User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 9:22:06 AM EDT
[#1]
Nope
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 9:28:19 AM EDT
[#2]
Nope. They let me do all sorts of fun builds with all sorts of guns and I'd just be sticking to SBRs if they were kaput.
How many are in circulation now though? I can't imagine the ATF even beginning to make an effort to track them all down like the akins, not that they'd have to. The backlash would be massive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 9:44:48 AM EDT
[#3]
Also, having just read the response letter, I know exactly what 'firearm' they submitted for inquiry.
I've been planning it since April and tossed the idea to serbu and black aces but never heard anything back. Classy. At least I've got my answer from the ATF, no shouldering but otherwise okay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 9:48:32 AM EDT
[#4]
Yeah, the article itself might be a scare or worry for some. I for one do not believe the ATF will reverse the decision. But, my hypothetical side got me when I thought about not being able to use it. I do not know anything about the weapon they submitted for approval with the brace.
I was at the range just last night, shooting my AR pistol with Sig Brace, with a smile on my face the entire time! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 10:03:27 AM EDT
[#5]
I had AR pistols before the brace came out. They're not pistols if they're designed to be shouldered.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 10:09:48 AM EDT
[#6]
No, this will not affect AR pistols. It doesn't have anything to do with AR pistols.
A shotgun with a barrel <18" is illegal with or without a Sig brace (unless registered as AOW). There is no such thing as a "shotgun pistol." You're comparing apples to oranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 10:10:37 AM EDT
[#7]
An AR pistol has a receiver extension. With or without the brace it can be "shouldered".
The shotgun has no need for a receiver extension, so I can see how the only purpose is to add a stock like device. Come on... the shotgun application was pushing it pretty far. Do any of you think the ATF would approve one on a Ruger Charger????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 10:13:32 AM EDT
[#8]
If I can't strap one to my arm I don't want one
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 10:15:01 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, this will not affect AR pistols. It doesn't have anything to do with AR pistols. A shotgun with a barrel <18" is illegal with or without a Sig brace (unless registered as AOW). There is no such thing as a "shotgun pistol." You're comparing apples to oranges. My opinion is they are categorically a DD because they have a bore over .5" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 10:16:05 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An AR pistol has a receiver extension. With or without the brace it can be "shouldered". The shotgun has no need for a receiver extension, so I can see how the only purpose is to add a stock like device. Come on... the shotgun application was pushing it pretty far. Do any of you think the ATF would approve one on a Ruger Charger????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 10:18:52 AM EDT
[#11]
Seeing that the brace was designed for "pistols" would attaching the brace to an AR with OAL of >26" be wrong/forbidden? My pistol is 25.25" without flash hider, and if I were to install a KAK tube, I assume oal would be 26+.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 10:38:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
this is an actual pic of the submitted "firearm" So apparently this genius was wanting them to say yes to a *non-NFA* AOW/SBS with Sig brace and VFG. Wow. Talk about swinging for the fences. While you're at it, might as well ask for approval on a non-NFA auto sear and a 40mm launcher for it too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:50:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Yes I would. Actually took the Sig Brace off my pistol and did the Thordsen/ CAA saddle combo. Like it better than the Sig Brace.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:11:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Morons like that idiotic company make things worse for everybody...I feel like spamming that moron's FB page...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:17:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Morons like that idiotic company make things worse for everybody...I feel like spamming that moron's FB page... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:31:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Max Kingery doesn't have much of a grasp on the law. That letter is a mess. He probably should be replaced, thank goodness he's just "acting director". He's way over his head.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:38:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Max Kingery doesn't have much of a grasp on the law. That letter is a mess. He probably should be replaced, thank goodness he's just "acting" director". He's way over his head. For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term "Destructive Device” means:
Exemptions:
The firearm has a bore over .5" and is not a shotgun because it does not have a buttstock. Without a buttstock (part of the federal definition of a shotgun) it doesn't have an exemption from DD status. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:27:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your ill-will is misguided. ATF wrote the response and Congress wrote the unconstitutional laws. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Morons like that idiotic company make things worse for everybody...I feel like spamming that moron's FB page... Don't get me wrong...I fully believe the SBR laws (and many other firearm laws for that matter) are highly unconstitutional...but for the moment, we have to live under them. Poking the skunk necessarily because you're busy making gimmicky firearms designed for basement dwelling Call of Duty players is another. Screw with the ATF long enough and they will ban hammer everyone. Crap requests like that only point it out. Clearly, no one can use a pump shotgun with one arm. Looking at that thing, the ONLY purpose for the SIG brace is to shoulder the thing. If you strapped that firearm to your one good arm, you'd get a whopping one shot out of it before you had to ask someone to unstrap it from your arm...so you could pump the action. Blatant misuse crap like that are what makes them just flat out ban it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:29:59 PM EDT
[#19]
Yes I had. Pistol AR before the brace came out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:06:49 PM EDT
[#20]
I would now that I've owned one, but I bought the pistol because of the brace in the first place.
If they do reverse the decision, I'll probably replace the brace with a saddle for my trunk gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:36:59 PM EDT
[#21]
For everyone getting all hot and bothered over this, let me explain the logic.
According to the ATF, a shotgun is designed to be fired from the shoulder. This means that if it comes from the factory without a stock it is not legally a shotgun but rather a 'firearm' and by extension it cannot be a SBS. Typically this would leave a <18" barreled 12ga as an AOW, however the ATF defines an AOW as concealable (under 26" in OAL) or being actively concealed on the person. This meaning that, if said 12ga 'firearm' has an OAL of over 26" it remains a title I firearm and non-NFA. Read more on the subject here: http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=438. The concept is the same as all y'alls AR 'firearms' over 26" OAL with VFGs, or just the XO-26. Typically this is done with a mossberg 500, 14" barrel, and birdshead grip. But I thought, why not add more to the back and take off from the front? Mounting a buffer tube/brace contributes to the OAL measurements meaning more can be drawn back from the barrel length. All of this was congruent with previously established ATF rulings and still is, just you can't shoulder the thing now. Given it's a 'firearm' and not a pistol the previous ATF ruling of "shouldering a pistol is wrong but legal" cannot be cited. I wonder if the braced VFG AR 'firearms' will be treated the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:48:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For everyone getting all hot and bothered over this, let me explain the logic. According to the ATF, a shotgun is designed to be fired from the shoulder. This means that if it comes from the factory without a stock it is not legally a shotgun but rather a 'firearm' and by extension it cannot be a SBS. Typically this would leave a <18" barreled 12ga as an AOW, however the ATF defines an AOW as concealable (under 26" in OAL) or being actively concealed on the person. This meaning that, if said 12ga 'firearm' has an OAL of over 26" it remains a title I firearm and non-NFA. Read more on the subject here: http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=438. The concept is the same as all y'alls AR 'firearms' over 26" OAL with VFGs, or just the XO-26. Typically this is done with a mossberg 500, 14" barrel, and birdshead grip. But I thought, why not add more to the back and take off from the front? Mounting a buffer tube/brace contributes to the OAL measurements meaning more can be drawn back from the barrel length. All of this was congruent with previously established ATF rulings and still is, just you can't shoulder the thing now. Given it's a 'firearm' and not a pistol the previous ATF ruling of "shouldering a pistol is wrong but legal" cannot be cited. I wonder if the braced VFG AR 'firearms' will be treated the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:49:05 PM EDT
[#23]
what a dumb ass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:51:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Absolutely I would. I can legally carry my AR pistol loaded and concealed in a vehicle. I don't have a sig brace on it. I still find it very comfortable and easy to shoot. I don't shoulder the buffer tube, I just rest my cheek on the foam sleeve on the end of the buffer tube. I have no issues with doing this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:54:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My question is how the 14" barreled birdshead grip mossberg 500 doesn't fall under the definition of a Destructive Device? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For everyone getting all hot and bothered over this, let me explain the logic. According to the ATF, a shotgun is designed to be fired from the shoulder. This means that if it comes from the factory without a stock it is not legally a shotgun but rather a 'firearm' and by extension it cannot be a SBS. Typically this would leave a <18" barreled 12ga as an AOW, however the ATF defines an AOW as concealable (under 26" in OAL) or being actively concealed on the person. This meaning that, if said 12ga 'firearm' has an OAL of over 26" it remains a title I firearm and non-NFA. Read more on the subject here: http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=438. The concept is the same as all y'alls AR 'firearms' over 26" OAL with VFGs, or just the XO-26. Typically this is done with a mossberg 500, 14" barrel, and birdshead grip. But I thought, why not add more to the back and take off from the front? Mounting a buffer tube/brace contributes to the OAL measurements meaning more can be drawn back from the barrel length. All of this was congruent with previously established ATF rulings and still is, just you can't shoulder the thing now. Given it's a 'firearm' and not a pistol the previous ATF ruling of "shouldering a pistol is wrong but legal" cannot be cited. I wonder if the braced VFG AR 'firearms' will be treated the same. As I understood it all 12ga retains the sporting exemption unless specifically mentioned by name ala the striker/street sweeper line. The ATF could easily label it so but has not done so. Having been brought to their attention in full via this letter, it doesn't look like they're going to and they remain title I so long as they're not shouldered or concealed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:57:08 PM EDT
[#26]
I built an AR pistol and do not own a brace. I haven't even seen one in person.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:36:14 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As I understood it all 12ga retains the sporting exemption unless specifically mentioned by name ala the striker/street sweeper line. The ATF could easily label it so but has not done so. Having been brought to their attention in full via this letter, it doesn't look like they're going to and they remain title I so long as they're not shouldered or concealed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: For everyone getting all hot and bothered over this, let me explain the logic. According to the ATF, a shotgun is designed to be fired from the shoulder. This means that if it comes from the factory without a stock it is not legally a shotgun but rather a 'firearm' and by extension it cannot be a SBS. Typically this would leave a <18" barreled 12ga as an AOW, however the ATF defines an AOW as concealable (under 26" in OAL) or being actively concealed on the person. This meaning that, if said 12ga 'firearm' has an OAL of over 26" it remains a title I firearm and non-NFA. Read more on the subject here: http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=438. The concept is the same as all y'alls AR 'firearms' over 26" OAL with VFGs, or just the XO-26. Typically this is done with a mossberg 500, 14" barrel, and birdshead grip. But I thought, why not add more to the back and take off from the front? Mounting a buffer tube/brace contributes to the OAL measurements meaning more can be drawn back from the barrel length. All of this was congruent with previously established ATF rulings and still is, just you can't shoulder the thing now. Given it's a 'firearm' and not a pistol the previous ATF ruling of "shouldering a pistol is wrong but legal" cannot be cited. I wonder if the braced VFG AR 'firearms' will be treated the same. As I understood it all 12ga retains the sporting exemption unless specifically mentioned by name ala the striker/street sweeper line. The ATF could easily label it so but has not done so. Having been brought to their attention in full via this letter, it doesn't look like they're going to and they remain title I so long as they're not shouldered or concealed. Another interesting thought is how DIAS were treated. For quite awhile ATF treated pre-1981 DIAS as though they weren't machineguns, then a court ruled that ATF could properly consider a DIAS a machinegun, but ATF couldn't determine that pre-1981 DIAS were not machineguns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:36:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Yes, I own an AR pistol, I do not own the SB15 or the new SPX and have no plans to change this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:14:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Yes, there's the saddle. Remember, AR pistols have been around wayyyyy longer than SB15s or SBXs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:19:03 PM EDT
[#30]
i'm in the beginning stages of building a pistol and i dont like the way the sig braces look, wasnt planning on using one anyhow. so to answer your OP, yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 10:48:56 PM EDT
[#31]
I did build one before the SB15/SBX. It had a car tube that I milled a slot at the rear and installed a standard front sling swivel at the rear bottum of the tube.(so a stock could not go on and so I could use a standard bottum mount sling) It was cool to look at, I shot it like once, couldn't quite figure out how to hold it good, never shot it again. I think I would have ultamately tried a rifle buffer tube or something. I put a SB15 on it and haven't even shot it yet. I have an AK pistol and I'm not surre if I even want to put a brace on it. Kinda like how small it is without, but on an AR, hey the tube's there anyways.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 11:04:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did build one before the SB15/SBX. It had a car tube that I milled a slot at the rear and installed a standard front sling swivel at the rear bottum of the tube.(so a stock could not go on and so I could use a standard bottum mount sling) It was cool to look at, I shot it like once, couldn't quite figure out how to hold it good, never shot it again. .... You simply hold buffer tube alongside cheek as 3rd point of contact to steady it, works a treat. Not as stable as something against the shoulder, but COM accurate to 100 yards with my 10.5 incher. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 11:43:44 PM EDT
[#33]
My AR pistol has a crutch tip, and that's for traction, not padding. I'm not interested in the Sig brace.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 1:37:54 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't get me wrong...I fully believe the SBR laws (and many other firearm laws for that matter) are highly unconstitutional...but for the moment, we have to live under them. Poking the skunk necessarily because you're busy making gimmicky firearms designed for basement dwelling Call of Duty players is another. Screw with the ATF long enough and they will ban hammer everyone. Crap requests like that only point it out. Clearly, no one can use a pump shotgun with one arm. Looking at that thing, the ONLY purpose for the SIG brace is to shoulder the thing. If you strapped that firearm to your one good arm, you'd get a whopping one shot out of it before you had to ask someone to unstrap it from your arm...so you could pump the action. Blatant misuse crap like that are what makes them just flat out ban it... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Morons like that idiotic company make things worse for everybody...I feel like spamming that moron's FB page... Don't get me wrong...I fully believe the SBR laws (and many other firearm laws for that matter) are highly unconstitutional...but for the moment, we have to live under them. Poking the skunk necessarily because you're busy making gimmicky firearms designed for basement dwelling Call of Duty players is another. Screw with the ATF long enough and they will ban hammer everyone. Crap requests like that only point it out. Clearly, no one can use a pump shotgun with one arm. Looking at that thing, the ONLY purpose for the SIG brace is to shoulder the thing. If you strapped that firearm to your one good arm, you'd get a whopping one shot out of it before you had to ask someone to unstrap it from your arm...so you could pump the action. Blatant misuse crap like that are what makes them just flat out ban it... Yep, full tard and it only took about 6 months from the first favorable ruling... all so maybe he can sell 20 of them, if that... I remember the olden days, something good happened, everybody took it in, did their business and kept it off the radar. Now everyone has to post their crap for the world to see and rub it in everyone's faces... just STFU... its a lost art. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 2:57:00 AM EDT
[#35]
Just so you guys know, this letter changes absolutely nothing.
It affects a 'firearm' shotgun as that whole train of logic depends on the legal definition of shotgun as being designed to be fired from the shoulder. Meaning if you shoulder it, with a brace or anything else, it legally becomes a shotgun again. That's all there is to it - it has nothing to do with the SB15. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 8:56:23 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just so you guys know, this letter changes absolutely nothing. It affects a 'firearm' shotgun as that whole train of logic depends on the legal definition of shotgun as being designed to be fired from the shoulder. Meaning if you shoulder it, with a brace or anything else, it legally becomes a shotgun again. That's all there is to it - it has nothing to do with the SB15. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 9:09:08 AM EDT
[#37]
I did buy one. I didn't buy the brace. No need.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 9:21:23 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Legal definition of a rifle is being designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder, just like the shotgun. If shouldering this makes an SBS, then shouldering a sig braced pistol makes an AR. The two rulings use completely different logic and arrive at contradicting opinions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just so you guys know, this letter changes absolutely nothing. It affects a 'firearm' shotgun as that whole train of logic depends on the legal definition of shotgun as being designed to be fired from the shoulder. Meaning if you shoulder it, with a brace or anything else, it legally becomes a shotgun again. That's all there is to it - it has nothing to do with the SB15. 12ga cannot be a pistol and by extension isn't subject to the "shouldering it is a misuse but does not cause the pistol to be reclassified" ruling. So then regarding >26" VFG 'firearms', you'd have to ask the ATF about the legality of shouldering. They never made a statement on those directly IIRC. Remember we're dealing with ATF 'logic' here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 9:32:49 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 12ga cannot be a pistol and by extension isn't subject to the "shouldering it is a misuse but does not cause the pistol to be reclassified" ruling. So then regarding >26" VFG 'firearms', you'd have to ask the ATF about the legality of shouldering. They never made a statement on those directly IIRC. Remember we're dealing with ATF 'logic' here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just so you guys know, this letter changes absolutely nothing. It affects a 'firearm' shotgun as that whole train of logic depends on the legal definition of shotgun as being designed to be fired from the shoulder. Meaning if you shoulder it, with a brace or anything else, it legally becomes a shotgun again. That's all there is to it - it has nothing to do with the SB15. 12ga cannot be a pistol and by extension isn't subject to the "shouldering it is a misuse but does not cause the pistol to be reclassified" ruling. So then regarding >26" VFG 'firearms', you'd have to ask the ATF about the legality of shouldering. They never made a statement on those directly IIRC. Remember we're dealing with ATF 'logic' here. For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term "Any Other Weapon” means:
Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 9:46:28 AM EDT
[#40]
I find it interesting the Feds take a position that if you have a concealed carry permit (you don't need a permit in Arizona), if you fire from a concealed position, say firing a revolver in inside a coat pocket, you can be charged with having an AOW. Actually their position is that any concealed firearm is an AOW. Every person legally carrying concealed in say a National Forest or BLM land is committing a crime.
It's good to know if you're in a National Park, a concealed firearm is not an AOW (if you have a carry permit). I suppose in Arizona if you're carrying a concealed pistol into the Grand Canyon without a concealed carry permit, you know have an AOW. 
http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/upload/Firearms-in-IMRparks2-2010.pdf I'm sorry, pistols and revolvers are not AOW, just remembered. My bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 10:04:45 AM EDT
[#41]
I am seeing a lot of good responses on the subject. I too bought my AR pistol before the Sig Brace was released. As others have stated, I can conceal my pistol with my license and that was a main point of purchase. However, I have seen a lot of people saying they never considered the AR pistol prior to the SIG Brace being released and later ATF allowing it to be shoulder fired. That then makes me think if there would a flood on the used market for AR pistols if the brace ATF determination WAS overturned. For all those that bought one specifically for shouldering the brace that want to get rid of it if it happens, let me know!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 11:09:03 AM EDT
[#42]
nope I would never buy the sig brace I will spend a few dollars more for the stamp wait my time and have a real SBR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 11:17:44 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
nope I would never buy the sig brace I will spend a few dollars more for the stamp wait my time and have a real SBR I honestly still don't understand the logic of the SBR debate since I am able to shoulder a buffer tube. Giving the gov extra amounts of my time and money never appealed to me. However, I remain hopeful that the ATF will go away all together and the suppressor tax stamp along with it. I purchased my AR pistol because I didn't want to pay the $200 tax stamp for an SBR, and in the end, still stand behind my decision to do so. Different strokes but I'd rather put that $200 towards ammo or biting the bullet and getting my suppressor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 11:49:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I honestly still don't understand the logic of the SBR debate since I am able to shoulder a buffer tube. Giving the gov extra amounts of my time and money never appealed to me. However, I remain hopeful that the ATF will go away all together and the suppressor tax stamp along with it. I purchased my AR pistol because I didn't want to pay the $200 tax stamp for an SBR, and in the end, still stand behind my decision to do so. Different strokes but I'd rather put that $200 towards ammo or biting the bullet and getting my suppressor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
nope I would never buy the sig brace I will spend a few dollars more for the stamp wait my time and have a real SBR I honestly still don't understand the logic of the SBR debate since I am able to shoulder a buffer tube. Giving the gov extra amounts of my time and money never appealed to me. However, I remain hopeful that the ATF will go away all together and the suppressor tax stamp along with it. I purchased my AR pistol because I didn't want to pay the $200 tax stamp for an SBR, and in the end, still stand behind my decision to do so. Different strokes but I'd rather put that $200 towards ammo or biting the bullet and getting my suppressor. your absolutely right personal preference and I prefer to shoulder a rifle not a pistol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 11:54:26 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I honestly still don't understand the logic of the SBR debate since I am able to shoulder a buffer tube. Giving the gov extra amounts of my time and money never appealed to me. However, I remain hopeful that the ATF will go away all together and the suppressor tax stamp along with it. I purchased my AR pistol because I didn't want to pay the $200 tax stamp for an SBR, and in the end, still stand behind my decision to do so. Different strokes but I'd rather put that $200 towards ammo or biting the bullet and getting my suppressor. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
nope I would never buy the sig brace I will spend a few dollars more for the stamp wait my time and have a real SBR I honestly still don't understand the logic of the SBR debate since I am able to shoulder a buffer tube. Giving the gov extra amounts of my time and money never appealed to me. However, I remain hopeful that the ATF will go away all together and the suppressor tax stamp along with it. I purchased my AR pistol because I didn't want to pay the $200 tax stamp for an SBR, and in the end, still stand behind my decision to do so. Different strokes but I'd rather put that $200 towards ammo or biting the bullet and getting my suppressor. and the brace is what 125-150? so your saving 50-75 bucks by not stamping? thats barely 100 rounds you can buy with the savings |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 12:47:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and the brace is what 125-150? so your saving 50-75 bucks by not stamping? thats barely 100 rounds you can buy with the savings Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
nope I would never buy the sig brace I will spend a few dollars more for the stamp wait my time and have a real SBR I honestly still don't understand the logic of the SBR debate since I am able to shoulder a buffer tube. Giving the gov extra amounts of my time and money never appealed to me. However, I remain hopeful that the ATF will go away all together and the suppressor tax stamp along with it. I purchased my AR pistol because I didn't want to pay the $200 tax stamp for an SBR, and in the end, still stand behind my decision to do so. Different strokes but I'd rather put that $200 towards ammo or biting the bullet and getting my suppressor. and the brace is what 125-150? so your saving 50-75 bucks by not stamping? thats barely 100 rounds you can buy with the savings I acknowledge your well founded point. But to be totally fair, one has to also take into account the additional price of a regular stock that an SBR owner has to purchase otherwise. Still not a large amount by any means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 12:57:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and the brace is what 125-150? so your saving 50-75 bucks by not stamping? thats barely 100 rounds you can buy with the savings Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
nope I would never buy the sig brace I will spend a few dollars more for the stamp wait my time and have a real SBR I honestly still don't understand the logic of the SBR debate since I am able to shoulder a buffer tube. Giving the gov extra amounts of my time and money never appealed to me. However, I remain hopeful that the ATF will go away all together and the suppressor tax stamp along with it. I purchased my AR pistol because I didn't want to pay the $200 tax stamp for an SBR, and in the end, still stand behind my decision to do so. Different strokes but I'd rather put that $200 towards ammo or biting the bullet and getting my suppressor. and the brace is what 125-150? so your saving 50-75 bucks by not stamping? thats barely 100 rounds you can buy with the savings The amount of money for the stamp isn't the issue for me, it's the bending over for the government and having to ask permission to travel with it, no one else being able to shoot it unless you pay to form trust etc....and participate in what is basically voluntary gun registration. Screw them and their tax stamp |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 1:07:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The amount of money for the stamp isn't the issue for me, it's the bending over for the government and having to ask permission to travel with it, no one else being able to shoot it unless you pay to form trust etc....and participate in what is basically voluntary gun registration. Screw them and their tax stamp Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
nope I would never buy the sig brace I will spend a few dollars more for the stamp wait my time and have a real SBR I honestly still don't understand the logic of the SBR debate since I am able to shoulder a buffer tube. Giving the gov extra amounts of my time and money never appealed to me. However, I remain hopeful that the ATF will go away all together and the suppressor tax stamp along with it. I purchased my AR pistol because I didn't want to pay the $200 tax stamp for an SBR, and in the end, still stand behind my decision to do so. Different strokes but I'd rather put that $200 towards ammo or biting the bullet and getting my suppressor. and the brace is what 125-150? so your saving 50-75 bucks by not stamping? thats barely 100 rounds you can buy with the savings The amount of money for the stamp isn't the issue for me, it's the bending over for the government and having to ask permission to travel with it, no one else being able to shoot it unless you pay to form trust etc....and participate in what is basically voluntary gun registration. Screw them and their tax stamp THIS, and the gov doesn't buy back that stamp. I can sell a brace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 1:18:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The amount of money for the stamp isn't the issue for me, it's the bending over for the government and having to ask permission to travel with it, no one else being able to shoot it unless you pay to form trust etc....and participate in what is basically voluntary gun registration. Screw them and their tax stamp Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
nope I would never buy the sig brace I will spend a few dollars more for the stamp wait my time and have a real SBR I honestly still don't understand the logic of the SBR debate since I am able to shoulder a buffer tube. Giving the gov extra amounts of my time and money never appealed to me. However, I remain hopeful that the ATF will go away all together and the suppressor tax stamp along with it. I purchased my AR pistol because I didn't want to pay the $200 tax stamp for an SBR, and in the end, still stand behind my decision to do so. Different strokes but I'd rather put that $200 towards ammo or biting the bullet and getting my suppressor. and the brace is what 125-150? so your saving 50-75 bucks by not stamping? thats barely 100 rounds you can buy with the savings The amount of money for the stamp isn't the issue for me, it's the bending over for the government and having to ask permission to travel with it, no one else being able to shoot it unless you pay to form trust etc....and participate in what is basically voluntary gun registration. Screw them and their tax stamp you can let anybody shoot it trust has nothing to do with that it only states who can have legal possession of item,... forming an NFA item as individual or trust only the person or persons named can have possession/control over it anybody not named can still shoot it,.. in the controlling persons presence I will agree a tax is silly as is NFA but I have nothing to hide I don't wear tinfoil and I want a stock on my rifle and choose not to shoulder a pistol,..again as stated earlier it personal preference, |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 1:22:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
THIS, and the gov doesn't buy back that stamp. I can sell a brace. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
nope I would never buy the sig brace I will spend a few dollars more for the stamp wait my time and have a real SBR I honestly still don't understand the logic of the SBR debate since I am able to shoulder a buffer tube. Giving the gov extra amounts of my time and money never appealed to me. However, I remain hopeful that the ATF will go away all together and the suppressor tax stamp along with it. I purchased my AR pistol because I didn't want to pay the $200 tax stamp for an SBR, and in the end, still stand behind my decision to do so. Different strokes but I'd rather put that $200 towards ammo or biting the bullet and getting my suppressor. and the brace is what 125-150? so your saving 50-75 bucks by not stamping? thats barely 100 rounds you can buy with the savings The amount of money for the stamp isn't the issue for me, it's the bending over for the government and having to ask permission to travel with it, no one else being able to shoot it unless you pay to form trust etc....and participate in what is basically voluntary gun registration. Screw them and their tax stamp THIS, and the gov doesn't buy back that stamp. I can sell a brace. you can sell your NFA it's done all the time yes you have to form 4 it to the buyer and yes it's another 200 for him,...but if you have owned the item for a number of years and you have shot the hell out of it you got your 200 worth out of it |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
