I do what I can, I did call my senators and congressmen when the 2nd Amendment Restoration/Preservation act was going before the senate. I don't just sit on my couch and stuff my face and armchair quarterback. I do agree that rants on ARFCOM is mostly like preaching to the choir but I am reasonably passionate about my liberties and my freedom and am tired of seeing good people go to prison and jail for victim-less crimes myself included. I'm tired of parasites who feed off of others. Defeatist attitudes never resolves anything, saying things like "if you think the people will be behind it, your smoking crack, their trying to ban semi autos, blah blah blah" offends me and the true intent of the people. I know that their intent is to be more free not less free. I appreciate the OP and his efforts to create a device that in conjunction with other devices makes the use of slings/lanyards more advantageous. I don't believe its intended use is to be used as a stock and the response letter didn't say that, that is what the OP intent was either. They merely said it was creates problematic grey areas that need to be further evaluated (at least that is what I gleaned from the response) I was just trying to point out the fact that the response letter was open ended and vague in its answers to the question and wanted to make others aware that the response was a non answer and that it needs to be further evaluated. And the points need to be made clearly as to why this setup is necessary and helps an AR Pistol shooter.

I like the setup alot, it is more streamline than the sig brace and allows for a more rearward QD mounting surface to be used along with the Thordsen and CAA cheek riser (which I think looks better than the sig arm brace and allows for better sight alignment and extra storage) for quick one point to two point sling attachment. Something that is not available for the thordsen setup right now, to my knowledge. I personally would like to see something like a mix of the thordsen kit, CAA cheek riser with an adjustable comb height like the Fab Defense Adjustable Cheek Riser with Picatinny rails on it so you can mount a rail pod storage kit or have it molded into the plastic thosden cover for extra batteries, parts, cleaning kit etc and still have adjustable comb height. The storage compartments would be in a side saddle configuration and wouldn't cause it to be a stock because the buffer tube would still the the farthest rearward protruding part of the pistol. It really couldn't be used as a butt stock because the side saddle portion would be too far forward of the end of the buffer tube.

Another cool Idea would be for CAA to make a cheek riser with the arm brace "wings" molded in so you could attach it to the thordsen kit and convert it into a streamlined arm brace with storage capabilities. Maybe add a QD sling swivel center line of the thordsen buffer tube cover at the rear most portion just above the "wings" for a true two point sling setup in addition to the enhanced QD mount on the side of the Thordsen tube cover for one point setup.

Joining the NRA? The NRA is one of the institutions most responsible for throwing our second amendment rights to the wolves... They compromise their way into a corner and then try to make everybody happy. We need an organization that unapologetically supports out right to own machine guns, RPGs, or whatever the fuck we want.

Write your congressfuck? Are you kidding me? Do people still think this really does anything? I have met face to face with my congrassholes in various places I have lived and they essentially just tell you to go eat a dick.

Bypass technology and lawsuits against the BATFE? Yea, those might help. Cody Wilson and his blatant fuck you to the ATF has done more for free firearms ownership than any crank yanking done by the NRA to our supreme overlords in DC.

A state can legalize whatever they want, unless they secede from the union, it's still illegal according to federal law.   There are plenty of people who were running 'legal' marijuana dispensaries in CA that were arrested by the DEA and serving prison sentences. When it comes down to it, the NFA is the law of the land.  Realistically we are in a very small minority who oppose it.  I guarantee that if you were to go on CNN/Fox/MSNBC and say we need to repeal the NFA an overwhelming number of people will categorize you as a crazy gun nut in the same vein as those who walk into restaurant so wielding AKs/ARs/SKS etc.  I don't think a majority of gun owners would support it.

Would I like not having to pay $30k for my next M16? Absolutely! Do I enjoy paying $3500  for a $100 pre-86 M10? Nope!  I also realize that ranting on a niche website that we need to repeal 'unconstitutional' laws that have been passed, signed into law and constitutional by the three branches of our government is a waste of time.  That is how our system works.  Can it be repealed? Yes, outdated law can be repealed or revised, but we're not discussing prohibition of alcohol or slavery, I.e. Issues most people care about.  We're talking about something society at large considers 'killing machines.'  You can criticize me for being a LEO, but the Supreme Court upheld it and they are the highest court.  Unless you plan on filing a case with the Supreme Court, getting Congressional leaders on board etc. you're pissing in the wind.  

I appreciate the OPs effort, but when he placed it next to a regular stock I had a feeling how the TB would respond.

I agree. Lot's of opinions here that won't change the law.

Someone already stated it, and I agree, that the only reason the SB 15 was approved in the first place was the politically popular shooters with disabilities angle. The OP's request did not have that angle which I think impacted the answer he received.

Sgt. Bradley's question about shouldering the SB 15 is a seperate issue. The fact that the BATFE's reply about legally shouldering a Sig brace equipped pistol was just a bonus for the rest of us in my opinion. This ATF opinion has started much debate and speculation, but shouldering a Sig braced pistol is currently legal.

Let's not forget it was a two part process.

1. The SB 15 was approved by the ATF for use on AR pistols without reclasifying pistols as SBRs. Disabled shooters were the target users, but the approval did not limit use to shooters with disabilities.
2. The ATF ruled on Sgt. Bradley's question that misusing SB 15 (i.e. shouldering it) does not violate law.

"A state can legalize whatever they want, unless they secede from the union, it's still illegal according to federal law."

Your wrong, the power resides with the people first, then the state, then the feds not in reverse order. Please familiarize yourself with the 10th Amendment. This was the checks and balances that our forefathers put in place to keep centralized over bearing federal governments from gaining absolute power over its citizens. Just because people are irresponsible and complacent and want the government to do everything for them including regulating their liberty doesn't mean the laws on the books have changed. Last time I checked the 10th amendment was still part of our constitution (The supreme law above all others in this country). Also the fact that pot was legal in certain states and the feds still arrested people, just tells me that the feds are willing to commit crimes against the people in order to "enforce" their unjust and unlawful laws. It doesn't matter if a federal law is passed, the right of the people still is held at the state level to abolish or repeal that law if they see fit. It is the sheriff's duty to protect and enforce the rights of the people to that end, or the people of that state if necessary. Like with the 2nd amendment preservation act that almost passed here in missouri, if it would have passed, the feds would have lost their power to enforce federal gun laws, and the Sheriffs within the state would have the authority to arrest anyone who hindered or tried to breach that right given to its people within the state.

Pretty words. You're free to say them, even in Leavenworth.

- OS

Could be.

What a cop out.

"Pretty words. You're free to say them, even in Leavenworth."

I'm not saying people should willfully disobey federal laws, ALL I'M SAYING is that the people have a right and obligation to secure their own freedom and stop asking may we do this, or may we do that. Its up to the individuals within the state on a state level to demand and define what their rights are and  for the elected officials and agents obey the oaths they take to protect those rights and freedoms. Other wise we don't have a representative government, we have an oligarchy or some other form of tyrannical government. Anyway I'm done with this thread, Until the feds say "yes you may attach a picattinny rail to your pistol and a sling mounting point" then it doesn't really matter, because I'm unfortunately a law abiding citizen and unfortunately DO have to fear going to Leavenworth for something as stupid as mounting something to my pistol,  so I CHOOSE to obey the laws. I just will try to do my part to abolish the laws that limit my freedom, thats all law abiding citizens are restrained to do. When it becomes unbearable to obey the law, then I will break it and so will many other Americans, like the ones who broke the law in the 1700s. Which by the way formed this nation.

Keven, you might want to study the history of the Commerce Clause.  It's one of the more problematic powers of Congress, and the 10th Amendment does not override it.

Further evidence that the ATF dartboards all their rulings.

oh, I see now, the definitions of the commerce clause can be bent by word smiths to now allow heavily armed men to come on someone's farm and point guns in people's faces, seize all of their property, kill all of their livestock and tell them they can't sell organic milk to people because its against the commerce clause and federal EPA or FDA guidelines. Sounds like freedom to me. I like where our country is going. We should embrace this kind of life.

During the Rehnquist court and to present, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution has played an integral part in the Court's view of the Commerce Clause. The Tenth Amendment states that the federal government has only the powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution while other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is an important source of those powers delegated (who delegates the power?) to Congress, and therefore its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal power in controlling innumerable aspects of American life. The Commerce Clause has been the most broadly interpreted clause in the Constitution, making way for many laws which, some argue, contradict the original intended meaning of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas has gone so far as to state in his dissent to Gonzales v. Raich,

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything – and the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers

Like I said before, I don't smoke weed but I appreciate people exercising their 10th amendment rights to secure their freedoms, It is not just a self serving ambition to want freedom for your self, because if you are free, your neighbors are free as well. Using commercial law to regulate common law is a very slippery slope and really does not benefit a society as a whole, it just micromanages freedom. Forcing farmers to not grow as much of a crop as the year before only diminishes the supply of food, yeah prices will stay high and farmers will make more money for that crop, for that year, but ultimately it causes a food shortage instead of a food surplus. I know farming is unrelated to the topic of the OP and I apologize for that, but it apparently does have bearing on all aspects of American lives and their freedom.

Thank you backbencher for pointing out this problem. Admitting a problem exists is the first step to resolving it and Knowledge is power.

The whole point was how to find a loophole in the regulations and sidestep the NFA $200 stamp. So, asking the agency who collects the tax and who can arrest you for getting around it isn't your best approach.

What we do have is a good look into their current thining, which is regulatory, not Constitutional law. The Supreme Court rarely reviews these, as they are not laws, but fall under enforcement as granted to them by Congress, ie, YOU.

From the perspective of Law, if we didn't want the NFA we'd vote it out. We haven't. It stands as the public approved. From there, it's basically just us trying to circumvent it. The idea that forming a substantial flat surface at the rear to act like a stock is exactly what it tries to do. The same could be said for a magazine carrier, if that made for a substantial flat surface to hold against the shoulder, common sense says they would decide against it.

What the SB15 didn't have was a substantial flat surface. It was the edge of two flaps meant to be wrapped around the users' wrist. If anything, it was two edges outlining a void, not a substantial flat surface. In other words, it got by because it thinks out of the box.

If the SBR crowd has one valid argument about paying the stamp fee, it's that they can have a real stock on it. Pistols can't. They are pistols, we are getting by with a buffer tube already, be happy. Cursing the BATF for making a common sense distinction and not letting people get by with evasion is really two faced. We pay them to do the job, and then whine when they don't double deal under the table? Really? If someone wants that, move to a third world country where you can buy government officials and have it your way.

At least here we are all on a level playing field and dealing with a agency who isn't supposed to be corruptible, ie outlaw your design because the other guy paid them more. You don't really want to go there.

"Substantial flat vertical surface" is a lot more than we had before. There are NO rules or details as such until we make them say so, which is exactly why Magpul isn't sticking their toes in the water. You can't build to specs the BATF isn't required to elaborate. One guy's bright idea works, anothers, not so much. Enjoy your pistols and be happy you already get away with "misusing" the buffer tube.

Mine is on the brown truck as this is getting posted.

Now that we pretty much know that gvazquez's imaginative suggestion is a
no-go, I've posted a possibility for the SB-15 on a different thread that seemed
to me to be a good way to go.  It's titled...

"For your consideration: An AR-based Personal Defense Weapon (PDW)"

...and appears in the "AR Pistols" general thread.  Scroll down to find pix of the mod.

As a relatively new user, I found it a little tough to decide the best thread
to post into.  Hope I can make some worthwhile contributions.

Yes, that's one of the problems with the Commerce Clause.  The Constitution is not perfect, nor is it what we want it to be - it is what the Supreme Court has said it is in a particular circumstance.  That is the current contract we have w/ our government, and it has more or less worked for over 200 years.

Well said.

Yes, that's one of the problems with the Commerce Clause. The Constitution is not perfect, nor is it what we want it to be - it is what the Supreme Court has said it is in a particular circumstance. That is the current contract we have w/ our government, and it has more or less worked for over 200 years.

I don't remember ever signing any contract or agreeing to one either. Some of the Supreme Court Justices agree with me that the commerce clause is an overreach and a power grab that is being used against the original intent of the constitution. But like the last poster said, maybe we should just be happy that we get our ice cream from mommy may I. And use an arm brace as a stock. To me having common sense, I don't understand why we just don't allow SBRs now, I guess its all in the Interpretation of Legal voodoo language. The only reason why I could see that that wouldn't happen is because all of the people who paid a $200 Tax stamp for permission to make their pistols safer and more manageable would be booty hurt for having wasted their money. If everyone who paid a $200 tax stamp or $215 on an arm brace and buffer tube would have put that into a non profit legal advocacy group their probably wouldn't be any more NFA. Maybe proceeds from sales of these arm braces could be used to fight the NFA laws. Money is the language of lawyers and for the right price "officials" can be bought off, it just isn't in some dark alley way like in some third world country. That's what lobbyist do on a daily basis. So to say that we aren't like a third world country where officials can't be bought or votes can't be bought is kind of a half truth. And believing that that doesn't happen is just being naive or ignorant. But i'm just being cynical now. so I will let everyone else banter on, enjoy your "freedom" and Enjoy your arm braces. This bureaucratic bullshit is getting super gay.

Ares Armor Sends the ATF Pizza:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1annKKUYmI

Thanks OP for actually taking the time to do all this.  I wish the results of your effort were much different :(

+1. Just catching up on this subscribed thread. Bummed about the outcome but thanks for the effort OP.