User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:14:20 AM EDT
[#1]
I like my pistol just fine with the 550 wrapped tube.
There's little recoil and I don't do mag dumps. I don't see ever getting one or a stamp for that matter. (I'm too cheap for the stamp  )
At this point I enjoy shooting the pistol over the rifles and I find that I forget to extend and shoulder the stock on the rifle. Build what you want and shoot what you want. Hell, hang gun nuts on if you want! And I think the ATF could have very easily gone the other way with the brace and even AR pistols. It is a stretch to say that something that takes two hands is a pistol. Hopefully we have someone there that is actually working to help get around some of these stupid and meaningless laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 3:32:01 AM EDT
[#2]
If the SB15 was half the price I would bite. At $125ea it's not at the top of my list.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 9:39:12 AM EDT
[#3]
I have been seeing them for around $100.00 shipped on some dealer websites. They are not for everyone and to each his own. I like mine and am sorry I waited so long to get it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 12:02:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
when I bring my pistol to the range, half of the people I meet seem programmed to say GET A SIG BRACE even if they have never actually used one. <a href="http://imgbox.com/auqrE5TA" target="_blank">http://7.t.imgbox.com/auqrE5TA.jpg</a> I am fine with the shooting position of my padded buffer tube & my brake keeps recoil manageable. The reason is that you are use to the idea of a big fat long tube sticking from the butt of your pistol while to 99.9% of the world it looks ridiculous. I never even considered an AR pistol other than the piston driven tubeless type until the Sig brace came out. I got a SBX and it looks and feels like a rifle while being a pistol. I just could never get over how goofy and pointless the AR pistols looked to me before the Sig brace. At least with the brace the pistol buffer tube has a point and I like things to have a purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 3:16:57 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The reason is that you are use to the idea of a big fat long tube sticking from the butt of your pistol while to 99.9% of the world it looks ridiculous. I never even considered an AR pistol other than the piston driven tubeless type until the Sig brace came out. I got a SBX and it looks and feels like a rifle while being a pistol. I just could never get over how goofy and pointless the AR pistols looked to me before the Sig brace. At least with the brace the pistol buffer tube has a point and I like things to have a purpose. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
when I bring my pistol to the range, half of the people I meet seem programmed to say GET A SIG BRACE even if they have never actually used one. <a href="http://imgbox.com/auqrE5TA" target="_blank">http://7.t.imgbox.com/auqrE5TA.jpg</a> I am fine with the shooting position of my padded buffer tube & my brake keeps recoil manageable. The reason is that you are use to the idea of a big fat long tube sticking from the butt of your pistol while to 99.9% of the world it looks ridiculous. I never even considered an AR pistol other than the piston driven tubeless type until the Sig brace came out. I got a SBX and it looks and feels like a rifle while being a pistol. I just could never get over how goofy and pointless the AR pistols looked to me before the Sig brace. At least with the brace the pistol buffer tube has a point and I like things to have a purpose. Funny enough I was 100% with you...then I shot one without the brace. Like many here, I thought the AR pistol was a stupid looking thing that was pointless. When I found out about he SIG brace, it immediately put an AR pistol on my list. I found one and picked it up. That day I bought a SIG brace online. Funny enough, the brace arrive BEFORE my awesome Illinois "cool down period" was over. The day I went back to pick up the pistol, i took it by the range as-is to make sure it was 100% functional before I started slapping stuff on it. So...I shot it shouldering the pistol buffer tube. I was immediately shocked at how easy it was to fire like that. I landed up installing the brace anyway but never really grew to love it because of that first time out with the much lighter buffer tube. So...I sold the SIG. All of my buddies that have shot my pistol are surprised at how comfortable it is to shoot...will I say it is a replacement for a butt-stock? Hell no. But it is a good package that few think will work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 8:46:33 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The reason is that you are use to the idea of a big fat long tube sticking from the butt of your pistol while to 99.9% of the world it looks ridiculous. I never even considered an AR pistol other than the piston driven tubeless type until the Sig brace came out. I got a SBX and it looks and feels like a rifle while being a pistol. I just could never get over how goofy and pointless the AR pistols looked to me before the Sig brace. At least with the brace the pistol buffer tube has a point and I like things to have a purpose. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
when I bring my pistol to the range, half of the people I meet seem programmed to say GET A SIG BRACE even if they have never actually used one. <a href="http://imgbox.com/auqrE5TA" target="_blank">http://7.t.imgbox.com/auqrE5TA.jpg</a> I am fine with the shooting position of my padded buffer tube & my brake keeps recoil manageable. The reason is that you are use to the idea of a big fat long tube sticking from the butt of your pistol while to 99.9% of the world it looks ridiculous. I never even considered an AR pistol other than the piston driven tubeless type until the Sig brace came out. I got a SBX and it looks and feels like a rifle while being a pistol. I just could never get over how goofy and pointless the AR pistols looked to me before the Sig brace. At least with the brace the pistol buffer tube has a point and I like things to have a purpose. Thank god for the brace on the RE to give it purpose, that damn pesky action spring and buffer are just silly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 10:00:33 PM EDT
[#7]
There are a lot of differences between a pistol and an SBR from a legal standpoint. Not trying to get into the whole legal debate here but SBR is an NFA item. That means registration and control over use... like crossing state lines for example. A pistol on the other hand has a few advantages. Being a pistol is can be legally concealed (considering local laws) and requires no federal level registration. It all about what you want and what you can have. Maybe you can't have an SBR because of local regulations but you can have an ar15 pistol. Maybe you can't have an ar15 pistol but you can have an SBR... Its all about your purposes for that system. SB15 or not. I want a truck gun... Maybe I can't legally conceal a rifle and have it loaded in a vehicle.... But maybe I can have a concealed and loaded pistol... Considerations to be made here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:39:23 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are a lot of differences between a pistol and an SBR from a legal standpoint. Not trying to get into the whole legal debate here but SBR is an NFA item. That means registration and control over use... like crossing state lines for example. A pistol on the other hand has a few advantages. Being a pistol is can be legally concealed (considering local laws) and requires no federal level registration. It all about what you want and what you can have. Maybe you can't have an SBR because of local regulations but you can have an ar15 pistol. Maybe you can't have an ar15 pistol but you can have an SBR... Its all about your purposes for that system. SB15 or not. I want a truck gun... Maybe I can't legally conceal a rifle and have it loaded in a vehicle.... But maybe I can have a concealed and loaded pistol... Considerations to be made here.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:41:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No problem. The UCIW thing is cool, but when I got my first brace, I didn't like the contact between my face and the charging handle, and ended up going with an extended buffer tube to move the Sig brace back a bit. Do you actually fire your shorties with the stock collapsed all the way, and if so, how do you deal with the charging handle in the face thing? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not a brace hater. I just prefer my shorties to be shorter and mid+ range firearms to have better cheekweld (SOPMOD or VLTOR style). That's why I've been thinking about switching my pistol lower to a Thordsen tube. Sorry if I came across wrong in my earlier post, I wasn't trying to be unfriendly. No problem. The UCIW thing is cool, but when I got my first brace, I didn't like the contact between my face and the charging handle, and ended up going with an extended buffer tube to move the Sig brace back a bit. Do you actually fire your shorties with the stock collapsed all the way, and if so, how do you deal with the charging handle in the face thing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:19:10 AM EDT
[#10]
and the #1 reason for a Sig brace over a SBR is...
You can't CC a SBR |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 1:54:24 PM EDT
[#11]
One of the beautiful things about this country is you can pretty much own what you like (as long as it's not in one of the fascist states/territories). I have a Colt factory 6933 SBR and a handful of pistols with SIG Braces on them. As far as what I keep in the truck for everyday use, I won't cry (too much) if a pistol with SIG Brace gets stolen from my truck. I would be devastated if someone stole my 6933 (safe queen). I'm just hoping some ding dong doesn't get the whole SIG Brace thing reversed on us. As far as charging handle touching my nose, it doesn't reciprocate and that's the way they taught us to do it in Marine Basic PMI (and if memory serves correctly, they still make the best riflemen).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 9:26:38 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No doubt that there are reasons to build a pistol instead of an SBR, but keep in mind the legal definition of an SBR is a weapon intended or designed to be fired from the shoulder. Make sure any pistol you build isn't intended or designed to be fired from the shoulder ATF has a letter out saying they can not recommend using the brace in ways other than intended, but using the brace from the shoulder does not change the classification of the weapon. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 9:43:40 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATF has a letter out saying they can not recommend using the brace in ways other than intended, but using the brace from the shoulder does not change the classification of the weapon. http://thearmsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ATF-AR-pistol-memo-1.pdf Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No doubt that there are reasons to build a pistol instead of an SBR, but keep in mind the legal definition of an SBR is a weapon intended or designed to be fired from the shoulder. Make sure any pistol you build isn't intended or designed to be fired from the shoulder ATF has a letter out saying they can not recommend using the brace in ways other than intended, but using the brace from the shoulder does not change the classification of the weapon. http://thearmsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ATF-AR-pistol-memo-1.pdf What's important is the letter of the law. If you build it, and you intend to shoulder it, your build meets the legal definition of a rifle as you are the maker of the firearm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:03:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They also have a letter saying if you shoulder you are the maker of an SBR. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No doubt that there are reasons to build a pistol instead of an SBR, but keep in mind the legal definition of an SBR is a weapon intended or designed to be fired from the shoulder. Make sure any pistol you build isn't intended or designed to be fired from the shoulder ATF has a letter out saying they can not recommend using the brace in ways other than intended, but using the brace from the shoulder does not change the classification of the weapon. http://thearmsguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/ATF-AR-pistol-memo-1.pdf Only in the case of the Black Aces "shotgun firearm". Quoted:What's important is the letter of the law. If you build it, and you intend to shoulder it, your build meets the legal definition of a rifle as you are the maker of the firearm. That's better. And you don't even have to shoulder it. If you made it with intent to shoulder it, it's an SBR soon as the brace is added. If you didn't make it with that intent, you can still misuse it by shouldering it. Contrast that to the Blade, which is said to be illegal to shoulder period. On any firearm. It's seldom mentioned: - ONLY the SB15 has been mentioned in any of the letters so far, not the SB47 or SBX. - The original approval letter was only to Alex Bosco, for his prototype.SIG may well have gotten verbal confirmation from ATF before starting production, but apparently there was never a formal letter determination. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:04:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Just want to remind everyone that the LEGAL definition of a pistol has NOT changed with the introduction of a pistol brace.
An opinion letter is NOT a law passed by congress. If the FTB said that pistols could only be fired with one hand, would you all piss your pants?????? If you own a pistol, you own a pistol, there is NOT a law that dictates how it must be fired........ Why all the hub-bub over these braces???? Fire your pistol however you want to....next to your ear, from your crotch, your foot, etc etc etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:08:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just want to remind everyone that the LEGAL definition of a pistol has NOT changed with the introduction of a pistol brace. An opinion letter is NOT a law passed by congress. If the FTB said that pistols could only be fired with one hand, would you all piss your pants?????? If you own a pistol, you own a pistol, there is NOT a law that dictates how it must be fired........ Why all the hub-bub over these braces???? Fire your pistol however you want to....next to your ear, from your crotch, your foot, etc etc etc. The point of the letter under discussion is that if the brace is added with the intention of shoulder firing, it is indeed no longer a pistol. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:14:38 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The point of the letter under discussion is that if the brace is added with the intention of shoulder firing, it is indeed no longer a pistol. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just want to remind everyone that the LEGAL definition of a pistol has NOT changed with the introduction of a pistol brace. An opinion letter is NOT a law passed by congress. If the FTB said that pistols could only be fired with one hand, would you all piss your pants?????? If you own a pistol, you own a pistol, there is NOT a law that dictates how it must be fired........ Why all the hub-bub over these braces???? Fire your pistol however you want to....next to your ear, from your crotch, your foot, etc etc etc. The point of the letter under discussion is that if the brace is added with the intention of shoulder firing, it is indeed no longer a pistol. - OS What law would I be breaking? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:18:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What law would I be breaking? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just want to remind everyone that the LEGAL definition of a pistol has NOT changed with the introduction of a pistol brace. An opinion letter is NOT a law passed by congress. If the FTB said that pistols could only be fired with one hand, would you all piss your pants?????? If you own a pistol, you own a pistol, there is NOT a law that dictates how it must be fired........ Why all the hub-bub over these braces???? Fire your pistol however you want to....next to your ear, from your crotch, your foot, etc etc etc. The point of the letter under discussion is that if the brace is added with the intention of shoulder firing, it is indeed no longer a pistol. - OS What law would I be breaking? Letter argument: if such is your intent, you have made a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder that has a barrel of less than 16" and/or is less than 26" in overall length. Since rifle definition includes "designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder", you have made an SBR. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:20:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Letter argument: if such is your intent, you have made a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder that has a barrel of less than 16" and/or less than 26" in overall length. Since rifle definition includes "designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder", you have made an SBR. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just want to remind everyone that the LEGAL definition of a pistol has NOT changed with the introduction of a pistol brace. An opinion letter is NOT a law passed by congress. If the FTB said that pistols could only be fired with one hand, would you all piss your pants?????? If you own a pistol, you own a pistol, there is NOT a law that dictates how it must be fired........ Why all the hub-bub over these braces???? Fire your pistol however you want to....next to your ear, from your crotch, your foot, etc etc etc. The point of the letter under discussion is that if the brace is added with the intention of shoulder firing, it is indeed no longer a pistol. - OS What law would I be breaking? Letter argument: if such is your intent, you have made a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder that has a barrel of less than 16" and/or less than 26" in overall length. Since rifle definition includes "designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder", you have made an SBR. - OS I'm not sure of the legal definition of "letter argument". Can you point me to a law that says I have to fire a pistol in a certain way or case law that says that "letter argument" is law? Not being argumentative, here. -Mulholland |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:21:13 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only in the case of the Black Aces "shotgun firearm". That's better. And you don't even have to shoulder it. If you made it with intent to shoulder it, it's an SBR soon as the brace is added. If you didn't make it with that intent, you can still misuse it by shouldering it. Contrast that to the Blade, which is said to be illegal to shoulder period. On any firearm. It's seldom mentioned: - ONLY the SB15 has been mentioned in any of the letters so far, not the SB47 or SBX. - The original approval letter was only to Alex Bosco, for his prototype.SIG may well have gotten verbal confirmation from ATF before starting production, but apparently there was never a formal letter determination. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: SNIP Only in the case of the Black Aces "shotgun firearm". Quoted:What's important is the letter of the law. If you build it, and you intend to shoulder it, your build meets the legal definition of a rifle as you are the maker of the firearm. That's better. And you don't even have to shoulder it. If you made it with intent to shoulder it, it's an SBR soon as the brace is added. If you didn't make it with that intent, you can still misuse it by shouldering it. Contrast that to the Blade, which is said to be illegal to shoulder period. On any firearm. It's seldom mentioned: - ONLY the SB15 has been mentioned in any of the letters so far, not the SB47 or SBX. - The original approval letter was only to Alex Bosco, for his prototype.SIG may well have gotten verbal confirmation from ATF before starting production, but apparently there was never a formal letter determination. - OS    Whatever method the ATF believes turns a Sig brace equipped pistol into rifle would apply to the other braces, for that matter it should apply to the tube itself. Remember that US code doesn't even use the word Stock in the definition of a rifle. Here is the text of the US Code - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 (7) The term "rifle” 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 only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger. It seems apparent to me that if you are building a pistol or "other" firearm from the ground up, your intent comes into play. I disagree with what appears to be the new ATF's opinion of "remaking" a firearm where all it takes to make a factory Sig Braced equipped pistol into an SBR is to shoulder it and you become the "maker" of a new NFA weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:25:43 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not sure of the legal definition of "letter argument". Can you point me to a law that says I have to fire a pistol in a certain way or case law that says that "letter argument" is law? Not being argumentative, here. -Mulholland Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: SNIP I'm not sure of the legal definition of "letter argument". Can you point me to a law that says I have to fire a pistol in a certain way or case law that says that "letter argument" is law? Not being argumentative, here. -Mulholland If we consider that the ATF has long held that adding a VFG to a Glock or other pistol makes it an AOW - and the person doing so is the maker/remaker of the new NFA item, it makes sense that simply adding a brace to your previously assembled pistol - if done with the plan to shoulder it - would break current law as written. (Albeit it would be almost impossible to prove.)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:27:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure of the legal definition of "letter argument". Can you point me to a law that says I have to fire a pistol in a certain way or case law that says that "letter argument" is law? Not being argumentative, here. -Mulholland Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just want to remind everyone that the LEGAL definition of a pistol has NOT changed with the introduction of a pistol brace. An opinion letter is NOT a law passed by congress. If the FTB said that pistols could only be fired with one hand, would you all piss your pants?????? If you own a pistol, you own a pistol, there is NOT a law that dictates how it must be fired........ Why all the hub-bub over these braces???? Fire your pistol however you want to....next to your ear, from your crotch, your foot, etc etc etc. The point of the letter under discussion is that if the brace is added with the intention of shoulder firing, it is indeed no longer a pistol. - OS What law would I be breaking? Letter argument: if such is your intent, you have made a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder that has a barrel of less than 16" and/or less than 26" in overall length. Since rifle definition includes "designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder", you have made an SBR. - OS I'm not sure of the legal definition of "letter argument". Can you point me to a law that says I have to fire a pistol in a certain way or case law that says that "letter argument" is law? Not being argumentative, here. -Mulholland Again, they're saying it's not a pistol anymore depending on intent. And you don't have to fire it from the shoulder to have made it an SBR. If you make it with intent to fire from shoulder, it's an SBR as soon as you attach the brace. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:31:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Fudds
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:34:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... It seems apparent to me that if you are building a pistol or "other" firearm from the ground up, your intent comes into play. I disagree with what appears to be the new ATF's opinion of "remaking" a firearm where all it takes to make a factory Sig Braced equipped pistol into an SBR is to shoulder it and you become the "maker" of a new NFA weapon. Again, letter is not saying you even have to fire it from the shoulder to be in violation. If your intent is to do so, it's unlawful as soon as you put the brace on it. Myself, I can't ever see this lame "intent" thing cutting it, impossible to really enforce either in practical or legal sense. I mean, c'mon, if you "intended" to fire it from the shoulder when you added the brace, it's an SBR whether you actually ever did fire it from the shoulder or not. But if you didn't "intend" to do that, then it's okay to fire it from the shoulder. Right, that'll fly with the legal system. Even though the USC uses "intended" in the definitional wording of rifle and handgun, I still think that ultimately will equate to "stock" if it continues to be opined on that level. That has always been the ATF's de facto determination of an SBR, having a stock. So I think if it ever gets to courts, "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" will be still be determined by whether the firearm has a stock on it or not. Simple out for ATF of course, they can just reverse their decision on these things and call them stocks. Or require some sort of paperwork from actual handicapped persons to allow them to use them on their arms. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:40:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, letter is not saying you even have to fire it from the shoulder to be in violation. If your intent is to do so, it's unlawful as soon as you put the brace on it. Myself, I can't ever see this lame "intent" thing cutting it, impossible to really enforce either in practical or legal sense. I mean, c'mon, if you "intended" to fire it from the shoulder when you added the brace, it's an SBR whether you actually ever did fire it from the shoulder or not. But if you didn't "intend" to do that, then it's okay to fire it from the shoulder. Right, that'll fly with the legal system. Even though the USC uses "intended" in the definitional wording of rifle and handgun, I still think that ultimately will equate to "stock" if it continues to be opined on that level. That has always been the ATF's de facto determination of an SBR, having a stock. So I think if it ever gets to courts, "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" will be still be determined by whether the firearm has a stock on it or not. Simple out for ATF of course, they can just reverse their decision on these things and call them stocks. Or require some sort of paperwork from actual handicapped persons to allow them to use them on their arms. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... It seems apparent to me that if you are building a pistol or "other" firearm from the ground up, your intent comes into play. I disagree with what appears to be the new ATF's opinion of "remaking" a firearm where all it takes to make a factory Sig Braced equipped pistol into an SBR is to shoulder it and you become the "maker" of a new NFA weapon. Again, letter is not saying you even have to fire it from the shoulder to be in violation. If your intent is to do so, it's unlawful as soon as you put the brace on it. Myself, I can't ever see this lame "intent" thing cutting it, impossible to really enforce either in practical or legal sense. I mean, c'mon, if you "intended" to fire it from the shoulder when you added the brace, it's an SBR whether you actually ever did fire it from the shoulder or not. But if you didn't "intend" to do that, then it's okay to fire it from the shoulder. Right, that'll fly with the legal system. Even though the USC uses "intended" in the definitional wording of rifle and handgun, I still think that ultimately will equate to "stock" if it continues to be opined on that level. That has always been the ATF's de facto determination of an SBR, having a stock. So I think if it ever gets to courts, "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" will be still be determined by whether the firearm has a stock on it or not. Simple out for ATF of course, they can just reverse their decision on these things and call them stocks. Or require some sort of paperwork from actual handicapped persons to allow them to use them on their arms. - OS While the primary design was intended for handicapped persons, it's a legal way to shoot the firearm. I don't see that happening either. Ideally any charges brought against someone for intent to build an SBR with a sig brace would first get struck as a 2nd amendment violation and secondly as unconstitutionally vague.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:42:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and the #1 reason for a Sig brace over a SBR is... You can't CC a SBR I can have a loaded SBR concealed in my vehicle in Nebraska so that is state dependant. I like my Thordsen tube w/ CAA saddle but my SBR's are easier to use. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:47:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, they're saying it's not a pistol anymore depending on intent. And you don't have to fire it from the shoulder to have made it an SBR. If you make it with intent to fire from shoulder, it's an SBR as soon as you attach the brace. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What law would I be breaking? Letter argument: if such is your intent, you have made a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder that has a barrel of less than 16" and/or less than 26" in overall length. Since rifle definition includes "designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder", you have made an SBR. - OS I'm not sure of the legal definition of "letter argument". Can you point me to a law that says I have to fire a pistol in a certain way or case law that says that "letter argument" is law? Not being argumentative, here. -Mulholland Again, they're saying it's not a pistol anymore depending on intent. And you don't have to fire it from the shoulder to have made it an SBR. If you make it with intent to fire from shoulder, it's an SBR as soon as you attach the brace. - OS You can't cite a law; I get it. Maybe you've paid $200 or more to be allowed to fire a weapon(s) from an arbitrary barrel or overall length, maybe you haven't, But nothing has changed: a pistol is a pistol and an opinion letter in just that: an opinion. If the law changes, I will be the first guy to plop down $200 to fire a pistol in a way in which they decree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:47:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can have a loaded SBR concealed in my vehicle in Nebraska so that is state dependant. I like my Thordsen tube w/ CAA saddle but my SBR's are easier to use. http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee30/jlficken/2014-12-13182735_zps0a80e858.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: and the #1 reason for a Sig brace over a SBR is... You can't CC a SBR I can have a loaded SBR concealed in my vehicle in Nebraska so that is state dependant. I like my Thordsen tube w/ CAA saddle but my SBR's are easier to use. http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee30/jlficken/2014-12-13182735_zps0a80e858.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:48:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think trying to do that would open them up to a lawsuit they would lose. While the primary design was intended for handicapped persons, it's a legal way to shoot the firearm. I don't see that happening either. Ideally any charges brought against someone for intent to build an SBR with a sig brace would first get struck as a 2nd amendment violation and secondly as unconstitutionally vague. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... It seems apparent to me that if you are building a pistol or "other" firearm from the ground up, your intent comes into play. I disagree with what appears to be the new ATF's opinion of "remaking" a firearm where all it takes to make a factory Sig Braced equipped pistol into an SBR is to shoulder it and you become the "maker" of a new NFA weapon. Again, letter is not saying you even have to fire it from the shoulder to be in violation. If your intent is to do so, it's unlawful as soon as you put the brace on it. Myself, I can't ever see this lame "intent" thing cutting it, impossible to really enforce either in practical or legal sense. I mean, c'mon, if you "intended" to fire it from the shoulder when you added the brace, it's an SBR whether you actually ever did fire it from the shoulder or not. But if you didn't "intend" to do that, then it's okay to fire it from the shoulder. Right, that'll fly with the legal system. Even though the USC uses "intended" in the definitional wording of rifle and handgun, I still think that ultimately will equate to "stock" if it continues to be opined on that level. That has always been the ATF's de facto determination of an SBR, having a stock. So I think if it ever gets to courts, "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" will be still be determined by whether the firearm has a stock on it or not. Simple out for ATF of course, they can just reverse their decision on these things and call them stocks. Or require some sort of paperwork from actual handicapped persons to allow them to use them on their arms. - OS While the primary design was intended for handicapped persons, it's a legal way to shoot the firearm. I don't see that happening either. Ideally any charges brought against someone for intent to build an SBR with a sig brace would first get struck as a 2nd amendment violation and secondly as unconstitutionally vague. With all the other federal restrictions on 2A from 1935 forward, can't see grounds for that. Vague, perhaps. But I see it more regarding the intent part. It's not a crime in tenets of jurisprudence to "intend" to commit a crime, has to rise to the level of "attempt". The day the courts uphold the idea that between two identically lawfully configured firearms, one is perfectly legal to possess and even to fire from the shoulder, but even possessing its twin is a felony, just because of what was in a person's mind when he constructed it, our Minority Report society wlll have truly arrived. Now, if ATF maintains that simply using the brace against shoulder on any firearm with short barrel is illegal, they'd actually have a better leg to stand on seems to me, but again they'd have their whole history of only maintaining that certain configurations are unlawful, and never the usage of an otherwise lawful configuration. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:48:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can't cite a law; I get it. Maybe you've paid $200 or more to be allowed to fire a weapon(s) from an arbitrary barrel or overall length, maybe you haven't, But nothing has changed: a pistol is a pistol and an opinion letter in just that: an opinion. If the law changes, I will be the first guy to plop down $200 to fire a pistol in a way in which they decree. Quote HistoryQuoted: SNIP You can't cite a law; I get it. Maybe you've paid $200 or more to be allowed to fire a weapon(s) from an arbitrary barrel or overall length, maybe you haven't, But nothing has changed: a pistol is a pistol and an opinion letter in just that: an opinion. If the law changes, I will be the first guy to plop down $200 to fire a pistol in a way in which they decree.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:52:10 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I cited the law Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
SNIP You can't cite a law; I get it. Maybe you've paid $200 or more to be allowed to fire a weapon(s) from an arbitrary barrel or overall length, maybe you haven't, But nothing has changed: a pistol is a pistol and an opinion letter in just that: an opinion. If the law changes, I will be the first guy to plop down $200 to fire a pistol in a way in which they decree. The "intended" thing? Well, I'm not INTENDING to shoulder a pistol thereby making it an SBR somehow. So, I'm good, right? (Based on the cited law.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:53:21 PM EDT
[#32]
The letter talks about making, remaking, designing, and redesigning. Those are terms used for manufacturers which is defined as: U.S.C 18 Section 931 (a)(10)The term “manufacturer” means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term “licensed manufacturer” means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.
Putting parts that have already been designed by a manufacturer, and approved for a purpose or intent by ATF are not redesigned by individual use. The letter last shown contradicts itself more than once, both in US codes cited in what constitutes manufacturing of a firearm. Putting parts that are intended to be used with other parts in a configuration that is legal has no bearing on how you intend to carry it, fire it, or look at it with crossed eyes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:57:52 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The "intended" thing? Well, I'm not INTENDING to shoulder a pistol thereby making it an SBR somehow. So, I'm good, right? (Based on the cited law.) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: SNIP You can't cite a law; I get it. Maybe you've paid $200 or more to be allowed to fire a weapon(s) from an arbitrary barrel or overall length, maybe you haven't, But nothing has changed: a pistol is a pistol and an opinion letter in just that: an opinion. If the law changes, I will be the first guy to plop down $200 to fire a pistol in a way in which they decree. The "intended" thing? Well, I'm not INTENDING to shoulder a pistol thereby making it an SBR somehow. So, I'm good, right? (Based on the cited law.) If you wish to avoid risk it would be prudent to spend the $200 on a tax stamp, or at least don't tell people you like to shoulder your brace - especially not on the internet where everyone can see it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 10:59:49 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The letter talks about making, remaking, designing, and redesigning. Those are terms used for manufacturers which is defined as: U.S.C 18 Section 931 (a)(10)The term "manufacturer” means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term "licensed manufacturer” means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter. Putting parts that have already been designed by a manufacturer, and approved for a purpose or intent by ATF are not redesigned by individual use. The letter last shown contradicts itself more than once, both in US codes cited in what constitutes manufacturing of a firearm. Putting parts that are intended to be used with other parts in a configuration that is legal has no bearing on how you intend to carry it, fire it, or look at it with crossed eyes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 11:03:37 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It appears at this point that ATF has decided shouldering the pistol shows your intent to remake a firearm and commits the act of remaking a firearm. While I do not think it will hold up in court anyone could be prosecuted for it. If you have the $50,000 you'll need to beat the charge and are confident you can win, then go right ahead. If you are confident you won't ever face charges for it (hey, you probably won't - how many people get caught with their unregistered machineguns) then do as you please. If you wish to avoid risk it would be prudent to spend the $200 on a tax stamp, or at least don't tell people you like to shoulder your brace - especially not on the internet where everyone can see it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
SNIP You can't cite a law; I get it. Maybe you've paid $200 or more to be allowed to fire a weapon(s) from an arbitrary barrel or overall length, maybe you haven't, But nothing has changed: a pistol is a pistol and an opinion letter in just that: an opinion. If the law changes, I will be the first guy to plop down $200 to fire a pistol in a way in which they decree. The "intended" thing? Well, I'm not INTENDING to shoulder a pistol thereby making it an SBR somehow. So, I'm good, right? (Based on the cited law.) If you wish to avoid risk it would be prudent to spend the $200 on a tax stamp, or at least don't tell people you like to shoulder your brace - especially not on the internet where everyone can see it. I hear ya, I really do. I am just unwillingly to be frightened by an opinion letter that does not hold ANY water. My pistol is a pistol until the law declared it otherwise. By the way (in case anyone asks), my intent on building a pistol was to build a pistol, but stabilizing it is attractive. :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 11:13:08 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:....
I hear ya, I really do. I am just unwillingly to be frightened by an opinion letter that does not hold ANY water. My pistol is a pistol until the law declared it otherwise. By the way (in case anyone asks), my intent on building a pistol was to build a pistol, but stabilizing it is attractive. :) My prediction is that nothing in particular will happen. ATF will simply continue it's traditional culture of FUD and linguistic intimidation with more conflicting and confusing letter determinations. Actually charging someone would open the gates to a final judicial decision. The last time they did that on a minute point of law led to the Thompson decision, which liberalized construction and possession parameters for all firearms owners. I imagine the first person actually prosecuted would find ample sources of free legal firepower in various ways. Even I would kick in a Jackson, maybe even a Franklin. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 11:14:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
]In the NFA world those terms do not apply just to manufacturer's as defined in U.S.C 18 Section 931 (a)(10) - they apply to individuals that decide to make a firearm. You can be a maker without being a manufacturer. I'd love to see the U.S.C. Defining what a "Maker" of a firearm is. :) Actually, the USC's define exactly what the NFA stance is. Nothing in the codes does it mention "intent to use as" or "Intent to Fire as". As far as I can tell, Constructive Intent is about as far as they will go where intent is concerned and more than likely, they will only go there when you are already in a crapstorm for something else. That letter is using terms that hold no legal weight, on top of it, the USCs are being cited incorrectly. If you really want get technical, 2 hand grips on your 1911 need to end too. Handguns are designed to be fired with 1 hand. If you purchase it with the intent to use a 2 hand grip, then you breaking the law under your own logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 11:17:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd love to see the U.S.C. Defining what a "Maker" of a firearm is. :) Actually, the USC's define exactly what the NFA stance is. Nothing in the codes does it mention "intent to use as" or "Intent to Fire as". As far as I can tell, Constructive Intent is about as far as they will go where intent is concerned and more than likely, they will only go there when you are already in a crapstorm for something else. That letter is using terms that hold no legal weight, on top of it, the USCs are being cited incorrectly. If you really want get technical, 2 hand grips on your 1911 need to end too. Handguns are designed to be fired with 1 hand. If you purchase it with the intent to use a 2 hand grip for stability, then you breaking the law under your own logic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ]In the NFA world those terms do not apply just to manufacturer's as defined in U.S.C 18 Section 931 (a)(10) - they apply to individuals that decide to make a firearm. You can be a maker without being a manufacturer. I'd love to see the U.S.C. Defining what a "Maker" of a firearm is. :) Actually, the USC's define exactly what the NFA stance is. Nothing in the codes does it mention "intent to use as" or "Intent to Fire as". As far as I can tell, Constructive Intent is about as far as they will go where intent is concerned and more than likely, they will only go there when you are already in a crapstorm for something else. That letter is using terms that hold no legal weight, on top of it, the USCs are being cited incorrectly. If you really want get technical, 2 hand grips on your 1911 need to end too. Handguns are designed to be fired with 1 hand. If you purchase it with the intent to use a 2 hand grip for stability, then you breaking the law under your own logic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 11:24:53 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would be ATF's current logic on the brace, which I believe is not compliant with the law.[/span] The fact that I have to fill out a form 1 to build an SBR and put myself down as the maker shows a person can be a legal maker without being a manufacturer. The law in that regard mentions nothing of intent. It just mentions "Designed to be". In both cases. Nothing in the law says you MUST use those firearms as originally designed. Do you think those ATF guys coming to beat down our door for our firearms when the end times begin are going to be holding their handguns with 1 hand or 2? The letter of the law allows it free and clear, No question. If there was any doubt of its legality, they wouldn't be writing letters to people saying the SB15 does not change the classification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2015 2:49:07 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are 3 types of people who dislike the SB-15 (and the new one, whatever it's called) 1) Petty crybabies who are upset that you didn't pay $200 for an SBR stamp like they did. 2) Tories who are cowards and yes-men that wet the bed when any free man takes a stand. 3) People who have a legitimate reason like its heavy weight. I can respect #3, but #1 and #2 are losers. LOL 100% agree haters will be haters. I believe most people who are so upset and want to quote tax evasion ect.. are more concerned about their investments and would vote against any law that would repeal the NFA act because then that $20,000 auto sear they bought would be worthless just MHO 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2015 9:17:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd love to see the U.S.C. Defining what a "Maker" of a firearm is. :) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ]In the NFA world those terms do not apply just to manufacturer's as defined in U.S.C 18 Section 931 (a)(10) - they apply to individuals that decide to make a firearm. You can be a maker without being a manufacturer. I'd love to see the U.S.C. Defining what a "Maker" of a firearm is. :) "Make The term "make”, and the various derivatives of such word, shall include manufacturing (other than by one qualified to engage in such business under this chapter), putting together, altering, any combination of these, or otherwise producing a firearm. " If you make(v)you are a maker(n). It's of the "various derivatives of such word". |
|
|
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.
