User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 11:34:35 PM EDT
[#1]
The wording of that approval letter is pretty scary though. It's quite different than the Sig letter.
http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?p=2114 |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 11:47:47 PM EDT
[#2]
I'm not a lawyer nor did I stay in a holiday inn express recently.... with that wording I would think "improper" use would be bad, youtube videos displaying improper use
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 12:11:30 AM EDT
[#3]
I was excited about this...but the SB has grown on me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 12:12:19 AM EDT
[#4]
There will be a court suit to decide this "usage" thing eventually.
We now have conflicting ruling letters about the use of a product on a firearm as separate from the mere legality of having it on the firearm. The second ruling on the SIG brace was "improperly" using it did not change the classification. Now we have this and the Black Aces ruling which say usage determines legality, Now we have this and the Black Aces ruling which say usage determines legality, in essence that "improper" use would change the classification of the firearm to an SBR. Never in history of ATF has there been any kind of ruling about how you fire a firearm, only whether the configuration is legal or not. I suspect anyone charged for illegal usage of a legally configured firearm would not be convicted. But if they were, would be stuck down on appeal, and that would be validated by SCOTUS if the feds took it that far. There is simply no justification in the USC for this. There is no difference between this and shooting a stocked weapon from the hip, a handgun with two hands, or the feller who fires his 1911 with his feet, so they could say those behaviors are illegal also. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 12:18:15 AM EDT
[#5]
I do not like the wording in that letter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 12:30:28 AM EDT
[#6]
They also have the pages mis-linked, trying to get larger readable view of the first page just brings up the full sized image of the second page.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 1:03:07 AM EDT
[#7]
taken from the page:
"P.S. Here are a couple of iPhone pics of the ATF approval letter. For anyone overly concerned about the line regarding using the Shockwave Blade other than as originally designed, what, were you planning on misusing our product? As we have stated all along, the Blade is neither designed nor intended to enable a user to fire a weapon from the shoulder." You might beat the wrap but will you beat the ride? I think most will see this brace as yet another way to avoid the SRB route. I don't use the Sig brace myself nor will I use this brace. IF, I were to use the blade brace I would only use it as designed based on the ATF wording... let someone with DEEP pockets take the ride 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 1:19:41 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They also have the pages mis-linked, trying to get larger readable view of the first page just brings up the full sized image of the second page. Not that hard. http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_1055.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 1:39:46 AM EDT
[#9]
The ATF is known to take a position that they favor, even if the courts strike it down. Same thing here - make it sound ominous and they are doing their job. They won't prosecute a one armed vet for holding it against his shoulder, it will be someone who has follow on charges to leverage against them for a win.
It also goes for it being designed as a prosthetic device for a one-armed citizen. Seems we have knives with that intent, and those with two arms are considered in violation of the law when in possession. However, it's local and state law. The prohibition was only sales under the Commerce Act. The functional point of a stock is to raise the AR sightline by placing the toe of the stock on the shoulder. The same benefit exists by using a taller riser, all it does is add more to the existing offset the gun already has. Braces are an aesthetic work around for someone who won't stack a(nother) riser under his optic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 2:15:50 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not that hard. http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_1055.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They also have the pages mis-linked, trying to get larger readable view of the first page just brings up the full sized image of the second page. Not that hard. http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_1055.jpg Well done, went to source but would never have occurred to me to remove pixel dimensions from name. Thanks. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 3:16:21 AM EDT
[#11]
Anyone notice this letter is also from an "acting chief", just like the letter about the sig brace on the shotgun from Black Aces Tactical?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 3:26:47 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do not like the wording in that letter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 3:35:15 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone notice this letter is also from an "acting chief", just like the letter about the sig brace on the shotgun from Black Aces Tactical? I did, and now that you mention it, the Black Aces decision dated 8/28/14 was also by the "acting chief", then Max Kingery. Now it's Michael Curtis. I opined after the Black Aces decision that maybe head of whole FTB might not have been pleased with Max's opinion. Hmmm. If so, wonder how he feels about Michael's? Then again, no idea of ATF structure, like if FTB is over the FTISB or what. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 4:55:36 AM EDT
[#14]
That product is ghey and I will never buy it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 7:42:42 AM EDT
[#15]
The letter intends to shore up what was not clearly previously addressed well by ATF and further exploited on the Sig Brace letter where the ATF stated "their is no wrong way to hold a handgun" Technically that is still true - there is no wrong way to hold a handgun, however there evidently is an implied wrong way to hold the shockwave brace via the letter.
I think the days are numbered on these things 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 12:16:57 PM EDT
[#16]
I want one!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 12:20:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Morons like this will keep poking the skunk…and the ATF will put the ban hammer on all of them.
This is what happens when stupid people are stupid. Lets get real here…the SIG is silly…but it does lock the gun to your arm (and I'd still love to see how someone with one arm would use that thing figuring it takes two freaking arms to strap it on). That dumbshit blade thing is a joke…a flexible piece of rubber that you push your arm against sideways…get real. The SIG brace is meant to keep the heavy forward weight of the firearm from making the gun uncontrollable. What in the shit would that stupid blade accomplish? Seriously. I'm glad I sold my SIG…when the ATF finally has enough of this stupidity and bans them all…I'll chuckle to myself just a little bit... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 12:41:58 PM EDT
[#18]
This is about as clear as mud. The sig brace can be strapped around your arm. The physics that make this a brace are the same as if you used a stock to "brace" against your forearm.
We are headed down a slippery slope here... Just reread it again. This is a de facto ruling on usage of this particular device. It says it is ok as long as it's not "used" as a stock. Thus, even if something is classified as not a stock it can still change the classification of the weapon if used how a stock would be used. This seems contrary to the sig brace ruling. Fuck this stuff is confusing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 12:48:53 PM EDT
[#19]
The scary thing is now the same principal would apply to a bare buffer tube; if you shoulder it, it becomes a SBR.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 1:17:05 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Morons like this will keep poking the skunk…and the ATF will put the ban hammer on all of them. This is what happens when stupid people are stupid. Lets get real here…the SIG is silly…but it does lock the gun to your arm (and I'd still love to see how someone with one arm would use that thing figuring it takes two freaking arms to strap it on). That dumbshit blade thing is a joke…a flexible piece of rubber that you push your arm against sideways…get real. The SIG brace is meant to keep the heavy forward weight of the firearm from making the gun uncontrollable. What in the shit would that stupid blade accomplish? Seriously. I'm glad I sold my SIG…when the ATF finally has enough of this stupidity and bans them all…I'll chuckle to myself just a little bit... ATF cheerleader... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 2:01:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The scary thing is now the same principal would apply to a bare buffer tube; if you shoulder it, it becomes a SBR. True ATF let the cat out of the bag with the first SIg letter. Now they are trying to put it back in. Interesting that I received my SIg Brace yesterday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 2:07:55 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True ATF let the cat out of the bag with the first SIg letter. Now they are trying to put it back in. Interesting that I received my SIg Brace yesterday. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The scary thing is now the same principal would apply to a bare buffer tube; if you shoulder it, it becomes a SBR. True ATF let the cat out of the bag with the first SIg letter. Now they are trying to put it back in. Interesting that I received my SIg Brace yesterday. I don't think that's their angle here, in the past the ATF has had no trouble reversing its decisions. DannerTrax |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 2:49:40 PM EDT
[#23]
It seems that the ATF may have considered that they erred in the Sig approvals and are trying to 'limit their loses" moving forward. The important differences regarding the SB-15 and Shockwave Brace approvals are:
1. The letter to the original inventor of the brace, approving what ultimately became known as the SB-15, or Sig Brace, stated that it did not change the classification of a firearm to an NFA controlled item. The letter did not contain language stating " as long as used as designed" or similar language. 2. The ATF's response to Sgt. Bradley's letter inquiring about the legality of shouldering an AR-15 pistol states that a). firing a pistol from the shoulder does not reclassify it as an SBR, and b). certain firearm accessories such as the Sig Stability Brace are not classified as shoulder stocks and using the brace incorrectly does not constitute a design change. 3. The approval letter to Shockwave states that the Blade attached to a pistol does not a reclassify it as a firearm defined by the NFA "provided the Blade Stabilizer is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock". The lack of "as designed" language in the original SB-15 approval letter and the Bradley decision letter are the biggest differences between the Sig approval and the Shockwave Blade approval. It appears to me the ATF clearly regrets the sequence of approvals for the SB-15 and are now holding the Blade to a different standard. Does incositent government action really surprise anyone? Will they try and "unring the bell" by retrovactively adding "as designed" requirements to the SB-15 or reversing the Bradley opinion? Who knows, but I wouldn't put it past them to try. They wove a compicated web (mess?) with these deciscions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 2:54:58 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The scary thing is now the same principal would apply to a bare buffer tube; if you shoulder it, it becomes a SBR. The ATF opinion to Sgt. Bradley's question about shouldering a pistol clearly allows shouldering a buffer tube only pistol as well as state that the Sig Brace is not a shoulder stock and using it improperly does not reclassify a braced pistol to a SBR. The Shockwave reply is specific to the Brace and changes nothing for the SB-15 or bare buffer pistols. They would have to specifically reverse their prior opinions on shouldering and the SB-15 to reclassify the use as a determining factor in NFA clsaaification. This would contradict prior opinions, but hey, would anyone be surprised? They have already been totally inconsistent, in writing no less! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 3:38:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Marty from Shockwave posted that they received BATFE approval for their Blade brace. I'm looking forward to trying one out in the spring when they become available. Congrats, Marty! LOL!!!! They are happy with that response? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 4:26:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL!!!! They are happy with that response? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Marty from Shockwave posted that they received BATFE approval for their Blade brace. I'm looking forward to trying one out in the spring when they become available. Congrats, Marty! LOL!!!! They are happy with that response? They are happy with that response because they never expected, or intended customers to misuse their product.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 4:42:47 PM EDT
[#27]
It literally just looks like a thin stock that they tried to pass off as some sort of a "stabilizer".
You wrap your arm to this thing with a sling? Seems like this company wanted to cash in on the sig brace craze and now has an ATF letter that slightly goes against the original ruling. I'm curious as to how this will play out. I sure as hell won't be buying or using one of those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 4:49:50 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It seems that the ATF may have considered that they erred in the Sig approvals and are trying to 'limit their loses" moving forward. The important differences regarding the SB-15 and Shockwave Brace approvals are: 1. The letter to the original inventor of the brace, approving what ultimately became known as the SB-15, or Sig Brace, stated that it did not change the classification of a firearm to an NFA controlled item. The letter did not contain language stating " as long as used as designed" or similar language. 2. The ATF's response to Sgt. Bradley's letter inquiring about the legality of shouldering an AR-15 pistol states that a). firing a pistol from the shoulder does not reclassify it as an SBR, and b). certain firearm accessories such as the Sig Stability Brace are not classified as shoulder stocks and using the brace incorrectly does not constitute a design change. 3. The approval letter to Shockwave states that the Blade attached to a pistol does not a reclassify it as a firearm defined by the NFA "provided the Blade Stabilizer is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock". The lack of "as designed" language in the original SB-15 approval letter and the Bradley decision letter are the biggest differences between the Sig approval and the Shockwave Blade approval. It appears to me the ATF clearly regrets the sequence of approvals for the SB-15 and are now holding the Blade to a different standard. Does incositent government action really surprise anyone? Will they try and "unring the bell" by retrovactively adding "as designed" requirements to the SB-15 or reversing the Bradley opinion? Who knows, but I wouldn't put it past them to try. They wove a compicated web (mess?) with these deciscions. This is my thoughts, Sig Brace ok but NO more non-Sig Brace type braces allowed to shoulder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 5:32:31 PM EDT
[#29]
underdog....
You and I share the same thoughts but I wonder if some other companies with similar products might go the FTC or some other branch and basically state that this gives SIG (and the few others that i believe the creator licensed too) now have a monopoly on this niche market. It would probably be a tenuous case but who knows it would either blow things right open or ruin them forever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 5:53:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The ATF opinion to Sgt. Bradley's question about shouldering a pistol clearly allows shouldering a buffer tube only pistol as well as state that the Sig Brace is not a shoulder stock and using it improperly does not reclassify a braced pistol to a SBR. The Shockwave reply is specific to the Brace and changes nothing for the SB-15 or bare buffer pistols. They would have to specifically reverse their prior opinions on shouldering and the SB-15 to reclassify the use as a determining factor in NFA clsaaification. This would contradict prior opinions, but hey, would anyone be surprised? They have already been totally inconsistent, in writing no less! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The scary thing is now the same principal would apply to a bare buffer tube; if you shoulder it, it becomes a SBR. The ATF opinion to Sgt. Bradley's question about shouldering a pistol clearly allows shouldering a buffer tube only pistol as well as state that the Sig Brace is not a shoulder stock and using it improperly does not reclassify a braced pistol to a SBR. The Shockwave reply is specific to the Brace and changes nothing for the SB-15 or bare buffer pistols. They would have to specifically reverse their prior opinions on shouldering and the SB-15 to reclassify the use as a determining factor in NFA clsaaification. This would contradict prior opinions, but hey, would anyone be surprised? They have already been totally inconsistent, in writing no less! All it would take is printing off the Bradley letter and the Shockwave letter and sending them both in together. Asking them why there are two different rulings would force them to go all in or out with this nonsense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 5:54:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Double tap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 6:13:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All it would take is printing off the Bradley letter and the Shockwave letter and sending them both in together. Asking them why there are two different rulings would force them to go all in or out with this nonsense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The scary thing is now the same principal would apply to a bare buffer tube; if you shoulder it, it becomes a SBR. The ATF opinion to Sgt. Bradley's question about shouldering a pistol clearly allows shouldering a buffer tube only pistol as well as state that the Sig Brace is not a shoulder stock and using it improperly does not reclassify a braced pistol to a SBR. The Shockwave reply is specific to the Brace and changes nothing for the SB-15 or bare buffer pistols. They would have to specifically reverse their prior opinions on shouldering and the SB-15 to reclassify the use as a determining factor in NFA clsaaification. This would contradict prior opinions, but hey, would anyone be surprised? They have already been totally inconsistent, in writing no less! All it would take is printing off the Bradley letter and the Shockwave letter and sending them both in together. Asking them why there are two different rulings would force them to go all in or out with this nonsense. You know that likely wouldn't end well for the 1000's of current owners. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 6:34:47 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know that likely wouldn't end well for the 1000's of current owners. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The scary thing is now the same principal would apply to a bare buffer tube; if you shoulder it, it becomes a SBR. The ATF opinion to Sgt. Bradley's question about shouldering a pistol clearly allows shouldering a buffer tube only pistol as well as state that the Sig Brace is not a shoulder stock and using it improperly does not reclassify a braced pistol to a SBR. The Shockwave reply is specific to the Brace and changes nothing for the SB-15 or bare buffer pistols. They would have to specifically reverse their prior opinions on shouldering and the SB-15 to reclassify the use as a determining factor in NFA clsaaification. This would contradict prior opinions, but hey, would anyone be surprised? They have already been totally inconsistent, in writing no less! All it would take is printing off the Bradley letter and the Shockwave letter and sending them both in together. Asking them why there are two different rulings would force them to go all in or out with this nonsense. You know that likely wouldn't end well for the 1000's of current owners. Bet that number is closer to 20,000+. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 6:50:22 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All it would take is printing off the Bradley letter and the Shockwave letter and sending them both in together. Asking them why there are two different rulings would force them to go all in or out with this nonsense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The scary thing is now the same principal would apply to a bare buffer tube; if you shoulder it, it becomes a SBR. The ATF opinion to Sgt. Bradley's question about shouldering a pistol clearly allows shouldering a buffer tube only pistol as well as state that the Sig Brace is not a shoulder stock and using it improperly does not reclassify a braced pistol to a SBR. The Shockwave reply is specific to the Brace and changes nothing for the SB-15 or bare buffer pistols. They would have to specifically reverse their prior opinions on shouldering and the SB-15 to reclassify the use as a determining factor in NFA clsaaification. This would contradict prior opinions, but hey, would anyone be surprised? They have already been totally inconsistent, in writing no less! All it would take is printing off the Bradley letter and the Shockwave letter and sending them both in together. Asking them why there are two different rulings would force them to go all in or out with this nonsense. We don't wanna chance that... Why "shockwave" should have just shredded the letter (or not even made that POS thing). Has the potential to screw ALL pistol owners. Even those with a plan buffer tube from shouldering. I don't understand why they are proud of the "approval". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 6:57:25 PM EDT
[#35]
Was only a matter of time before some other company decided to cash in on the ridiculous SBR laws. Lets face it, even speaking as a big fan of the SB15 ( I own three of them) they would not exist if not for asinine NFA laws. The SB15 was legalized under a very specific set of circumstances ... one of the biggest factors of its approval by the ATF was potential bad press of denying a veteran a tool he invented to help his war-maimed buddy a way to fire a weapon. SIG saw the money potential and ran with it.
Shockwave is trying to capitalize on this ruling with no potential P.R nightmare for the ATF if they get denied. All it will take is Shockwave or a Shockwave customer fighting the "use as intended" clause with precedence set by the SB15 as an excuse for the ATF to say fuck-it-all. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 7:25:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Was only a matter of time before some other company decided to cash in on the ridiculous SBR laws. Lets face it, even speaking as a big fan of the SB15 ( I own three of them) they would not exist if not for asinine NFA laws. The SB15 was legalized under a very specific set of circumstances ... one of the biggest factors of its approval by the ATF was potential bad press of denying a veteran a tool he invented to help his war-maimed buddy a way to fire a weapon. SIG saw the money potential and ran with it. Shockwave is trying to capitalize on this ruling with no potential P.R nightmare for the ATF if they get denied. All it will take is Shockwave or a Shockwave customer fighting the "use as intended" clause with precedence set by the SB15 as an excuse for the ATF to say fuck-it-all. Good points... I'm hoping if some Shockwave owner tries that the ATF will counter that Shockwave is basically made exactly like a shoulder stock with ample area on the end of the Shockwave "brace" to cover the shoulder where the Sig brace / Thornton, etc does not have a long, straight end piece that can accomadate shoulder support like the Shockwave can. The ATF should have just denied this POS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 7:56:03 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good points... I'm hoping if some Shockwave owner tries that the ATF will counter that Shockwave is basically made exactly like a shoulder stock with ample area on the end of the Shockwave "brace" to cover the shoulder where the Sig brace / Thornton, etc does not have a long, straight end piece that can accomadate shoulder support like the Shockwave can. The ATF should have just denied this POS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Was only a matter of time before some other company decided to cash in on the ridiculous SBR laws. Lets face it, even speaking as a big fan of the SB15 ( I own three of them) they would not exist if not for asinine NFA laws. The SB15 was legalized under a very specific set of circumstances ... one of the biggest factors of its approval by the ATF was potential bad press of denying a veteran a tool he invented to help his war-maimed buddy a way to fire a weapon. SIG saw the money potential and ran with it. Shockwave is trying to capitalize on this ruling with no potential P.R nightmare for the ATF if they get denied. All it will take is Shockwave or a Shockwave customer fighting the "use as intended" clause with precedence set by the SB15 as an excuse for the ATF to say fuck-it-all. Good points... I'm hoping if some Shockwave owner tries that the ATF will counter that Shockwave is basically made exactly like a shoulder stock with ample area on the end of the Shockwave "brace" to cover the shoulder where the Sig brace / Thornton, etc does not have a long, straight end piece that can accomadate shoulder support like the Shockwave can. The ATF should have just denied this POS. i agree that the Shockwave brace is "poking the bear" materialized... but I think the ATF should get away from regulating the length of rifles completely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 9:31:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good points... I'm hoping if some Shockwave owner tries that the ATF will counter that Shockwave is basically made exactly like a shoulder stock with ample area on the end of the Shockwave "brace" to cover the shoulder where the Sig brace / Thornton, etc does not have a long, straight end piece that can accomadate shoulder support like the Shockwave can. The ATF should have just denied this POS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Was only a matter of time before some other company decided to cash in on the ridiculous SBR laws. Lets face it, even speaking as a big fan of the SB15 ( I own three of them) they would not exist if not for asinine NFA laws. The SB15 was legalized under a very specific set of circumstances ... one of the biggest factors of its approval by the ATF was potential bad press of denying a veteran a tool he invented to help his war-maimed buddy a way to fire a weapon. SIG saw the money potential and ran with it. Shockwave is trying to capitalize on this ruling with no potential P.R nightmare for the ATF if they get denied. All it will take is Shockwave or a Shockwave customer fighting the "use as intended" clause with precedence set by the SB15 as an excuse for the ATF to say fuck-it-all. Good points... I'm hoping if some Shockwave owner tries that the ATF will counter that Shockwave is basically made exactly like a shoulder stock with ample area on the end of the Shockwave "brace" to cover the shoulder where the Sig brace / Thornton, etc does not have a long, straight end piece that can accomadate shoulder support like the Shockwave can. The ATF should have just denied this POS. IIRC the Shockwave has *less* rear surface area than the SIG brace. You certainly have a case of the ass for Shockwave, eh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 10:58:01 PM EDT
[#39]
I feel like the "shockwave" may have just ruined it for us. They're now a company I'll never buy from.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 11:11:53 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The scary thing is now the same principal would apply to a bare buffer tube; if you shoulder it, it becomes a SBR. Not at all because the receiver extension is integral to the design and function of the firearm. Apples and oranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2014 11:48:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Edited...VA-gunnut
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 12:19:28 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep sucking the ATF's cock, you fucking shill. Just because you're too much of a pussy to fight for your rights doesn't mean others aren't. You aren't helping anything. Your bullshit is hurting the cause. You want to actually help, donate here : http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk Otherwise, go fuck yourself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Morons like this will keep poking the skunk…and the ATF will put the ban hammer on all of them. This is what happens when stupid people are stupid. Lets get real here…the SIG is silly…but it does lock the gun to your arm (and I'd still love to see how someone with one arm would use that thing figuring it takes two freaking arms to strap it on). That dumbshit blade thing is a joke…a flexible piece of rubber that you push your arm against sideways…get real. The SIG brace is meant to keep the heavy forward weight of the firearm from making the gun uncontrollable. What in the shit would that stupid blade accomplish? Seriously. I'm glad I sold my SIG…when the ATF finally has enough of this stupidity and bans them all…I'll chuckle to myself just a little bit... Keep sucking the ATF's cock, you fucking shill. Just because you're too much of a pussy to fight for your rights doesn't mean others aren't. You aren't helping anything. Your bullshit is hurting the cause. You want to actually help, donate here : http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk Otherwise, go fuck yourself. *EDIT* You know…in the act of diplomacy I thought I would actually say something in the attempt to be productive here. I'm an AR owner…an owner of a few, actually. I'm an owner of a firearm that the mass majority of the idiot-public think is horribly evil and should be banned. I joined some sites about, for and comprised of other 2A supporters and firearm owners. With that aside…I make my opinion about some morons making an idiotic product that unnecessarily provokes the ATF…a branch of our treasonous government that has proven time and time again that if you fuck with them too much, they'll drop the hammer on you. We have the SB15…an item I bought and didn't really care for all that much…so I sold it. For those that like it, so be it, I'm glad for them. I'm also glad such a device gives short barrel AR owners some slight alternative vs a buffer tube thanks to a horse shit law enforced by the ATF. This idiotic "blade" thing is retarded and pointless. Shouldering a 1/4" thick flap of ribber is useless…and it is also useless as some far fetched thing to press you arm against sideways. For fuck's sake…I know this thing is a joke and I cannot be alone. This idiot is looking to cash in on a trend based on a good product by making a shit variant of said good product and poking the ATF to make it. You think this asshole is interested in freedom, jack? Think again…he's seeing $$ and doesn't give a flying fuck if he invokes the ATF in order to POSSIBLY get his gimmick flap out there on the market. There…go ahead and call me a "shill" (although that was a really limp use of that word BTW). Call a fellow 2A supporter a shill for calling out some cash grab fucktard and his moronic attempt to make $$ off of us even if it means provoking the ATF to ban ANYHTING you could ever attach to an AR buffer tube (which is something I'm sure they'll be more than happy to do if they get irritated enough)…sure…I'm the "shill" here, huh... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:20:30 AM EDT
[#43]
Here's a scary thought, what if you leave your pistol at home and your wife or parent or somebody uses it for home defense and in the following investigation it comes out that they (a person who you had shown how to use AR) had shouldered it. Then this person gets ten years in federal prison for mis-use of the weapon.
Slippery slope. ETA: I meant to say "a person who you had NOT shown how to PROPERLY shoot an AR PISTOL". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:47:09 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*EDIT* You know…in the act of diplomacy I thought I would actually say something in the attempt to be productive here. I'm an AR owner…an owner of a few, actually. I'm an owner of a firearm that the mass majority of the idiot-public think is horribly evil and should be banned. I joined some sites about, for and comprised of other 2A supporters and firearm owners. With that aside…I make my opinion about some morons making an idiotic product that unnecessarily provokes the ATF…a branch of our treasonous government that has proven time and time again that if you fuck with them too much, they'll drop the hammer on you. We have the SB15…an item I bought and didn't really care for all that much…so I sold it. For those that like it, so be it, I'm glad for them. I'm also glad such a device gives short barrel AR owners some slight alternative vs a buffer tube thanks to a horse shit law enforced by the ATF. This idiotic "blade" thing is retarded and pointless. Shouldering a 1/4" thick flap of ribber is useless…and it is also useless as some far fetched thing to press you arm against sideways. For fuck's sake…I know this thing is a joke and I cannot be alone. This idiot is looking to cash in on a trend based on a good product by making a shit variant of said good product and poking the ATF to make it. You think this asshole is interested in freedom, jack? Think again…he's seeing $$ and doesn't give a flying fuck if he invokes the ATF in order to POSSIBLY get his gimmick flap out there on the market. There…go ahead and call me a "shill" (although that was a really limp use of that word BTW). Call a fellow 2A supporter a shill for calling out some cash grab fucktard and his moronic attempt to make $$ off of us even if it means provoking the ATF to ban ANYHTING you could ever attach to an AR buffer tube (which is something I'm sure they'll be more than happy to do if they get irritated enough)…sure…I'm the "shill" here, huh... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Morons like this will keep poking the skunk…and the ATF will put the ban hammer on all of them. This is what happens when stupid people are stupid. Lets get real here…the SIG is silly…but it does lock the gun to your arm (and I'd still love to see how someone with one arm would use that thing figuring it takes two freaking arms to strap it on). That dumbshit blade thing is a joke…a flexible piece of rubber that you push your arm against sideways…get real. The SIG brace is meant to keep the heavy forward weight of the firearm from making the gun uncontrollable. What in the shit would that stupid blade accomplish? Seriously. I'm glad I sold my SIG…when the ATF finally has enough of this stupidity and bans them all…I'll chuckle to myself just a little bit... Keep sucking the ATF's cock, you fucking shill. Just because you're too much of a pussy to fight for your rights doesn't mean others aren't. You aren't helping anything. Your bullshit is hurting the cause. You want to actually help, donate here : http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk Otherwise, go fuck yourself. *EDIT* You know…in the act of diplomacy I thought I would actually say something in the attempt to be productive here. I'm an AR owner…an owner of a few, actually. I'm an owner of a firearm that the mass majority of the idiot-public think is horribly evil and should be banned. I joined some sites about, for and comprised of other 2A supporters and firearm owners. With that aside…I make my opinion about some morons making an idiotic product that unnecessarily provokes the ATF…a branch of our treasonous government that has proven time and time again that if you fuck with them too much, they'll drop the hammer on you. We have the SB15…an item I bought and didn't really care for all that much…so I sold it. For those that like it, so be it, I'm glad for them. I'm also glad such a device gives short barrel AR owners some slight alternative vs a buffer tube thanks to a horse shit law enforced by the ATF. This idiotic "blade" thing is retarded and pointless. Shouldering a 1/4" thick flap of ribber is useless…and it is also useless as some far fetched thing to press you arm against sideways. For fuck's sake…I know this thing is a joke and I cannot be alone. This idiot is looking to cash in on a trend based on a good product by making a shit variant of said good product and poking the ATF to make it. You think this asshole is interested in freedom, jack? Think again…he's seeing $$ and doesn't give a flying fuck if he invokes the ATF in order to POSSIBLY get his gimmick flap out there on the market. There…go ahead and call me a "shill" (although that was a really limp use of that word BTW). Call a fellow 2A supporter a shill for calling out some cash grab fucktard and his moronic attempt to make $$ off of us even if it means provoking the ATF to ban ANYHTING you could ever attach to an AR buffer tube (which is something I'm sure they'll be more than happy to do if they get irritated enough)…sure…I'm the "shill" here, huh... I apologize for being so brash. I realize now what you intended in your comment, and I misinterpreted your intent originally (the last line left a bitter taste.) However, I believe that we are at a turning point in gun rights history. Gun laws have increasingly been in our favor, and I believe we are the precipice of neutering the ATF's abusive, treasonous, and tyrannical ability. We should not be afraid to push back against those who infringe upon our rights and are able to so flippantly change the legality of certain things, which effectively makes many people felons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:51:35 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a scary thought, what if you leave your pistol at home and your wife or parent or somebody uses it for home defense and in the following investigation it comes out that they (a person who you had shown how to use AR) had shouldered it. Then this person gets ten years in federal prison for mis-use of the weapon.
Slippery slope. I agree, I wish they would just approve or shoot down these "braces" instead of usage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 4:33:26 AM EDT
[#46]
Reading over the Bradley letter again:
last paragraph: FTB has previously determined (see FTB #99146) that the firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 type pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon. Further, certain firearm accessories such as the SIG Stability Brace have not been classified by the FTB as shoulder stocks and, therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change. Using such an accessory improperly would not change the classification of the weapon per Federal law. That last sentence in red... Their approval of the Shockwave, per their letter goes against Federal law... does it not? Why they either need to approve/disapprove said accessory. Edit. Because going by this logic, you should be able to have a REAL M4 stock on your pistol and as long as you don't shoulder it, your good!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 4:48:29 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reading over the Bradley letter again: last paragraph: That last sentence in red... Their approval of the Shockwave, per their letter goes against Federal law... does it not? Why they either need to approve/disapprove said accessory. Edit. Because going by this logic, you should be able to have a REAL M4 stock on your pistol and as long as you don't shoulder it, your good! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reading over the Bradley letter again: last paragraph: FTB has previously determined (see FTB #99146) that the firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 type pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon. Further, certain firearm accessories such as the SIG Stability Brace have not been classified by the FTB as shoulder stocks and, therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change. Using such an accessory improperly would not change the classification of the weapon per Federal law. That last sentence in red... Their approval of the Shockwave, per their letter goes against Federal law... does it not? Why they either need to approve/disapprove said accessory. Edit. Because going by this logic, you should be able to have a REAL M4 stock on your pistol and as long as you don't shoulder it, your good! I agree and point out that their vfg "weapon" letter where it states if it is concealed it would then be a AOW, that letter also relies on useage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 4:58:13 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree and point out that their vfg "weapon" letter where it states if it is concealed it would then be a AOW, that letter also relies on useage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Reading over the Bradley letter again: last paragraph: FTB has previously determined (see FTB #99146) that the firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 type pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon. Further, certain firearm accessories such as the SIG Stability Brace have not been classified by the FTB as shoulder stocks and, therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change. Using such an accessory improperly would not change the classification of the weapon per Federal law. That last sentence in red... Their approval of the Shockwave, per their letter goes against Federal law... does it not? Why they either need to approve/disapprove said accessory. Edit. Because going by this logic, you should be able to have a REAL M4 stock on your pistol and as long as you don't shoulder it, your good! I agree and point out that their vfg "weapon" letter where it states if it is concealed it would then be a AOW, that letter also relies on useage. Good point! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 5:43:28 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good point! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Reading over the Bradley letter again: last paragraph: FTB has previously determined (see FTB #99146) that the firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 type pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon. Further, certain firearm accessories such as the SIG Stability Brace have not been classified by the FTB as shoulder stocks and, therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change. Using such an accessory improperly would not change the classification of the weapon per Federal law. That last sentence in red... Their approval of the Shockwave, per their letter goes against Federal law... does it not? Why they either need to approve/disapprove said accessory. Edit. Because going by this logic, you should be able to have a REAL M4 stock on your pistol and as long as you don't shoulder it, your good! I agree and point out that their vfg "weapon" letter where it states if it is concealed it would then be a AOW, that letter also relies on useage. Good point! Maybe we can have full auto guns as long as we only shoot on semi auto mode? Or semi autos are NFA if we bump fire them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 11:13:16 AM EDT
[#50]
What I don't get about the response to Sgt. Bradley is why Earl Griffith offered additional info about "certain firearm accessories like the Sig Stability Brace". The letter seems to be a response to an e-mail from Sgt. Bradley. In their opinion letters, the ATF usually restates the question(s) that is being asked, cites some NFA definitions, and then gives their opinion. Sgt. Bradley seemed only to be asking about the legality of shouldering an AR pistol.
The additional, apparently unsolicited opinion from Mr. Earl, that Sig Braces are not stocks and using them improperly does not change the classification of a weapon per federal law is a surprising error that gives the Sig product an advantage over any other brace makers, IMO. The opinions we are seeing from the ATF now do indeed cite how use (or misuse) can change the classification. This new tactic directly contradicts their prior opinion in the Bradley letter, although they did state "generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon". Generally speaking. |
|
|
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.
