya mean by logic? Bill says here I’ll explain it to you through a series of questions and answers, I think you’ll like it as much as I do. Bill: So young man do you own a weedeater? Supervisor: No I don’t have any need for a weedeater. Bill: Well then you’re queer. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Long Shot 1,287 Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 It's a government agency. Logic does not come into play. Ding ding ding, nailed it! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted December 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 I guess I'll just wrap 2 pieces of velcro around my skeleton stock and call it an arm brace then. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 That is a good point but, how do they expect you to shoulder a pistol without a stock? It is totally impossible and unsafe. It's like they are contradicting their own words. If you really really really read into that statement, it is a total contradiction. It's like saying don't eat your steak with your hands but you can't use a knife & fork either. They don't expect you to shoulder a pistol. By ATF definition a pistol is a firearm that is designed to be fired with the use of one hand. They don't care if your unsafe, if you hurt somebody they lock you up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted December 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) By ATF definition a pistol is a firearm that is designed to be fired with the use of one hand. That is funny you should bring that up because I am the first person to write a letter to the ATF about the use of an angled fore grip on a pistol. (there is a whole thread on it somewhere on this site) Now of course this only applies to me and my pistol, but I received a reply stating that it was lawful to do so. Which in short means I am allowed to use 2 hands on my pistol. The only real way to know if something is lawful or not is to write to the man himself. Edited December 2, 2014 by SHOTGUN MESSIAH Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 By ATF definition a pistol is a firearm that is designed to be fired with the use of one hand. That is funny you should bring that up because I am the first person to write a letter to the ATF about the use of an angled fore grip on a pistol. (there is a whole thread on it somewhere on this site) Now of course this only applies to me and my pistol, but I received a reply stating that it was lawful to do so. Which in short means I am allowed to use 2 hands on my pistol. The only real way to know if something is lawful or not is to write to the man himself. I'm aware of the AFG, on the pistols. My only guess to their logic there was because they cannot classify each and every textured surface as a grip, seeing as it's written law "vertical"... I suppose every trigger guard with a contoured textured grip would qualify too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted December 2, 2014 Report Share Posted December 2, 2014 We have no choice but to learn the rules. But do yourself a favor and don't try to pound that square peg into a round hole. Applying logic to government is like trying to teach a pig to dance. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 Logic has nothing to do with it. Its more about money and power, than anything else. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
csspecs 1,987 Posted December 3, 2014 Report Share Posted December 3, 2014 I guess you could say it more simply that the wrist brace is designed to brace the weight of a large pistol to be used with one hand.. A shoulder stock is designed to be a shoulder stock and is designed to be fired from the shoulder. Its not how it is used, but how it is designed. The wording of what makes an 'other' vs a 'shotgun' or 'AOW' is different than what makes a pistol not a SBR or rifle.. The wording makes a wrist brace less desirable on an "other" (shotgun that is not an SBS or AOW).. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RockHoundTX 10 Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 I am not sure why this is so hard to understand. I have a pistol AR. While the buffer tube "could" be used as a stock, no-one in their right mind would want to on a regular basis. The tube is too short for one thing but more importantly would hurt like hell each time you pulled the trigger. Thus it is a pistol even though there is something hanging off the back-end of the receiver that theoretically you could put against your shoulder. No different with the SB47. While you "could" use it as a stock, no logical person would want to. It is too short and would not feel too good on the shoulder after you pulled the trigger a few times. While I hate to admit it, this is one time where the ATF statement makes perfect sense to me. Now if you modified the buffer tube or SB47 brace to make it comfortable to use against the shoulder, then you just manufactured a stock. At that point your pistol becomes an SBR. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
storm6490 2,768 Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 It's a control thing. God forbid we have better weapons than the IRS agents. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SHOTGUN MESIAH 855 Posted December 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) No different with the SB47. While you "could" use it as a stock, no logical person would want to. Hate to break it to ya but that is exactly what everyone is using it for. Where have you been. Edited December 4, 2014 by SHOTGUN MESSIAH Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BeatTheTunaUp 65 Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 I am not sure why this is so hard to understand. I have a pistol AR. While the buffer tube "could" be used as a stock, no-one in their right mind would want to on a regular basis. The tube is too short for one thing but more importantly would hurt like hell each time you pulled the trigger. Thus it is a pistol even though there is something hanging off the back-end of the receiver that theoretically you could put against your shoulder. No different with the SB47. While you "could" use it as a stock, no logical person would want to. It is too short and would not feel too good on the shoulder after you pulled the trigger a few times. Now if you modified the buffer tube or SB47 brace to make it comfortable to use against the shoulder, then you just manufactured a stock. At that point your pistol becomes an SBR. The SBX brace on my AR pistol feels great against the shoulder, and with the phase 5 hex tube, it extended it out a few more inches. It feels like the middle setting on a rifle stock. That being said, my pistol did wind up being 29.5 inches. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 I am not sure why this is so hard to understand. I have a pistol AR. While the buffer tube "could" be used as a stock, no-one in their right mind would want to on a regular basis. The tube is too short for one thing but more importantly would hurt like hell each time you pulled the trigger. Thus it is a pistol even though there is something hanging off the back-end of the receiver that theoretically you could put against your shoulder. No different with the SB47. While you "could" use it as a stock, no logical person would want to. It is too short and would not feel too good on the shoulder after you pulled the trigger a few times. While I hate to admit it, this is one time where the ATF statement makes perfect sense to me. Now if you modified the buffer tube or SB47 brace to make it comfortable to use against the shoulder, then you just manufactured a stock. At that point your pistol becomes an SBR. Exactly and let's just keep telling the ATF that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atomic Punk 25 Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 (edited) I am not sure why this is so hard to understand. I have a pistol AR. While the buffer tube "could" be used as a stock, no-one in their right mind would want to on a regular basis. The tube is too short for one thing but more importantly would hurt like hell each time you pulled the trigger. Thus it is a pistol even though there is something hanging off the back-end of the receiver that theoretically you could put against your shoulder. No different with the SB47. While you "could" use it as a stock, no logical person would want to. It is too short and would not feel too good on the shoulder after you pulled the trigger a few times. While I hate to admit it, this is one time where the ATF statement makes perfect sense to me. Now if you modified the buffer tube or SB47 brace to make it comfortable to use against the shoulder, then you just manufactured a stock. At that point your pistol becomes an SBR. You are wrong. BATFE does not regulate the length of a buffer tube It's all about "intended use" and they have determined that the intended use of SB15 brace is for the user to wrap it around their forearm. If the user chooses to hold it a different way, the intended use does not change. It is still a pistol. There are several opinion letters from BATFE saying that firing a pistol from the shoulder does not change the fact that its a pistol--putting a stock on it does. Edited December 4, 2014 by Atomic Punk 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
poolingmyignorance 2,191 Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 I am not sure why this is so hard to understand. I have a pistol AR. While the buffer tube "could" be used as a stock, no-one in their right mind would want to on a regular basis. The tube is too short for one thing but more importantly would hurt like hell each time you pulled the trigger. Thus it is a pistol even though there is something hanging off the back-end of the receiver that theoretically you could put against your shoulder. No different with the SB47. While you "could" use it as a stock, no logical person would want to. It is too short and would not feel too good on the shoulder after you pulled the trigger a few times. While I hate to admit it, this is one time where the ATF statement makes perfect sense to me. Now if you modified the buffer tube or SB47 brace to make it comfortable to use against the shoulder, then you just manufactured a stock. At that point your pistol becomes an SBR. You are wrong. BATFE does not regulate the length of a buffer tube It's all about "intended use" and they have determined that the intended use of SB15 brace is for the user to wrap it around their forearm. If the user chooses to hold it a different way, the intended use does not change. It is still a pistol. There are several opinion letters from BATFE saying that firing a pistol from the shoulder does not change the fact that its a pistol--putting a stock on it does. He was pretty wrong about all of it,but hey it was a really long worded wrong. He gets points for that. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted December 4, 2014 Report Share Posted December 4, 2014 BATFE not ATF. They are not a 3 letter agency....and it irks them no end. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atomic Punk 25 Posted December 5, 2014 Report Share Posted December 5, 2014 BATFE not ATF. They are not a 3 letter agency....and it irks them no end. So true. It's like when the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) changed their name to NGA, the National Geo-Spatial Intelligence Agency. Everyone was like, Geo-Spatial Intelligence is one word? Common sense be damned, Clapper wanted them to be a 3-letter agency. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.