Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
beerasaurus

Sig Brace Shouldering / ATF ruling

Recommended Posts

As is widely parroted on the 'net, the ATF apparently ruled that if a device is legal, it is legal regardless of how it's used.  Specifically, in regards to the Sig Pistol Brace, you can shoot it however you want--including from the shoudler--and the ATF letter specifically references FTB # 99146 to support it.

 

The problem, though, is that I can't seem to find FTB # 99146 anywhere so I can see what it says.  I can find thousands of references to it--in the form of that ATF letter being reprinted thousands of times--but nothing else.

 

Anyone have a line on the actual document referenced?

 

Thanks.

 

Beer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he meant the letter referenced in the 4th paragraph. I searched for an hour last night and couldn't find FTB 99146. I'll recheck the Arfcom pistol ATF letter thread today. If nothing turns up here maybe you could write the tech branch and ask for a copy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found nothing. The best I can do is restate that it's the ruling which says shouldering the buffer tube does not change the classification of the firearm because it is not the intended purpose of the buffer tube.

 

*My speculation which does not constitute legal advice*

It appears to draw from the definitions for rifle and sbr, both of which are intended to be fired from the shoulder, where the buffer tube itself is not designed for that purpose. A CAR stock buffer tube without the stock attached can be used, however possessing the stock while using the corresponding buffer tube may constitute constructive possession. I found this info in the Arfcom pistol ruling stickey and inferred the ruling from the letters and legal definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^why ask the question if you may get the answer you don't want back.

 

BATFE sends conflicting info out all the time. Doesn't matter if it's incompetence or a policy change but every time someone asks that question, there is the possibility they will say it's now illegal.

 

Leave well enough alone and keep the above letter with your brace. It clearly says you can fire the pistol from your shoulder using the brace.

Edited by Atomic Punk
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bugging tech branch is what got the Akins stock reclassed to a MG. Leave sleeping dogs lie....especially when they can bite.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and once again....an enforcement agency is creating Law, even though it doesn't have the authority to do so.

 

 

...and creating "instant criminals" of those who have legally purchased the item with no intent of breaking the law.

Edited by patriot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed  this was inevitable from the start

 

It seemed ridiculous as the SIG  brace was almost as expensive as a tax stamp

 

another case of pay a little more and do it right the first time

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

how does "intent" jives with "constructive possesion"? If all that's matter is "intent" than drilling the magic hole on AK with intent to use it as a key chain attachement would not fly in court. ATF will nail you on constructive posession of MG (assuming you got the rest of the bits) i.e. intent is BS, I just don't see ATF ever proving intent in court.

 

How long does it take to get a letter back from ATF tech branch for simple peasants? Licensed comrades have special lines, but for the rest it's just address in WV and I never heard anyone say how long the responce takes, any fees etc. It's like a black hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

how does "intent" jives with "constructive possesion"? If all that's matter is "intent" than drilling the magic hole on AK with intent to use it as a key chain attachement would not fly in court. ATF will nail you on constructive posession of MG (assuming you got the rest of the bits) i.e. intent is BS, I just don't see ATF ever proving intent in court.

 

How long does it take to get a letter back from ATF tech branch for simple peasants? Licensed comrades have special lines, but for the rest it's just address in WV and I never heard anyone say how long the responce takes, any fees etc. It's like a black hole.

 

I know what your saying but you example isn't the best, example. There is a distinct difference between posession of an item they have several times over said is NOT an NFA item (the sig brace) and something they have always said to be an NFA item. ( A machine gun receiver).

Proving intent was exactly what the letter was about. The author of the letter essentially spelled out his intent  in buying the brace was to shoulder it, and skirt NFA laws.

Personally I bought my brace to be used as a wrist support. Now I may or may not have shouldered it without thinking... but it was always my intent  when purchasing and installing to use it as labled. Just like I always "intend" fire my semi-auto rifles really slow but sometimes get carried away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot off the BATFE press....

 

Please download the letter or accept a brief summary:

 

"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.

 

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA."

 

 

Respectfully,

Gunny NR

 

open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize this letter basically says that if you fire ANY pistol with two hands, you redesigned it to be an AOW.

You realize that holding on to "one" pistol grip with two hands is not redesigning it. Your playing into your call sign...I know that you are not that ignoramus. ;)

 

Respectfully,

Gunny NR

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but if you put your OTHER hand on the trigger guard you "redesigned it" to be used as grip. They said that "redesign" is defined by "changes function". Your changing the function of the trigger guard if your using it for grip. (imporper technique, but it's still done).  I'm not trying to bend the rules, just illuminate the piss poor thinking behind this lettter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but if you put your OTHER hand on the trigger guard you "redesigned it" to be used as grip. They said that "redesign" is defined by "changes function". Your changing the function of the trigger guard if your using it for grip. (imporper technique, but it's still done). I'm not trying to bend the rules, just illuminate the piss poor thinking behind this lettter.

I suppose if you could find a pistol without a trigger guard and then design one so that it would still guard the trigger as its intended purpose that may qualify. Now you see the Sig Brace is "added" not a factory-installed item such as a trigger guard. Anything added and then "used" in a different manner then it was designed from will bring these type questions. Sucks for those that actually NEED the brace should this whole topic go sour.

 

Respectfully,

Gunny NR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the Sig Brace from the start is that no one could leave well enough alone and just make use of the device. So many people insisted on asking the ATF repeatedly for "clarification" (mommy mommy can I do this) that eventually ATF had to respond in the way anyone with a brain expected they would. While the brace could be shouldered, ATF was initially content to state that since the device wasn't presented as being intended to be used that way they were willing to allow the device as a forearm support. From the first time I laid eyes on a Sig P 556 the "emergency rear sight" built into the picatinny rail led me to believe the engineers at Sig knew what they were doing when they submitted this device. Hopefully folks will let their balls drop and live like free men and use their tools without asking permission and ATF will stop here and not feel the need to ban the forearm brace entirely.

 

Of course there is that pool of losers who don't seem able to do anything (even questionable actions) without posting pictures of themselves. Which poses the next round of pokes to the bear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, but if you put your OTHER hand on the trigger guard you "redesigned it" to be used as grip. They said that "redesign" is defined by "changes function". Your changing the function of the trigger guard if your using it for grip. (imporper technique, but it's still done). I'm not trying to bend the rules, just illuminate the piss poor thinking behind this lettter.

I suppose if you could find a pistol without a trigger guard and then design one so that it would still guard the trigger as its intended purpose that may qualify. Now you see the Sig Brace is "added" not a factory-installed item such as a trigger guard. Anything added and then "used" in a different manner then it was designed from will bring these type questions. Sucks for those that actually NEED the brace should this whole topic go sour.

 

Respectfully,

Gunny NR

Hmm...http://www.recoilweb.com/sig-braces-atf-rulings-and-the-inimicable-mr-kingery-56799.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three things here. Well, maybe more than three. First is that the ATF does illegal stuff all the time ... and they get away with it. Why? Because we let them. Where does a 400 Gorilla sit? The ATF is making up new law with illegal non delegated authority. They have the SWAT teams. We do not. The level of terror must be maintained.

 

The Gorilla sits on you because he wants too.

 

Second is that the ATF may have just got pissed off and changed their minds. What is bad about this is that in the future they may just change their minds without getting pissed? Lame duck President. What other crap may we expect to expect in the near future? Saiga 12, 20 and 410 shotguns being declared to be DDs? A change in category?

 

Many semi auto shotguns and maybe some rifles now being declared DDs also? Is this possible? Yep. Anything can happen. What will happen is the key here. I for one have several non answered letters regarding specific multiple M2 Carbine parts count questions and multiple short barrel use on one registered SBR receiver. No answer.

 

Right now I have a letter dated 2008 that says I can swap out multiple short barrels temporarily on my registered SBR Ruger 10-22 rifle. But ... my local class 3 gun shop was recently told NO! Each barrel length and overall weapon length with each barrel must be on that BATFE form. What is legal? Nobody knows. The BATFE is a black hole.

 

Rulings from the ATF can change. They never tell us about it. No mailed out explanations on new rules. An example would be M16 bolt carrier legality. They have changed their minds 3 times on this one already. Now we have the forearm pistol brace drama. We did NOT do it to ourselves. Our own government did it to us. Enough said.

 

Thank you ... I feel better now. HB of CJ (old coot) All US Code Laws And NFA Rules Apply

 

Edited by HB. Added final paragraph. I forgot to also say that it would appear that this subject has pissed off lots of us, including me. Could this be what they wanted to do all along? Create emotional states? They want to piss us off? Cause and effect? We all need to cool off some and understand what they are doing to us.

Edited by HB of CJ
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assumed  this was inevitable from the start

 

It seemed ridiculous as the SIG  brace was almost as expensive as a tax stamp

 

another case of pay a little more and do it right the first time

 

Not possible everywhere. Also there were real advantages to doing it the sig way. No paperwork to travel, and your pistol can be "concealed" i.e. loaded in a vehicle, whereas in many states your SBR cannot.

 

"Doing it right" is all a matter of what "it" is. If what you want is a more powerful truck gun as a long haul trucker, An idaho or utah CPL + a sig braced 'pistol' would seem to be doing it right. Even if you know it ain't going to last forever, that $180 bought you a year or so.  If you want an SBR for a cool range toy, or to leave at home with out long term hassle, then SBR might be the "right" way, if your state allows.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could talk in a circle about the inevitability, etc. I think everyone has made their points.

 

Here's a point I haven't heard in this or other discussions on the topic. Scale. Sure akins accelerator happened, and countless other inconsistent determinations (not "rulings" guys, they don't have that power.) What is new is how many people bought and are aware of the sig brace. How many people had an akins stock? maybe a couple thousand? Probably half of those were afraid to install it, but bought it just to wait and see. Right now just about every gun guy knows about the sig brace and the bump fire stocks. Thousands and thousands own them. All their buddies have tried them. The COD generation wants guns that look like SBRs, and they got a taste. It matters to more people. There is a real legal fight right now which has some teeth to FORCE BATF to be consistent in their reasoning and be limited to their statutory power. Each of these things provides blatant documentation of large scale inconsistency and caprice. It helps the legal fight to force BATF to use the same rules which bind other agencies such as the IRS. 

 

While I don't believe the existence of admin agencies complies with constitutional divisions of authority, that would still be a huge improvement. 

Edited by GunFun
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story short, the NFA needs to GO AWAY.

It's unconstitutional. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". WTF is the NFA but infringement?

 

eta:

 

Federal income tax was originally voluntary to help with the war effort during WWII.

Isn't it funny how voluntary became mandatory? (not to mention never having been ratified by the States, therefore, unconstitutional.)

I'll bet not one of you can remember agreeing to income tax.

Edited by patriot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respectfully, It may not matter if one calls it a "ruling" or a "determination", or a "decree" or a "proclamation" , or whatever: the bottom line is that THEY have the SWAT teams and have and will KILL YOU DEAD if they want to. What one calls their illegal decisions is kinda non relevant. Just me. HB of CJ (old coot)

 

Same thing with the IRS,the EPA, FAA, FBI the DEA and all the other myriad alphabet soup Federal agencies who have their own private shooting armies right here on American soil. What do we have left? Kinda scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Tromix - Lead Delivery Systems
Dinzag Arms
CHAOS, Inc
Mississippi Auto Arms, Inc
Cobra's Custom
Carolina Shooters Supply
R & R Targets
LONE STAR ARMS
SGM Tactical
Mach 1 Arsenal
K-VAR
C&S Metall-Werkes
American Specialty Ammo
Csspecs Magazines
Phoenix Technology
Evlutionz LLC


  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×