Author Topic: Bound to happen - SIG brace now classified as NFA item depending on use (Read 7071 times)

SADShooter · « **Reply #25 on:** December 31, 2014, 02:39:11 PM »

Quote from: RevDisk on December 31, 2014, 02:29:33 PM

I'd pay money for the official response from the BATFE on whether or not a Fleshlight enhanced Sig Brace would be an SBR when uh... buffered against the groin area.

They'll likely declare it a bump-fire device...

AJ Dual · « **Reply #26 on:** December 31, 2014, 03:04:04 PM »

Quote from: RevDisk on December 31, 2014, 02:29:33 PM

I'd pay money for the official response from the BATFE on whether or not a Fleshlight enhanced Sig Brace would be an SBR when uh... buffered against the groin area.

20 rounds for the young hair-trigger guys.

30 rounds for the regular guys.

Beta-C mag for the half-dead-down-there married guys who've almost worn it off to a nub anyway.

just Warren · « **Reply #27 on:** December 31, 2014, 03:18:06 PM »

And a belt-fed for those into the kinky stuff.

lupinus · « **Reply #28 on:** December 31, 2014, 04:31:56 PM »

So whats the best lube for this device to ensure minimal friction in the action? Some new wonderlube perhaps? Or one of the good old standbys?

dogmush · « **Reply #29 on:** December 31, 2014, 04:34:58 PM »

CLP. Used by generations of grunts.

KD5NRH · « **Reply #30 on:** December 31, 2014, 04:43:16 PM »

Quote from: lupinus on December 31, 2014, 04:31:56 PM

So whats the best lube for this device to ensure minimal friction in the action? Some new wonderlube perhaps? Or one of the good old standbys?

Mentholatum.

TechMan · « **Reply #31 on:** December 31, 2014, 04:59:02 PM »

Quote from: KD5NRH on December 31, 2014, 04:43:16 PM

Mentholatum.

That's going in hot...

HankB · « **Reply #32 on:** January 07, 2015, 11:38:40 AM »

Just got the February 2015 issue of Guns & Ammo and the editorial writer addressed the SIG brace. In his Mail Call column on page 13, editor Eric R. Poole writes about Daniel Defense's AR-platform pistols (he likes them) and then in this context goes on to write

" . . . with the lawful shoulder use of Sig Sauer's revolutionary pistol brace, I don't know why anyone would be willing to twiddle his thumbs for a government-registered SBR."

Hmmm . . . anyone think this will add to the debate?

Blakenzy · « **Reply #33 on:** January 07, 2015, 12:32:40 PM »

BATFE: a lovely bureaucracy that will destroy you for using a piece hardware in a manner not prescribed by the owner's manual

KD5NRH · « **Reply #34 on:** January 07, 2015, 01:31:53 PM »

Quote from: Blakenzy on January 07, 2015, 12:32:40 PM

BATFE: a lovely bureaucracy that will destroy you for using a piece hardware in a manner not prescribed by the owner's manual

Read any pesticide packaging; it's a Federal tradition.

HankB · « **Reply #35 on:** January 07, 2015, 05:00:31 PM »

And now, in the March/April 2015 issue of American Handgunner magazine, an article by Will Dabbs, MD covering the Sig P516 close combat weapons system, states that according to a recent ruling by the BATF's Firearms Technology Branch, SIG's Pistol Stabilizing Brace does not classify the host gun as a short-barreled rifle " . . . even if used as a short buttstock in tactical applications . . . "

He mentions that a copy of the BATF's ruling accompanies the device.

The author also observes that the buttstock bears (in his words) " . . . a striking resemblance to a collapsed M4 stock . . . "

So . . . we have at least two gun rags weighing in on the issue now, so I hope everything is perfectly clear.

(Of course, a couple of years ago a gun rag printed a picture of an AR-type pistol with a forward grip attached, making it an AOW . . . so we know how we can rely on them for legal advice.)

cordex · « **Reply #36 on:** January 16, 2015, 08:20:36 PM »

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces.pdf
The money quote:

Quote

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.

Glad I didn't buy one back in December when I was tempted to.

dogmush · « **Reply #37 on:** January 16, 2015, 09:20:49 PM »

Sigh. There are still good reasons to have a "pistol". But I'll probably be dropping some e-form 4's this weekend.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #38 on:** January 16, 2015, 10:01:33 PM »

yeah when I finish the build I'm working on, it's probably going NFA.

Balog · « **Reply #39 on:** January 17, 2015, 02:15:19 AM »

Pistols are, by definition, a gun designed to be fired one handed. Gripping a pistol with two hands while firing it makes it an illegal unregistered AOW, apparently. Be fun if this ever gets challenged.

zahc · « **Reply #40 on:** January 17, 2015, 02:30:38 AM »

Quite true that pistol is quite clearly defined in "plain language" as a gun designed to be used by one hand. Does a weaver stance constitute a redesign?

Oh well.

Scout26 · « **Reply #41 on:** January 17, 2015, 04:27:53 AM »

We are our own worst enemy.

ATF says SIG brace is okay.

Then a whole bunch of shithouse lawyers send the ATF letters asking "Really?!?! Can it use like this?"

Gun rags publish "Hey Boys and Girls !!! Here's an end run around the law....Wink. Wink."

More folks send letters to the ATF asking the same question. (I've probably seen 8-10 gunblogs with "Here's the letter I got back form the ATF on how to cheat and you can also !!!"

Finally, having been poked enough times, the bear says "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Gunnie's start screaming "It's a Trap !!! A setup, I knew it all along !!!!'

freakazoid · « **Reply #42 on:** January 17, 2015, 07:47:33 AM »

Quote from: cordex on January 16, 2015, 08:20:36 PM

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces.pdf
The money quote:
Quote
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.

Glad I didn't buy one back in December when I was tempted to.

If merely using it as a stock means it has been "redesigned", then does that mean I can make an exact copy, sell it as my own design, claim it is to be used as a stock, and not have to worry about copyright infringement?

What about using the buffer tubes designed for pistols that have the soft stuff around it so you can rest your cheek against it, does that turn it into an NFA firearm?

cordex · « **Reply #43 on:** January 17, 2015, 09:24:22 AM »

Quote from: freakazoid on January 17, 2015, 07:47:33 AM

What about using the buffer tubes designed for pistols that have the soft stuff around it so you can rest your cheek against it, does that turn it into an NFA firearm?

By this interpretation, it would seem so.

Balog · « **Reply #44 on:** January 17, 2015, 11:34:17 AM »

Quote from: scout26 on January 17, 2015, 04:27:53 AM

We are our own worst enemy.

ATF says SIG brace is okay.

Then a whole bunch of shithouse lawyers send the ATF letters asking "Really?!?! Can it use like this?"

Gun rags publish "Hey Boys and Girls !!! Here's an end run around the law....Wink. Wink."

More folks send letters to the ATF asking the same question. (I've probably seen 8-10 gunblogs with "Here's the letter I got back form the ATF on how to cheat and you can also !!!"

Finally, having been poked enough times, the bear says "Screw you guys, I'm going home."

Gunnie's start screaming "It's a Trap !!! A setup, I knew it all along !!!!'

I think it was more the manufacturers putting out so many new models using it.

Balog · « **Reply #45 on:** January 17, 2015, 11:44:10 AM »

Quote from: cordex on January 17, 2015, 09:24:22 AM

By this interpretation, it would seem so.

By this interpretation, holding a pistol with 2 hands "redesigns" it into an AOW.

If f-troop sticks to this and tries to prosecute someone under this interpretation, it'd be a nice chance to strike down the whole NFA as void for vagueness and all of the contradictions. For example, you can get a Form 1 to build a suppressor approved, but there's still a blanket prohibition on "buying materials to assemble a suppressor" with no exemptions.

KD5NRH · « **Reply #46 on:** January 19, 2015, 11:16:57 AM »

Quote from: Balog on January 17, 2015, 11:44:10 AM

By this interpretation, holding a pistol with 2 hands "redesigns" it into an AOW.

So now a proper Weaver or isosceles stance requires a tax stamp.

If I shoot a .22LR rifle one handed, do I now have to tell the WalMart clerk the ammo is for a pistol?

AmbulanceDriver · « **Reply #47 on:** January 20, 2015, 12:48:27 AM »

TTAG had an interesting article regarding the next possible step....

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/next-step-atf-pistol-arm-brace-decision-declaratory-relief/

News:

Author Topic: Bound to happen - SIG brace now classified as NFA item depending on use (Read 7071 times)