User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 10:19:55 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Use" is not part of the NFA definition so that's irrelevant. Design and intent are all that matter and if Sig is harmed by "arbitrary and capricious" letters from ATF, they can file a complaint. And they have. They wouldn't have a problem winning "use does not equal redesign". http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20141008/News/141009232 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A class action or even singular criminal suit may not be in order. Declaratory relief is possible and can be pursued by those who can prove the decision is arbitrary and harmful. The problem with this idea is that manufacturer claiming this ruling was "harmful" would essentially be committing suicide. Think about it: the SB15 was approved with the stated understanding that the "primary use" was going to be an arm brace. Then, the ATF bans shouldering it. Sig cannot sue the BATFE on the grounds that they caused Sig caused them massive sales impact without implicitly admitting that the overwhelming majority use - the true primary use - was to be a shoulder stock, and the whole arm brace thing was (or became) a blind to the true purpose of the SB15. If Sig admitted that, they'd be admitting to making and selling thousands and thousands of illegal SBRs. It would destroy them. Further, it's not even clear to me that Sig has grounds to sue the BATFE for loss of sales anyways. The BATFE isn't banning this thing, it's banning the misuse of it. The BATFE is not stopping Sig from selling anything it couldn't sell before the letter. If fewer people want to buy it, is that really _direct_ harm to Sig? The BATFE is not under any mandate that their regulations must maximize sales for gun manufacturers. "Use" is not part of the NFA definition so that's irrelevant. Design and intent are all that matter and if Sig is harmed by "arbitrary and capricious" letters from ATF, they can file a complaint. And they have. They wouldn't have a problem winning "use does not equal redesign". http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20141008/News/141009232 The redesign has nothing to do with the SIG Brace itself. The redesign the ATF is making reference to is the weapon itself. Installing a SIG Brace on an AR pistol with the full intent of only shoulder firing the weapon constitutes its design as being a SBR and the SIG Brace is thusly used as a stock at that point and not a brace as it is intended. Redesign - from AR pistol to AR SBR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 10:42:37 AM EDT
[#2]
wow, this issue certainly has brought out the boot lickers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 11:52:32 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The redesign has nothing to do with the SIG Brace itself. The redesign the ATF is making reference to is the weapon itself. Installing a SIG Brace on an AR pistol with the full intent of only shoulder firing the weapon constitutes its design as being a SBR and the SIG Brace is thusly used as a stock at that point and not a brace as it is intended. Redesign - from AR pistol to AR SBR. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A class action or even singular criminal suit may not be in order. Declaratory relief is possible and can be pursued by those who can prove the decision is arbitrary and harmful. The problem with this idea is that manufacturer claiming this ruling was "harmful" would essentially be committing suicide. Think about it: the SB15 was approved with the stated understanding that the "primary use" was going to be an arm brace. Then, the ATF bans shouldering it. Sig cannot sue the BATFE on the grounds that they caused Sig caused them massive sales impact without implicitly admitting that the overwhelming majority use - the true primary use - was to be a shoulder stock, and the whole arm brace thing was (or became) a blind to the true purpose of the SB15. If Sig admitted that, they'd be admitting to making and selling thousands and thousands of illegal SBRs. It would destroy them. Further, it's not even clear to me that Sig has grounds to sue the BATFE for loss of sales anyways. The BATFE isn't banning this thing, it's banning the misuse of it. The BATFE is not stopping Sig from selling anything it couldn't sell before the letter. If fewer people want to buy it, is that really _direct_ harm to Sig? The BATFE is not under any mandate that their regulations must maximize sales for gun manufacturers. "Use" is not part of the NFA definition so that's irrelevant. Design and intent are all that matter and if Sig is harmed by "arbitrary and capricious" letters from ATF, they can file a complaint. And they have. They wouldn't have a problem winning "use does not equal redesign". http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20141008/News/141009232 The redesign has nothing to do with the SIG Brace itself. The redesign the ATF is making reference to is the weapon itself. Installing a SIG Brace on an AR pistol with the full intent of only shoulder firing the weapon constitutes its design as being a SBR and the SIG Brace is thusly used as a stock at that point and not a brace as it is intended. Redesign - from AR pistol to AR SBR. It does not matter. The use of an object can not change a design. One branch of the government, the patent office, can not have a different definition of a word than another branch of the government (in this case the IRS). I guarantee that use can not change a design at the patent office. Can't happen. Now, you can pass a law that says this design can not be used this way, they do that with chemicals. But there is no law governing the way someone shoots a legal firearm in a legal pursuit (think trick shooters and all the different ways a firearm can be shot). So it's either legal for everyone, or illegal for everyone (unless the brace is declared a medical device by prescription only). The ADA does have those provisions, I'm assuming. So unless the legislature wants to prohibit the way we shoot legal firearms, that ruling by ATF becomes arbitrary and capricious. The ATF can not make law, and their interpretation is so weak they can't even cite a similar ruling. They reference one a combination of parts (false analogy) and then talk about nail guns (without reference). Lame. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 2:14:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Glad someone else gets it. Good job Yelpers!
This ruling requires precedent. The ATF simply can not arbitrarily define the word "redesign" to meet their expectations for regulation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 2:37:28 PM EDT
[#5]
May be semantics but I don't think an open letter is the same as a ruling (the ATF has many rulings which are posted on its website).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 2:57:11 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
May be semantics but I don't think an open letter is the same as a ruling (the ATF has many rulings which are posted on its website). The letter is not the ruling. Their definition of redesign is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 4:00:41 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: wow, this issue certainly has brought out the boot lickers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 4:35:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The whiny ASS FUCKERS on this forum got what they wanted  This Yup |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 4:57:33 PM EDT
[#9]
I'm going to should fire my Winchester 1892 "Mare's Leg". Then I am going to shoot my AR pistol while holding the mag well like a vertical fore grip.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 5:02:01 PM EDT
[#10]
If you attached an Oscar Mayer hot dog to your pistols front picatinny rail with a piece of string cheese, does that make it an AOW? This new ruling is no less absurd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 5:04:30 PM EDT
[#11]
I know it is shot show week and every one and their brother in the business is there... has any one heard anything from Sig with their take on this?.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 5:15:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know it is shot show week and every one and their brother in the business is there... has any one heard anything from Sig with their take on this?. Im sure the entire company has been advised to seal their lips completely about it. Their arm brace is a successful product for disabled veterans. I would be willing to bet Sig has sold at least 100,000 Sb15 braces since inception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 5:53:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Im sure the entire company has been advised to seal their lips completely about it. Their arm brace is a successful product for disabled veterans. I would be willing to bet Sig has sold at least 100,000 Sb15 braces since inception. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I know it is shot show week and every one and their brother in the business is there... has any one heard anything from Sig with their take on this?. Im sure the entire company has been advised to seal their lips completely about it. Their arm brace is a successful product for disabled veterans. I would be willing to bet Sig has sold at least 100,000 Sb15 braces since inception. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-statement-sig-sauer-atf-pistol-brace-ruling/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 5:58:12 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-statement-sig-sauer-atf-pistol-brace-ruling/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know it is shot show week and every one and their brother in the business is there... has any one heard anything from Sig with their take on this?. Im sure the entire company has been advised to seal their lips completely about it. Their arm brace is a successful product for disabled veterans. I would be willing to bet Sig has sold at least 100,000 Sb15 braces since inception. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-statement-sig-sauer-atf-pistol-brace-ruling/ As could be expected. In case folks haven't read this, I'll repost: http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/26/whoops-we-atf-did-it-again-arbitrary-determinations-over-the-sig-brace/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 6:27:14 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As could be expected. In case folks haven't read this, I'll repost: http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/26/whoops-we-atf-did-it-again-arbitrary-determinations-over-the-sig-brace/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know it is shot show week and every one and their brother in the business is there... has any one heard anything from Sig with their take on this?. Im sure the entire company has been advised to seal their lips completely about it. Their arm brace is a successful product for disabled veterans. I would be willing to bet Sig has sold at least 100,000 Sb15 braces since inception. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-statement-sig-sauer-atf-pistol-brace-ruling/ As could be expected. In case folks haven't read this, I'll repost: http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/26/whoops-we-atf-did-it-again-arbitrary-determinations-over-the-sig-brace/ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 6:36:45 PM EDT
[#16]
I do hope Sig and us as the users come out on top as victors so I can sell my brace and Odin works locking collar for a good price. But god help me if these things do become 100% illegal to shoulder.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 7:25:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do hope Sig and us as the users come out on top as victors so I can sell my brace and Odin works locking collar for a good price. But god help me if these things do become 100% illegal to shoulder.  Legality is not measured in percentages...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 7:50:43 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The redesign has nothing to do with the SIG Brace itself. The redesign the ATF is making reference to is the weapon itself. Installing a SIG Brace on an AR pistol with the full intent of only shoulder firing the weapon constitutes its design as being a SBR and the SIG Brace is thusly used as a stock at that point and not a brace as it is intended. Redesign - from AR pistol to AR SBR. This is exactly what what was defined by congress and codified as law for the past 80 years. "Rifle. 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 the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger." If you put a Sig Brace on a pistol with the intent to shoulder fire it you have redesigned that firearm (from the original design of firing with one hand) and remade that firearm into a rifle. If you build it from lower all at once and intend to fire it from your shoulder you have designed (as a shoulder fired weapon) and made (put it together) a rifle. And if it has a barrel under 16 inches or is under 26 inches in over all length then that rifle is a Short Barreled Rifle. It doesn't really get any clearer than that. Just plain English. However, there is nothing about how it is held when fired that can change the classification of any firearm. How it is used i.e. a nail gun, flair launcher, as a weapon, yes that can change the classification. Over 26" OAL and concealed on the person? Yes that can change the classification. Full automatic parts in the possession of a owner of a firearm capable of using them? Yes that can change the classification. Holding the firearm in a certain position when firing? NO that cannot change the classification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 8:12:20 PM EDT
[#19]
You have to have design, made and intent to be a rifle. You can't say intent is design because that's redundant and there would be no need for intent. You have to have all three (and they've already declared the brace doesn't meet design). They have made and intent but they don't have design. Design has all kind of legal precedent.
The only thing that's interesting is the nail gun and that's quite dubious without cite. But I'm sure you'll find what they're talking about. Must be case law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 8:32:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have to have design, made and intent to be a rifle. You can't say intent is design because that's redundant and there would be no need for intent. You have to have all three (and they've already declared the brace doesn't meet design). They have made and intent but they don't have design. Design has all kind of legal precedent. The only thing that's interesting is the nail gun and that's quite dubious without cite. But I'm sure you'll find what they're talking about. Must be case law. No worries though, I seem to be missing your point too. That's what keeps this stuff interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 8:47:13 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 10:34:55 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your just missing it altogether. No worries though, I seem to be missing your point too. That's what keeps this stuff interesting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You have to have design, made and intent to be a rifle. You can't say intent is design because that's redundant and there would be no need for intent. You have to have all three (and they've already declared the brace doesn't meet design). They have made and intent but they don't have design. Design has all kind of legal precedent. The only thing that's interesting is the nail gun and that's quite dubious without cite. But I'm sure you'll find what they're talking about. Must be case law. No worries though, I seem to be missing your point too. That's what keeps this stuff interesting. I'll explain why I don't get it. The government is allowing Sig to sell a legal item that all this time if misused could result in a felony charge, a fine and time in prison, the misuse being firing while shouldered. And remember, once a short barreled rifle always a short barreled rifle. And they're allowing this without a disclaimer to the public at the time of sale. At least when you buy a can of spray paint, there's a warning label on the can and a law cited about it's misuse. That's a bit of a liability oversight, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2015 11:24:08 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryIt looks like Sig may be going to go after the ATF and help us out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 12:26:53 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll explain why I don't get it. The government is allowing Sig to sell a legal item that all this time if misused could result in a felony charge, a fine and time in prison, the misuse being firing while shouldered. And remember, once a short barreled rifle always a short barreled rifle. And they're allowing this without a disclaimer to the public at the time of sale. At least when you buy a can of spray paint, there's a warning label on the can and a law cited about it's misuse. That's a bit of a liability oversight, don't you think? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to have design, made and intent to be a rifle. You can't say intent is design because that's redundant and there would be no need for intent. You have to have all three (and they've already declared the brace doesn't meet design). They have made and intent but they don't have design. Design has all kind of legal precedent. The only thing that's interesting is the nail gun and that's quite dubious without cite. But I'm sure you'll find what they're talking about. Must be case law. No worries though, I seem to be missing your point too. That's what keeps this stuff interesting. I'll explain why I don't get it. The government is allowing Sig to sell a legal item that all this time if misused could result in a felony charge, a fine and time in prison, the misuse being firing while shouldered. And remember, once a short barreled rifle always a short barreled rifle. And they're allowing this without a disclaimer to the public at the time of sale. At least when you buy a can of spray paint, there's a warning label on the can and a law cited about it's misuse. That's a bit of a liability oversight, don't you think? which is what the letter says will change the classification, and the act of shoulder firing the gun. I'm leaning on the side of that letter meaning if you put on a brace to use as a stock, i.e. intentionally installed to facilitate shoulder firing, then their earlier classification of it not being a stock changes, you have "redesigned" the brace. And with that change redefines the pistol as a SBR because it has a stock on it. A round about way of dealing with the intent issue of the rifle definition. I don't think the ATF is that stupid as to say that the shooting position could change the design of a firearm. That would have way too many effects on the legality of firing of any firearm from any unconventional position. If I put the brace on a pistol for the purpose of firing from the shoulder I have "used the brace as a butt stock". The classification of something can change by how/what it is used for. But the position of how a gun is held when fired does not change how the gun is used. It is still used as a gun to fire a projectile. I may be wrong in my thinking but I find it strange that they worded it in a way that highlights how you use the brace as opposed to how you fire the firearm. I feel the letter may be worded just to intimidate users to not use it to fire from the shoulder because without considerable research and expense it would be hard to collect evidence that a individual maker intended it to be shoulder fired from the start which would, by existing definition, make it a SBR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 2:38:34 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The letter is not the ruling. Their definition of redesign is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
May be semantics but I don't think an open letter is the same as a ruling (the ATF has many rulings which are posted on its website). The letter is not the ruling. Their definition of redesign is. That also is not a ruling, that's just part of the open letter. ATF rulings are here: https://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/index.html At present this situation isn't there, and the semantics still matter because the rulings are really where the ATF jumps in under the APA-unless I'm totally off base here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 4:24:11 AM EDT
[#26]
I guess the real question is does simply shouldering the SIG brace prove intent? I don't think simply misusing something could do this.
My suspicion is they would have to somehow prove that you never intended to use the brace as advertised, if this is the case then nothing at all has changed other than the ATF is really just trying to intimidate people so that they can start getting some of that Tax stamp money back. If this is the case then make sure to use the brace as intended more often than not and intent can never without a shadow of a doubt be proven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 10:08:40 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
..................... I don't think the ATF is that stupid as to say that the shooting position could change the design of a firearm. That would have way too many effects on the legality of firing of any firearm from any unconventional position...........................................I feel the letter may be worded just to intimidate users to not use it to fire from the shoulder because without considerable research and expense it would be hard to collect evidence that a individual maker intended it to be shoulder fired from the start which would, by existing definition, make it a SBR. That is exactly what they are saying. I like the approach of Sig's attorney in their pending brake suit. But instead of challenging the law, SIG’s attorney, Stephen Halbrook, said he sees the suit as challenging the regulator. “The law defines regulated devices in a certain way and the ATF overreaches how it enforces those definitions,” he said. Challenging the Regulator If your theory is true, a pistol that is bought complete with a brace can legally be fired from the shoulder because the intent of the maker was for it to be used as a pistol. There never was any intent by the new owner in the building process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 11:08:57 AM EDT
[#28]
Forget the SIG brace. If I put my Phase V buffer tube to my shoulder have I created an illegal SBR?
Or has that been covered somewhere in the past 12 pages 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 11:46:52 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Forget the SIG brace. If I put my Phase V buffer tube to my shoulder have I created an illegal SBR? Or has that been covered somewhere in the past 12 pages Well, the Thordsen letter leaves it open to interpretation. If your tube redesigns the pistol, then yes it's an SBR. They just don't explain if or how that can happen. They're up there sitting on the fence post on that one. I'm interpreting that if the ATF can find a way to shoe horn the tube against you, they may. It's just not clear how they're going to get there. http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/01/01/ringing-in-the-new-year-atf-style/ “However, if a pistol assembled with an AR-type buffer tube or similar component; which in turn, redesigns the subject AR-type pistol to be designed or redesigned and consequently intended to be fired from the shoulder; an NFA weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3); has been made." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 11:57:12 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is exactly what they are saying. I like the approach of Sig's attorney in their pending brake suit. But instead of challenging the law, SIG’s attorney, Stephen Halbrook, said he sees the suit as challenging the regulator. “The law defines regulated devices in a certain way and the ATF overreaches how it enforces those definitions,” he said. Challenging the Regulator If your theory is true, a pistol that is bought complete with a brace can legally be fired from the shoulder because the intent of the maker was for it to be used as a pistol. There never was any intent by the new owner in the building process. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
..................... I don't think the ATF is that stupid as to say that the shooting position could change the design of a firearm. That would have way too many effects on the legality of firing of any firearm from any unconventional position...........................................I feel the letter may be worded just to intimidate users to not use it to fire from the shoulder because without considerable research and expense it would be hard to collect evidence that a individual maker intended it to be shoulder fired from the start which would, by existing definition, make it a SBR. That is exactly what they are saying. I like the approach of Sig's attorney in their pending brake suit. But instead of challenging the law, SIG’s attorney, Stephen Halbrook, said he sees the suit as challenging the regulator. “The law defines regulated devices in a certain way and the ATF overreaches how it enforces those definitions,” he said. Challenging the Regulator If your theory is true, a pistol that is bought complete with a brace can legally be fired from the shoulder because the intent of the maker was for it to be used as a pistol. There never was any intent by the new owner in the building process. Good for Sig to bring in Halbrook, who did the Thompson Center case. That's as heavy a hitter as you can get. Probably also means they've made a ton of money on the brace or feel the company is heavily exposed from a liability standpoint. Probably a combination of both, although the latter certainly is an issue. I'm not sure putting a buyer at the kind of risk the ATF has now leveled is covered under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. They're probably feeling a bit exposed with those letters. Bringing in Halbrook sounds like they're prepared to fight this vigorously since he's qualified to take it where ever it leads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act Although, I didn't read the link that Halbrook was brought in for the suppressor issue. Well, I can't imagine they would use someone else though. The arguments have similarity on determining, defining and establishing what entails intent. That's a really interesting muzzle brake, a suppressor baffle core welded to the end of a barrel. Those Sig guys are really pushing the industry. Good for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 2:08:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going to should fire my Winchester 1892 "Mare's Leg". Then I am going to shoot my AR pistol while holding the mag well like a vertical fore grip. Please post pictures! I shot my Mare's Leg last weekend for the first time. I was thinking about the AR brace brouhaha while I was doing so. I can't see any way to shoulder that little stock. My post-panic AR brace purchase should be delivered today. I should get to shoot again in about 10 days. I'll get to see what the whole brace issue is all about then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2015 5:08:46 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 11:10:13 AM EDT
[#33]
So this all boils down to simply firing the very first round from a freshly built pistol with a sb15 with the thing strapped to your forearm.
After that test fire you agree that you don't like it and that it may be comfortable to hold it to your shoulder to brace your pistol. That feels good. Full intention of using it as a forearm brace, but it just didn't feel right. Oh well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 11:14:00 AM EDT
[#34]
Delete all the old videos of shoulder firing and make new videos of firing strapped to the arm as you originally intended.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 12:36:14 PM EDT
[#35]
Interesting read from SHOT show when a couple of guys questioned ATF agents about the ruling. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/atf-change-minds-brace-people-kept-sending-letters/
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 3:59:09 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting read from SHOT show when a couple of guys questioned ATF agents about the ruling. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/atf-change-minds-brace-people-kept-sending-letters/ I'll bet what the ATF said at SHOT wiil be used against them in court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 4:56:51 PM EDT
[#37]
TTAG does not always print the absolute truth in their reports. What they say and what the ATF said was most likely two different things, but with some similarities. TTAG has a way of reporting things to make their point and not necessarily to bring out the whole truth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 5:47:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
TTAG does not always print the absolute truth in their reports. What they say and what the ATF said was most likely two different things, but with some similarities. TTAG has a way of reporting things to make their point and not necessarily to bring out the whole truth. Quote HistoryQuoted:
TTAG does not always print the absolute truth in their reports. What they say and what the ATF said was most likely two different things, but with some similarities. TTAG has a way of reporting things to make their point and not necessarily to bring out the whole truth. Yeah, I laughed out loud when I read this over there... As Alex said later, that statement is very troubling as it indicates that the ATF is basing their ruling and their decisions not on the law or the technology but instead on mob rule. Yeah, there's no way a human being could ever think through something and come to one conclusion....but then upon hearing others talk about the issue reasonably reconsider their previous position. Yeah, no way. Never happened in the history of man kind...it must be.....MOB RULE!!!!!  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 6:27:11 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote History“However, if a pistol assembled with an AR-type buffer tube or similar component; which in turn, redesigns the subject AR-type pistol to be designed or redesigned and consequently intended to be fired from the shoulder; an NFA weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3); has been made." This is the most asinine thing I've read yet and I'm assuming it is because the quote was taken out of context. The buffer tube is an integral part of the Stoner design and a standard AR Pistol simply won't function without it. So are they suggesting that someone would add an "AR-type Buffer tube" to their Glock pistol???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 7:13:16 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is the most asinine thing I've read yet and I'm assuming it is because the quote was taken out of context. The buffer tube is an integral part of the Stoner design and a standard AR Pistol simply won't function without it. So are they suggesting that someone would add an "AR-type Buffer tube" to their Glock pistol??? Quote HistoryQuoted: "However, if a pistol assembled with an AR-type buffer tube or similar component; which in turn, redesigns the subject AR-type pistol to be designed or redesigned and consequently intended to be fired from the shoulder; an NFA weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3); has been made." This is the most asinine thing I've read yet and I'm assuming it is because the quote was taken out of context. The buffer tube is an integral part of the Stoner design and a standard AR Pistol simply won't function without it. So are they suggesting that someone would add an "AR-type Buffer tube" to their Glock pistol??? While a buffer tube is required for an AR pistol to operate, adding a rifle RE, aftermarket, extension..., or even adding saddles with the intention of using it to shoulder fire designs or redesigns the pistol and makes it a NFA firearm. This would agree with this is already codified in the USC. I'm saying I agree, just saying that's my interpretation of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 11:14:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Remember when Fortis came out with their AFG and everyone ran around with their pants on fire because the ATF hadn't dick blessed it yet too.
Once a pistol, always a pistol. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 9:14:22 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Remember when Fortis came out with their AFG and everyone ran around with their pants on fire because the ATF hadn't dick blessed it yet too. Once a pistol, always a pistol. http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/u655/Scoeyaz/Rant/GlockAssultPistol_zpsdbaavyvd.jpg Add a stock it becomes a SBR. Adda VFG it becomes a AOW. Add a stock and 16" barrel it becomes a rifle. Make it shoot more than 1 round with a single action of the trigger and it's a machine gun. The firearm in your picture is a AOW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 9:58:47 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the most asinine thing I've read yet and I'm assuming it is because the quote was taken out of context. The buffer tube is an integral part of the Stoner design and a standard AR Pistol simply won't function without it. So are they suggesting that someone would add an "AR-type Buffer tube" to their Glock pistol??? Quote HistoryQuoted:
“However, if a pistol assembled with an AR-type buffer tube or similar component; which in turn, redesigns the subject AR-type pistol to be designed or redesigned and consequently intended to be fired from the shoulder; an NFA weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3); has been made." This is the most asinine thing I've read yet and I'm assuming it is because the quote was taken out of context. The buffer tube is an integral part of the Stoner design and a standard AR Pistol simply won't function without it. So are they suggesting that someone would add an "AR-type Buffer tube" to their Glock pistol??? Thanks for posting this. I went back and took a look to see if that was the case. I think you're correct; I took that out of context without realizing it. Thordsen was addressing putting tubes on guns that don't require the buffer tube (receiver extension). I had completely forgot about the Draco and how the ATF allowed an extension to the AK pistol for the purposes of adding a stabilizer. So yes, I think you're correct. ATF was more than likely referring to pistols like the Draco. In that context, it makes more sense. https://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/atf_letter_pistol_builders_pack_rev_03.pdf Here's a pseudo Krinkov that you can only buy if you intend to purchase it as a Draco. http://www.arsenalinc.com/usa/SAM7K-03-PISTOL.html Be mindful of those intentions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 12:20:16 PM EDT
[#44]
As for the ATF agent at SHOT, I would just as much trust calling up the IRS for an answer on how to correctly calculate my taxes. An Agency of the USG isn't bound by one single agents comments, repeated calls have resulted in getting a wide range of erroneous answers.
If anything the current trend the ATF is engaging in is to muddy the water as much as possible - during the annual national firearms sales show where there are at least a dozen new models of pistols equipped with braces for sale. And they know about each and every one, they were consulted for approval. It's speculative, but the Administration to who they answer seems to be driving this line of thought more than knowledgeable ATF agents. It's as if someone didn't see that declaratory relief was something they could lose. I always thought that pressuring judges was something you couldn't win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 2:25:16 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The whiny ASS FUCKERS on this forum got what they wanted  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 6:24:03 PM EDT
[#46]
Don't know about you folks but I plan on sitting back and wait for SIG, the original manufacturer, go up against ATF and see what happens. They have the deep pockets to do this. If we get ruled against, then I will install a 6 inch brake on my 10.5 inch barrel, pinned of course, to get away from all this bullshit! Screw paying 200 bucks plus what ever the other costs is to own a rifle. Fucking ridiculous.
BTW, should have left it alone after the letter that was published about not determining usage of the brace. That was the golden ticket if it were left alone. But no, fucktards had to prod ATF more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 7:28:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remember when Fortis came out with their AFG and everyone ran around with their pants on fire because the ATF hadn't dick blessed it yet too. Once a pistol, always a pistol. http://i1326.photobucket.com/albums/u655/Scoeyaz/Rant/GlockAssultPistol_zpsdbaavyvd.jpg "I'll take "Intent" for $400, Alex." "What do you get when you turn the brace upside down on this pistol?" "A Sig-Braced Pistol, Alex!" "That is correct!" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 2:51:27 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't know about you folks but I plan on sitting back and wait for SIG, the original manufacturer, go up against ATF and see what happens. They have the deep pockets to do this. If we get ruled against, then I will install a 6 inch brake on my 10.5 inch barrel, pinned of course, to get away from all this bullshit! Screw paying 200 bucks plus what ever the other costs is to own a rifle. Fucking ridiculous. BTW, should have left it alone after the letter that was published about not determining usage of the brace. That was the golden ticket if it were left alone. But no, fucktards had to prod ATF more. If I remember correctly, inexile556 was pretty butthurt over the Bradley letter because it was contrary to what he had predicted. After that he said he was going to send a letter making it clear that his intent would be to use the brace as a stock and see what they said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 3:51:22 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I remember correctly, inexile556 was pretty butthurt over the Bradley letter because it was contrary to what he had predicted. After that he said he was going to send a letter making it clear that his intent would be to use the brace as a stock and see what they said. Let's save the call-out posts for the bear-pit, eh?... as I'm sure that: 1 - Inexile is far from being the only person to write such a letter &... 2 - The blame game serves absolutely no use at this point in a tech thread. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 4:45:25 PM EDT
[#50]
There's no point in blaming each other, and it's counter productive.
The ATF promotes writing the letters and then supposedly says the letters were the last straw. Whatever. The reality is they did not envision how wildly popular they would become and now want to call anything that touches a shoulder an sbr. Ridiculous. |
|
|
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.
