They said It's purpose is not a stock.  This one's purpose is not a stock.

If and when I do receive a letter from the tech branch, I will post an update in this thread.

The supreme court ruled the NFA act constitutional in the 1930's?  Is that when they added in the bit about not being able to add a buttstock or was that after 1986?  Anyway is outta date and needs to b ammended.  How come the NRA can't comprehensibly demonstrate to the right judges or politicians or whoever how absolutely retarded it is to charge people $200 and make them wait a year to add something to a firearm that can only make it safer?  How can anyone justify prosecuting an otherwise law abiding citizen for making a legal firearm safer?  Especially when the BATF at this time In history has committed far more reprehensible actions regarding firearms than any law abiding citizen who simply wants to add a buttstock for a better, safer, sainer shot ever will.  Again any cop, politician, judge whoever that would burn a single taxpayer dollar prosecuting a law abiding gun owner for putting g a buttstock should b shamed into retirement.  If I had to guess, whenever the supreme court made that ruling, my guess is they didn't realize the portion. A out legal or illegal buttstocks was not on there radar and I bet if the right people were Informed and saw the potential embarrassment of this kind don't of "law" being enforced might be willing to take another look.  Even people who hate guns will agree that if guns are going g to b available to citizens then any resonance safety measures that can b employed should.  Our laws and our Constitution were meant to be ammended to keep up with the Changing technologies and it's impact on society.  I think it's time to stop Fucking around with sig braces Qd sling plates and ask ourselves what kind don't of ass hole would prosecute an otherwise law abiding citizen for putting a buttstock on a gun and get this law changed.

Yes.
1930's.
Because political change is difficult, and not enough gun owners are willing to make the effort to demand the law be changed.
Because all gun control is designed to disarm the citizenry, no matter how it's worded.

ETA:  BTW, welcome to ARFCOM.  Got any Legos?

From a devils advocate point of view, disarming the populace almost seems more logical than giving the people guns, but not allowing them to shoot safely which seems infinitely more idiotic.  So the NFA was deemed constitutional almost a fucking century ago.  The atf has all the time in the world to sell assault weapons to drug cartels yet can't get a background check done In any reasonable amount of time, let alone rewrite regulations to fit a 21st century world.  Buttstocks and barrel length restrictions, and silencer restrictions too for that matter, are all based on some Marijuana madness type Hollywood bullshit myth about AL Capone murdering innocent women and children with a full auto tommygun with a chopped barrel and a silencer and dealing out death like a silent ninja.  Those people wrote laws based on myths 80 years ago and now they need to b rewritten logically, for our time and place by people who understand the facts involved and hav the best interest of the people in mind.  If I'm not mistaken, as long as I pay off the right agency first, I can have an m-60 converted to semi-auto, chop the barrel, lose the buttstock, register it as a pistol so I can open carry it on my hip and shoot the fucker one handed, but i can't simply just put a buttstock on a pistol, cause it might make it harder to conceal and give me a steady shot?  Wtf is that?

Hey man, thanks for the welcome, and actually, yeah, I have a bunch of Legos, I've got one of those old denim bags with the red drawstrings full of 1970's Era legos.  Why do you ask?

Oh yeah, one more thing, I hope u all don't think I am hijacking this thread, but i think it is relevant.  As much as I hate to use the tragedy of Fast and Furious to push an agenda, if ever there were a time to pressure the atf into reform, it's now.  The people at the atf hav more to prove right now then ever and they might as well start by reforming their definitions of legal or illegal firearms and streamlining the process for tax stamps to include reasonable, non-income discriminatory fees as well as reasonable wait times, at the very least, in the interest of safe gun ownership and use.  Short barrels and buttstocks offer no distinct advantage to committing a crime, but do offer substantial advantages to safe firearms handling, basically, like I said bfore, the atf does want us to hit what we r shooting at right?  Like if a crook wants a buttstock or a short barrel r they really gonna apply for a tax stamp anyway.  What pisses me off, is these things aren't illegal, unless u fail to pay a tax first and bend over for the atf, like I can have a full auto silenced, belt fed machine gun if I pay first.  That's a protection racket.  I can take that to a point, but no buttstocks, really, unless I pay?  It's seriously akin saying I can own a gun, but i can't have iron sights unless I pay first and wait a year.  How can people who make laws like this, ok they r all dead, so how can people who enforce laws like this justify it?  It's their job to understand this better than some old burnout like me,.but unfortunately the opposite is true.  If the NFA isn't unconstitutional tyranny by government over it own people than I dont know what is.  And a quick note about silencers, ( yes i called it a silencer, because that's what it is, just like there's no ham in a hamburger, it is what it is) if someone breaks into my home, and I have to defend my wife and 8 month old daughter, I'm gonna be pretty upset with the atf regarding there regulations of silencers, because I can't afford it and I cant afford to wait,  but if I have to open up on a bad guy and my wife or baby suffer hearing damage I'm gonna be livid, because I spent $500 for a glock and a little more for some ammo, if a 9mm silencer was @ $250 out the door with no wait time, I'd be into one, but at $500 and up (if they were legal they'd be expensive for the first few years but then would plummet in price after demand leveled off and production reached full steam) plus a $200 tax stamp and another $100 to form a trust and then a wait time of a year more, it just simply isn't reasonable.  If the DOT were in charge of firearms we'd all b required to have silencer when discharging a weapon anywhere within earshot of civilization.  If the ATF were in charge of transportation, I'd have to pay $200 and wait a year bfore wearing a helmet on my motorcycle,  because u never know, someone might use that helmet to obscure their identity while committing a crime and than might use it like a weapon to headbutt someone in the face before making a getaway.

Pfft.  I've been making some damn good arguments but nobody bid me welcome to Arfcom

Aaaanyway.

Screw the Thordsen buffer tube cover + QD socket.  I just received my Sig brace today directly from Sig Sauer (I got in on the free bag offer), and the back it feels just as rigid against my shoulder as my bonafide Magpul SRS rifle stock.  The difference is, the Sig brace can cleverly be justified as a pistol accessory whilst serving as a bloody good stock in disguise.

Any word from the ATF?

"I hate waiting"

They are stumped.

Apparently, no word from eXile's "build with intent to fire from shoulder" inquiry either,  apparently, and I believe it predates this one.

- OS

Still waiting.

Congrats OP, you have sucessfully divided by 0.

Your correct, no word yet.



 

Jeez if the ATF takes this long to have a look see maybe the NFA ought to be dropped amirite?

Link.

I JUST received a response to a submission I made 11 months ago. You guys might be waiting a bit more.

Can't find right off with limited search of my status, iNeXile556 is the submitter.

Big hooha about it in several threads, someone else can probably dig them up.

- OS

that's the caa cheekrest. it comes in the thordsen kit.

Great. Well, at least there's the possibility that they didn't "misplace" my letter.

Out of curiosity, what was the approximate cost of all the parts you used for your project?  (Referring specifically to everything attached to the lower receiver extension.)

Hahahah cod LAN party

Delete

ATF LETTER IS IN!

Outstanding!  Don't forget to update the OP.  Just downloaded the wrong letter.  

 













 

First post has been updated. Letters are up.

My only response is fucking Govt....

I wonder what they meant when they said "substantial vertical flat surface". Is there an actual measurement (i.e. 3 inches of flat surface)? Sounds arbitrary.

 

Thanks for the attempt.  Not surprised.  The government agents we pay to interpret the fucked up but held Constitutional NFA came to a rational decision - it functions as a stock, and wasn't sponsored by the VA for unassailable disabled Vets.  Fuck FDR.

Problematic.

Nailed it.

I think the Brace got by the ATF and they are embarrassed by it now.

The same thing happened with parts kit building of rifles.
The ATF came up with a ridiculous ruling on the parts count of the FAL, just to spite builders after finding out how easy it was to build so many other guns. Especially, the AK47.

This ruling really is no different.

OP, thanks for taking the initiative to try this and posting the results.

Duh.

I'm sorry but this letter from them is absurd.

Following the logic of their own words, a persons intent could be construed as the determining factor regarding the legality of ANYTHING firearms related.

Example: A bipod on a pistol.  If someone intended to use it as an make shift vfg, club fed.

Sig Brace, if someone intended on shouldering it, club fed.

Extension piece to modify the lop in conjunction with Sig brace, club fed.

See where this is going?  It seems to me they are setting the stage to have cause to prosecute people for installing and using items that they have already approved for use.  This also directly contradicts their earlier statement that the misuse of a legally installed product does not change the status or definition of what that product is.

For those that remember my earlier posts about intent to fire from the shoulder, I don't seem to far off now do I?



'Nuff said.



I will post my letter when I get a response.



 

Troll much?

This

Didn't you send your letter off in February?
Was this the reply?

..........................

Folks, we're in Tech, not GD.

Me too.

I don't mean to hijack this thread by turning it into a political discussion, but I believe this is germane to the problem. This is not over with people. That answer letter was not a final determination. The wording used in the letter is not a responsive answer to the question asked. It is merely legaleese. A verbal escape from a yes or no answer.  The words "may" and "problematic" is unresponsive. A responsive answer would be a yes or no. Do we even know if the NFA laws were even ratified? Is there an enacting clause? If so, why are oppressive laws from the prohibition era still being enforced, Alcohol is legal to drink now, and the only reason the ATF was formed was to take on their competition...The mob and hillbillies making moonshine. The NFA laws were made to create crimes in order to get mobsters convicted for other things besides just making alcohol and selling it which also is a victim-less "crime".  So should these ancient laws still be enforced? i belive these old laws should have died along with the prohibition era and its laws and I also believe the enforcement hand of those laws should have died along with it.

you don't understand how many bureaucrats depend on micromanaging our freedoms to create their living do you? That's the problem, every state rep, senator, congressman and president is an attorney first, their allegiance is to the BAR association, not to this country and they make their lives off of the backs of those who actually produce and contribute to society. They depend on defining what freedoms you have and how you may enjoy them, that is their job, that and sending policy enforcers after you if you undermine their parasitic existence and their "authority" which is self ordained. The good attorneys and police are "discouraged" or ran out for being legit. I feel bad for the good cops out there who struggle with needing an income and doing what is right for the people. I guess its true what they say...The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

Whether or not we agree with it, the nfa has been around for almost 100 years at this point and more than 30 since it's last revision.  If you think we'll get enough support to overturn it, you need to stop smoking crack.  A lot of politicians are trying to ban SEMI AUTO weapons.   Do you really think they or non-gun enthusiasts are going to support select fire, destructive devices and the like?!?

OP - nice try, I give you credit for your ingenuity

yeah and the 10th amendment has been around way before the NFA. All the states who support gun rights should encourage their local sheriffs to help the people of their counties to repeal the NFA and then allow their deputies to arrest and imprison any fed who comes in to try to enforce their federal laws. And no i'm not smoking crack, here in Missouri the NFA and most all other federal gun laws were almost repealed by the majority of its inhabitants, it just takes a will of the people to actually do something, the 2nd amendment preservation/restoration act almost passed and only lost by one or two votes. Most people are for the increase of personal liberties not the decrease of them, it just takes the people to get it to a vote. If the feds don't like it they can instigate a civil war, like they did last time. I don't smoke pot, but I was glad to see some of the states use their 10th amendment rights to get it legalized in their states. That is an increase of personal choice and a free society, not micromanaging liberty. The problem is most people cherish getting drunk or high more than actual liberties like having guns and having them be un-restricted.-Case in point....The State of California and the begrudging magazine capacity ban in Colorado- both states have their priorities backwards.

Kevin, the NFA was upheld as CONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court in the 1930's.  So yes, we're quite sure the NFA was passed by Congress, signed by the President (FDR, may Obamacare be upon him), and upheld by the Supreme Court.  So while everyone on this board agrees NFA is bad law, we are stuck with it until we are able to break it in the courts, bypass it with technology (SIG brace, bumpfire stocks, welded muzzle devices), or repeal it outright.  Rants on ARFCOM about how bad the NFA is and how it should be repealed don't actually do anything.  Joining the NRA, writing your Congresscritter in a reasoned, informed way, participating in class-action lawsuits against BATFE, and working on bypass technology is helpful.