OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”

AR-15 » AR Pistols

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES” (Page 1 of 7)

Posted: 1/16/2015 5:46:55 PM EDT

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces.pdf

OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF "STABILIZING BRACES"

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as "stabilizing braces." These devices are described as "a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols." The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol. These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA. The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines "firearm," in relevant part, as "a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length" and "a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length." That section defines both "rifle" and "shotgun" as "a weapon designed or

redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder…." (Emphasis added). Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA "firearm." For example, in Revenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols "having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed" were each classified as a "short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act."

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.

In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a "shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand." When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, "the device -2-

is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder." In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any "weapon designed or

redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder," any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term "redesign" and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. "Redesign" is defined as "to alter the appearance or function of." See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an "any other weapon."

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither "designed" nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a "redesign" of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at

[email protected] or by phone at (304) 616-4300.

Max M. Kingery

Acting Chief

Firearms Technology Criminal Branch

Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division

Posted: 1/16/2015 5:56:39 PM EDT

[#1]

Does the ATF have a secret mind-reading device that can tell people's intentions?

Posted: 1/16/2015 5:59:38 PM EDT

[#2]

If people or cameras happen to notice you shouldering the thing, yes, they understand your intentions completely... sans mind reading...

These will be dirt cheap on gun broker very soon.

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:01:17 PM EDT

[#3]

The whiny ASS FUCKERS on this forum got what they wanted

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:02:50 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
The whiny ASS FUCKERS on this forum got what they wanted

View Quote

This

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:04:04 PM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
Does the ATF have a secret mind-reading device that can tell people's intentions?

View Quote

Sounds pretty plain to me. Max has resurfaced as acting directory of yet another branch, and is drawing line in sand. Use of the brace against the shoulder requires SBR stamp. Odd that he didn't date the letter.

"The pistol stabilizing brace was neither "designed" nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a "redesign" of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Still words written on the wind until someone is prosecuted, but sounds like that may be forthcoming?

- OS

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:09:57 PM EDT

[#6]

So does that mean the brace is considered a stock? I'm fucking confused.

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:11:07 PM EDT

[#7]

I dont think its going to affect sales very much. If you are standing next to an ATF agent while shooting it from the shouldered position, yea there would be a problem. But no one aside from ATF is going to care unless you do something else to attract attention, which is your own problem in the making.
And if someone was standing behind me recording me while I shot, I would think something was up, as none of the outdoor ranges I go to have any camera systems.

Just having it doesnt mean anything. Its not like having a 14" shotgun barrel in the safe with your 870. There is no constructive possession by merely having it or even installing it on your AR pistol. If questioned, yes, you bought it to help you shoot one handed... They have to catch you using it in a way it wasn't designed to be used.

And while I understand the letter, I would like to see how the first test case goes over in court when the ATF says "no its not illegal, but if you use it wrong it is..." Somehow I think a good attorney will tear that statement apart.

I cant think of any other device that has been determined to be 100% legal by the ATF's own ruling, that has been later deemed to be illegal if improperly used, but not modified in any way, or installed other than as per the manufacturers directions...? Can anyone think of anything that is legal, but becomes illegal if you "hold it" incorrectly?

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:12:14 PM EDT

[#8]

as if anyone will stop shouldering it.

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:14:41 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:
as if anyone will stop shouldering it.

View Quote

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:15:17 PM EDT

[#10]

It probably didnt help that hundreds (if not thousands) of people probably sent letters asking for a ruling on the exact same thing from ATF....

Something about something not stinking if you don't kick it....

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:15:58 PM EDT

[#11]

as if the ATF is going to take a break from selling Aks to cartels to enforce this...

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:17:07 PM EDT

[#12]

This is getting stupid...of course the GOV is involved so stupid is a given.

"The pistol stabilizing brace was neither "designed" nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a "redesign" of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked."

So by this logic, if I take a baseball bat, use it to drive a nail I have "redesigned" it as a hammer

No... I just didn't use the baseball bat properly as designed, it's still a baseball bat!. Same should apply to the Brace, its either a stock or a brace, it can't either/or based on how its used/misused.

I don't own a Sig brace but do own an AR pistol until my stamp comes back... I'm not risking the ride to court because someone changes their mind yet again.

FBATF

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:22:36 PM EDT

[#13]

I truly do not understand why shouldering a gun changes its classification, or why there is any registration required for SBR's. The NFA targets guns that are both accurate and concealable by restricting SBR's, but why? Has anyone proven them to be more dangerous? What's wrong with being accurate? If you don't want someone to be able to buy concealed weapons, then require a license. I ALREADY HAVE A CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE, SO I SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE AN SBR PISTOL. There's no logical reason why not. There's no reason they don't just classify anything with a barrel shorter than 16" as a pistol--which would require a background check and license to carry.

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:22:46 PM EDT

[#14]

Yeah blame the letter writers, yeah that's it

Go look up the definition of what an SBR is and exactly what the Sig Brace letter said.
I said right here that it would be viewed as a SBR but dozens said "BS there is a letter from ATF".
Anyone with any real experience with NFA knew this from day one.

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:24:35 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
Yeah blame the letter writers, yeah that's it

Go look up the definition of what an SBR is and exactly what the Sig Brace letter said.
I said right here that it would be viewed as a SBR but dozens said "BS there is a letter from ATF".
Anyone with any real experience with NFA knew this from day one.

View Quote

It is their fault.

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:29:44 PM EDT

[#16]

I'd rather it be legal 99.9% of the time when I'm not actually firing it than be carrying around an illegal SBR

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:34:12 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:

I'd rather it be legal 99.9% of the time when I'm not actually firing it than be carrying around an illegal SBR

View Quote

Got an SB-15 for sale?

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:37:27 PM EDT

[#18]

I'm still confused by this though, maybe i shouldn't ask but if I remove my brace and shoulder the tube is that still legal?... maybe i'm looking for logic in an illogical law here

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:39:04 PM EDT

[#19]

Yup, it's over like that. All the "can I do this" letters!

http://legaldayton.com/sig-brace-pistol-sbr/2193

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:40:34 PM EDT

[#20]

I may be a 13'er, but why no date on the letter?
NVM
http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry

Posted: 1/16/2015 6:41:35 PM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
as if anyone will stop shouldering it.

View Quote

The YouTube ninja warrior reviewers are going to be pissed. No more "SBR" videos. As an NFA owner with multiple SBR lowers I think its retarded. Ill buy one for cheap though and put it on a truck gun. If the time arises that I have to use it, the legalty of the way I fire that firearm will be the least of my concern.

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:03:12 PM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
I'm still confused by this though, maybe i shouldn't ask but if I remove my brace and shoulder the tube is that still legal?... maybe i'm looking for logic in an illogical law here

View Quote

Yes, that's still legal because you can't remove the buffer tube and still have a functioning pistol. The next obvious question would be are the add on items like a cane tip redesigning the receiver extension as a stock? And does adding a AFG to a pistol redesigned it to be fired by two hands?

Lot's of letters need to be written.

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:09:11 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:

The whiny ASS FUCKERS on this forum got what they wanted

View Quote

this is my opinion too. The haters that CAN get SBR's pushed for this out of jealousy. If I COULD own a SBR, I would. So to those whiners all I have is GFY.

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:09:13 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:

Yes, that's still legal because you can't remove the buffer tube and still have a functioning pistol. The next obvious question would be are the add on items like a cane tip redesigning the receiver extension as a stock? And does adding a AFG to a pistol redesigned it to be fired by two hands?

Lot's of letters need to be written.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm still confused by this though, maybe i shouldn't ask but if I remove my brace and shoulder the tube is that still legal?... maybe i'm looking for logic in an illogical law here

Yes, that's still legal because you can't remove the buffer tube and still have a functioning pistol. The next obvious question would be are the add on items like a cane tip redesigning the receiver extension as a stock? And does adding a AFG to a pistol redesigned it to be fired by two hands?

Lot's of letters need to be written.

Yeah, really

if only we knew when to shut up eh?

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:18:55 PM EDT

[#25]

The moral of the story...Stop Writing Fucking Letters to the ATF, or whatever the fuck they call themselves today.

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:21:30 PM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:
Got an SB-15 for sale?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'd rather it be legal 99.9% of the time when I'm not actually firing it than be carrying around an illegal SBR

Got an SB-15 for sale?

Im going to keep my Brace because having it on my pistol does not make it a SBR. Having a stock on it however does. So carrying around my pistol with the brace on it doesnt make it illegal.

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:22:08 PM EDT

[#27]

The letter is not on letterhead, it's not dated, it means little at this point...

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:28:15 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:

Yeah, really

if only we knew when to shut up eh?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm still confused by this though, maybe i shouldn't ask but if I remove my brace and shoulder the tube is that still legal?... maybe i'm looking for logic in an illogical law here

Yes, that's still legal because you can't remove the buffer tube and still have a functioning pistol. The next obvious question would be are the add on items like a cane tip redesigning the receiver extension as a stock? And does adding a AFG to a pistol redesigned it to be fired by two hands?

Lot's of letters need to be written.

Yeah, really

if only we knew when to shut up eh?

Ha! Right! Actually, no laws have changed. The ATF just thinks they have a legal argument that a change is use is a redesign of the brace even though there is actually no redesign. It's an interesting argument.

Makes me want to find a different use for a popular patented design and re-file a new patent based on the new use. Do patented designs cover all uses? I bet they do.

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:30:50 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
The letter is not on letterhead, it's not dated, it means little at this point...

View Quote

.

Right! The North Koreans hacked the ATF.gov site and planted it there!

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:33:58 PM EDT

[#30]

It is most definitely a result of continuing to ask the same question to the ATF thugs. If people would've just used it however they wanted, this letter would be non-existent.

I kinda hope someone fully pokes the bear and gets themselves arrested and fights this!

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:42:04 PM EDT

[#31]

I'm going to ask them if firing my Glocks with 2 hands magically makes an AOW. This shit is ridiculous.

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:42:12 PM EDT

[#32]

Well, of course I hope it ain't me that's the test case

, but I'm all for having this get into the courts ASAP. And unless they do mass arrests, I imagine the first victim will have plenty of free legal support, all the way to the top if necessary.

I still think the judicial distinction will be exactly what constitutes "intent" to fire from the shoulder as per the USC definition. And I believe that will ultimately come down to simply whether there is a stock or not on the firearm, as has always been traditionally maintained by ATF.

Otherwise, why couldn't I have an actual SBR with actual stock without a tax stamp, as long as I only fired it with stock against hip or chest? I just think ATF is not going to be able to get around the fact that what makes an SBR an SBR is the the inclusion of a stock with the short barrel or short OAL, and that a stock is what is required for a firearm to be "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder".

I do believe that the only thing ATF will eventually be able to do is simply to declare all the "braces" as "stocks" to limit how they are used. I suppose they may eventually decide that the flak they'd get from the handicapped community will not be enough of a deterrent to do so, or at least require that a "brace" be of some design that nobody in his right mind would choose to try and shoulder in the first place.

- OS

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:47:11 PM EDT

[#33]

Sig new exactly what everyones intent would be when they purchased one of these. The brace is awful when using it a designed.

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:47:20 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
It is most definitely a result of continuing to ask the same question to the ATF thugs. If people would've just used it however they wanted, this letter would be non-existent.

I kinda hope someone fully pokes the bear and gets themselves arrested and fights this!

View Quote

I think it's a result of the popularity of the braces as a de facto stock and other companies wanting to produce similar items to compete because they could produce one for less. You can blame it on the high cost of the brace and demand for a less expensive product. You'd be blaming capitalism, though.

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:51:17 PM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:
Well, of course I hope it ain't me that's the test case

, but I'm all for having this get into the courts ASAP. And unless they do mass arrests, I imagine the first victim will have plenty of free legal support, all the way to the top if necessary.

I still think the judicial distinction will be exactly what constitutes "intent" to fire from the shoulder as per the USC definition. And I believe that will ultimately come down to simply whether there is a stock or not on the firearm, as has always been traditionally maintained by ATF.

Otherwise, why couldn't I have an actual SBR with actual stock without a tax stamp, as long as I only fired it with stock against hip or chest? I just think ATF is not going to be able to get around the fact that what makes an SBR an SBR is the the inclusion of a stock with the short barrel or short OAL, and that a stock is what is required for a firearm to be "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder".

I do believe that the only thing ATF will eventually be able to do is simply to declare all the "braces" as "stocks" to limit how they are used. I suppose they may eventually decide that the flak they'd get from the handicapped community will not be enough of a deterrent to do so, or at least require that a "brace" be of some design that nobody in his right mind would choose to try and shoulder in the first place.

- OS

View Quote

You have to have "design and intent". It requires both, it's not either or. The handicapped community will not be out. It could easily be declared a medical device by prescription only.

Posted: 1/16/2015 7:54:21 PM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:

You have to have "design and intent". It requires both, it's not either or. The handicapped community will not be out. It could easily be declared a medical device by prescription only.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well, of course I hope it ain't me that's the test case

, but I'm all for having this get into the courts ASAP. And unless they do mass arrests, I imagine the first victim will have plenty of free legal support, all the way to the top if necessary.

I still think the judicial distinction will be exactly what constitutes "intent" to fire from the shoulder as per the USC definition. And I believe that will ultimately come down to simply whether there is a stock or not on the firearm, as has always been traditionally maintained by ATF.

Otherwise, why couldn't I have an actual SBR with actual stock without a tax stamp, as long as I only fired it with stock against hip or chest? I just think ATF is not going to be able to get around the fact that what makes an SBR an SBR is the the inclusion of a stock with the short barrel or short OAL, and that a stock is what is required for a firearm to be "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder".

I do believe that the only thing ATF will eventually be able to do is simply to declare all the "braces" as "stocks" to limit how they are used. I suppose they may eventually decide that the flak they'd get from the handicapped community will not be enough of a deterrent to do so, or at least require that a "brace" be of some design that nobody in his right mind would choose to try and shoulder in the first place.

- OS

You have to have "design and intent". It requires both, it's not either or. The handicapped community will not be out. It could easily be declared a medical device by prescription only.

But even then, if ruling stands, a person with the prescription would still have made an SBR by holding it to his shoulder with even one arm.

- OS

Posted: 1/16/2015 8:03:30 PM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:

But even then, if ruling stands, a person with the prescription would still have made an SBR by holding it to his shoulder with even one arm.

- OS

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Well, of course I hope it ain't me that's the test case

, but I'm all for having this get into the courts ASAP. And unless they do mass arrests, I imagine the first victim will have plenty of free legal support, all the way to the top if necessary.

I still think the judicial distinction will be exactly what constitutes "intent" to fire from the shoulder as per the USC definition. And I believe that will ultimately come down to simply whether there is a stock or not on the firearm, as has always been traditionally maintained by ATF.

Otherwise, why couldn't I have an actual SBR with actual stock without a tax stamp, as long as I only fired it with stock against hip or chest? I just think ATF is not going to be able to get around the fact that what makes an SBR an SBR is the the inclusion of a stock with the short barrel or short OAL, and that a stock is what is required for a firearm to be "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder".

I do believe that the only thing ATF will eventually be able to do is simply to declare all the "braces" as "stocks" to limit how they are used. I suppose they may eventually decide that the flak they'd get from the handicapped community will not be enough of a deterrent to do so, or at least require that a "brace" be of some design that nobody in his right mind would choose to try and shoulder in the first place.

- OS

You have to have "design and intent". It requires both, it's not either or. The handicapped community will not be out. It could easily be declared a medical device by prescription only.

But even then, if ruling stands, a person with the prescription would still have made an SBR by holding it to his shoulder with even one arm.

- OS

Assuming you believe a change of use is a change in design. I'm looking for that precedent.

Posted: 1/16/2015 8:20:15 PM EDT

[#38]

In before someone gets nailed by a satellite image of them shouldering the thing.

Repeat after me: UNENFORCEABLE.

Posted: 1/16/2015 8:24:14 PM EDT

[#39]

Glad I got my trust today. E-file here I come....

Posted: 1/16/2015 8:36:23 PM EDT

[#40]

What a retard. Using his own definition, "alter" is an action word, meaning to change the device. Shouldering it isn't altering the device. Unbelievable.

Posted: 1/16/2015 8:37:48 PM EDT

[#41]

I think someone should write another letter to the ATF asking if they are sure it can't be shouldered.

I told them and told them, stop sending letters.
And here's the result.
At least now the braces should be cheap.

Who has one for sale?

Dave N

Posted: 1/16/2015 8:54:29 PM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

Quoted:
The letter is not on letterhead, it's not dated, it means little at this point...

View Quote

I believe the "open letter" is a hoax. In addition to no letterhead and no date, the Max Kingery signature is different than the one on the Sgt. Bradley letter. Somebody's idea of funny, IMO.

Posted: 1/16/2015 9:00:25 PM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:

I believe the "open letter" is a hoax. In addition to no letterhead and no date, the Max Kingery signature is different than the one on the Sgt. Bradley letter. Somebody's idea of funny, IMO.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The letter is not on letterhead, it's not dated, it means little at this point...

I believe the "open letter" is a hoax. In addition to no letterhead and no date, the Max Kingery signature is different than the one on the Sgt. Bradley letter. Somebody's idea of funny, IMO.

So somebody went to all the trouble of hacking the ATFs site and all did was post a fake sig brace letter, right...

Posted: 1/16/2015 9:03:26 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:

I believe the "open letter" is a hoax. In addition to no letterhead and no date, the Max Kingery signature is different than the one on the Sgt. Bradley letter. Somebody's idea of funny, IMO.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The letter is not on letterhead, it's not dated, it means little at this point...

I believe the "open letter" is a hoax. In addition to no letterhead and no date, the Max Kingery signature is different than the one on the Sgt. Bradley letter. Somebody's idea of funny, IMO.

It's on the ATF's website under firearms..

Posted: 1/16/2015 9:03:33 PM EDT

[#45]

The last Open Letter posted on atf.gov was in June 2014...

Linky...

Posted: 1/16/2015 9:10:39 PM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:

It's on the ATF's website under firearms..

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The letter is not on letterhead, it's not dated, it means little at this point...

I believe the "open letter" is a hoax. In addition to no letterhead and no date, the Max Kingery signature is different than the one on the Sgt. Bradley letter. Somebody's idea of funny, IMO.

It's on the ATF's website under firearms..

You're right, it is on the ATF sight. But according to the search I ran for "open letter stabilizing braces" it is from 2013. WTF

News

www.atf.gov/.../news

Feb 21, 2013 – Open Letter on the Redesign of "Stabilizing Braces" The Firearms and Ammunition ... from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” ATF ... to Comply with Ruling 2013-5 Open Letter to all West Virginia Federal Firearms Licensees ATF Announces NEW ...