User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 1:25:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 You make a good point. I think I'm just bitter about the whole tax stamp to begin with. Makes my points a little more bias. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 1:38:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You make a good point. I think I'm just bitter about the whole tax stamp to begin with. Makes my points a little more bias. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 You make a good point. I think I'm just bitter about the whole tax stamp to begin with. Makes my points a little more bias. yes I agree with the sillyness of the tax,..but it's better then an absolute no you can not haz ever!,...and think about it, 200 bucks we walk around with that in our pocket as chump change and 1 night out costs you more for dinner and drinks really it's not that much money and we have all dumped more then that on stupider stuff 
not trying to change your mind if a sig brace is what you want get it use it be happy with it 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 2:01:14 PM EDT
[#3]
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, That statement makes you part of the problem IMO, its ok to give up all your privacy and your rights because you have nothing to hide.....brilliant It's not "silly" its criminal as far as I am concerned |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 2:17:17 PM EDT
[#4]
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 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, That statement makes you part of the problem IMO, its ok to give up all your privacy and your rights because you have nothing to hide.....brilliant It's not "silly" its criminal as far as I am concerned well gee I guess if the NRA you myself and all of ARF was around in 1934 shit would be different how do you feel every time you fill out a 4473 your privacy and your rights are involved there but no 200 dollar tax stamp so you don't feel violated filling out that form and having them call you in? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 4:31:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Of course I still feel that way, it is no more right than the tax stamp the difference, besides the $200 is there is no choice involved with the 4473.
Unless I choose to build a lower from scratch but I am not a machinist so for me that isn't an option or buy used which I used to do a lot but now in CO you can't with out jumping through the same hoops. Out of all the guns I have owned over the years only 4 of them have had my name on a 4473 and only two of them are still in my possession. Using a buffer tube cover or a sig brace or just a bare buffer tube and having the ATF call it a pistol is ridiculous but it gets me what I want/need without jumping through their unconstitutional hoops I choose not to participate in the tax stamp BS. If you chose to contribute to their crap then go right ahead, it's not for me. I'm not trying to change your mind, just expressing that it is about way more than a measly $200. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 4:37:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A 12ga can be a pistol, it's just called an AOW. For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term "Any Other Weapon” means:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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:
And you've completely missed the point. It ISN'T an AOW. It ISN'T a pistol. It IS a firearm. If it were a pistol the brace would be shoulderable, but since it's a title I 'firearm' specifically in 12ga the act of shouldering it makes it a SBS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 5:00:22 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And you've completely missed the point. It ISN'T an AOW. It ISN'T a pistol. It IS a firearm. If it were a pistol the brace would be shoulderable, but since it's a title I 'firearm' specifically in 12ga the act of shouldering it makes it a SBS. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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:
And you've completely missed the point. It ISN'T an AOW. It ISN'T a pistol. It IS a firearm. If it were a pistol the brace would be shoulderable, but since it's a title I 'firearm' specifically in 12ga the act of shouldering it makes it a SBS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 5:40:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryYour right that it isn't an AOW, because it's too long, and it isn't a pistol because it's designed to be fired with two hands. It is a Destructive Device because the bore is over .5" and it's not legally a shotgun.
Did you even read the letter? Let me cut this short: "The submitted weapon, as described and depicted above, is a "firearm" subject to GCA provisions; however, IT IS NOT A "FIREARM" as defined by the NFA provided the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock." This spreading of misinfo needs to stop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 6:20:44 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you even read the letter? Let me cut this short: "The submitted weapon, as described and depicted above, is a "firearm" subject to GCA provisions; however, IT IS NOT A "FIREARM" as defined by the NFA provided the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock." This spreading of misinfo needs to stop. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your right that it isn't an AOW, because it's too long, and it isn't a pistol because it's designed to be fired with two hands. It is a Destructive Device because the bore is over .5" and it's not legally a shotgun.
Did you even read the letter? Let me cut this short: "The submitted weapon, as described and depicted above, is a "firearm" subject to GCA provisions; however, IT IS NOT A "FIREARM" as defined by the NFA provided the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock." This spreading of misinfo needs to stop. It is a destructive device unless the provisions for non sporting shotguns have changed. When did that happen? https://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2001-1.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 6:20:53 PM EDT
[#10]
Yes, my home state is Iowa and SBR's are illegal there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 6:21:06 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did you even read the letter? Let me cut this short: "The submitted weapon, as described and depicted above, is a "firearm" subject to GCA provisions; however, IT IS NOT A "FIREARM" as defined by the NFA provided the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock." This spreading of misinfo needs to stop. Quote HistoryQuoted: Your right that it isn't an AOW, because it's too long, and it isn't a pistol because it's designed to be fired with two hands. It is a Destructive Device because the bore is over .5" and it's not legally a shotgun. Did you even read the letter? Let me cut this short: "The submitted weapon, as described and depicted above, is a "firearm" subject to GCA provisions; however, IT IS NOT A "FIREARM" as defined by the NFA provided the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock." This spreading of misinfo needs to stop. <h6 class="rteindent1">Destructive Device</h6> For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term "Destructive Device” means:
Exemptions:
It is not a legal shotgun because it is not designed to be fired from the shoulder (the same reason it's not an SBS), therefore it's not exempted from DD status. 18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions(5)The term "shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 6:34:26 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If I can't strap one to my arm I don't want one  ^ This guy gets it.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 6:41:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exemptions: [ul][li]A shotgun or shotgun shell which is determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. All iterations of the 12ga cartridge are exempted unless specifically mentioned by model name like the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper were. Like it or not they've directly stated that this is a non-NFA item. If you want to argue, argue with them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 6:44:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All iterations of the 12ga cartridge are exempted unless specifically mentioned by model name like the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper were. Like it or not they've directly stated that this is a non-NFA item. If you want to argue, argue with them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Exemptions: [ul][li]A shotgun or shotgun shell which is determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. All iterations of the 12ga cartridge are exempted unless specifically mentioned by model name like the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper were. Like it or not they've directly stated that this is a non-NFA item. If you want to argue, argue with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 7:26:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shotgun shell's are exempted, shotguns (shoulder fired) are generally exempted, this firearm is not. ATF will not prosecute anyone for it right now, but they could realize their error at any time. Their duty is to enforce the law that congress wrote, and the law states this is a DD, whether ATF thinks it is or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Exemptions: [ul][li]A shotgun or shotgun shell which is determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. All iterations of the 12ga cartridge are exempted unless specifically mentioned by model name like the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper were. Like it or not they've directly stated that this is a non-NFA item. If you want to argue, argue with them. By that logic all PGO shotguns are illegal DD's as well. Guess everyone should stop selling those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 8:04:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By that logic all PGO shotguns are illegal DD's as well. Guess everyone should stop selling those. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Exemptions: [ul][li]A shotgun or shotgun shell which is determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. All iterations of the 12ga cartridge are exempted unless specifically mentioned by model name like the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper were. Like it or not they've directly stated that this is a non-NFA item. If you want to argue, argue with them. By that logic all PGO shotguns are illegal DD's as well. Guess everyone should stop selling those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 8:08:18 PM EDT
[#17]
Getting ready to build one now, and it will NOT have the Sig brace on it. Im not even interested in it. You guys can have mine
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 8:12:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IMO they are. I would not buy or sell one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Exemptions: [ul][li]A shotgun or shotgun shell which is determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. All iterations of the 12ga cartridge are exempted unless specifically mentioned by model name like the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper were. Like it or not they've directly stated that this is a non-NFA item. If you want to argue, argue with them. By that logic all PGO shotguns are illegal DD's as well. Guess everyone should stop selling those. Riiight. Well, as I already stated, any firearm chambered in 12ga is exempted from DD regulations as the 12ga cartridge itself has a sporting exemption. The only exemption exceptions are, as already mentioned, the USAS, Striker, and Streetsweeper lines. Unless the ATF decides to except another batch of by-name models, it's going to stay that way. If you want to keep being paranoid about something we have a physical letter directly from the ATF on that's your prerogative. If they go back on their ruling I'll gladly eat my words but at the current point and time it is 100% legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 8:53:48 PM EDT
[#19]
I had two AR pistols long before the SIG brace was a glint in anyone's eye. So in answer to the question, I had them before the SIG brace so I would have them after. The brace is not that big a deal to me. Nice to have but far from a deal breaker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 10:26:08 PM EDT
[#20]
I broke my elbow after planting my KTM last year and need the brace for extra support, so no, I wouldn't buy one without the brace.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/20/2014 10:28:29 PM EDT
[#21]
I built my first pistols as soon as the AWB sunset in 2004. So, yes. I would still have them if there was no sig brace.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2014 9:49:31 PM EDT
[#22]
I built my first AR pistol sans brace; so that answers that question.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 1:21:45 AM EDT
[#23]
I have owned an AR pistol w/ 7.5" barrel for several years, now with 12" barrel- and still like it the way it was/ is. Then shot my 2nd AR pistol w/ 10" barrel last week, and realized I have no need for Sig brace whatsoever. A stock (SBR) might make a bit more different, but I can live with - as is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2014 1:28:24 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. except i stuck the foam back on. Took up too much space in my small safe. added bulk to the gun |
|
|
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.
