You don't remember correctly at all.  Go back and look it's all there. I never once said shouldering a pistol was illegal. I never said I disapproved. I actually have IMs back and forth with Alex before the brace was even introduced and told him it was a good project and based on his intended use the ATF would allow it. The only thing I ever said was that installing the brace for the sole purpose of using it to shoulder fire the firearm was making a rifle by the very definition. I further said many times that everyone should stop posting videos and stop posting about the brace being a loophole before they change their minds about it.



Nobody listened, everybody told me that there was no way the ATF would go back on it. No way could you make a SBR with the brace because it wasn't a stock. No way...

When the Bradly letter came out everyone decided that it was perfectly legal to put it on for the sole purpose of shouldering because the ATF said it OK.



Again I said installing it for the purpose of shoulder firing was building a rifle. All I got was more name calling and bullshit.



Well guess what.





 

I find it funny that you claim to have IM's between yourself and Alex Bosco in which you allegedly told him "it would be approved as long as it's used as intended" and then turn right around and send in letters asking if it is alright to shoulder. I just find that funny. Yeah you, iNeXile556. I'm talkin' about you.

coc

Here's a direct quote from one of your posts in which you posted the letter to which you wrote... We'll let the arfcom community decide...


February 17, 2014



Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Firearms Technology Branch

244 Needy Road

Martinsburg, West Virginia

25405

USA





Sir(s),


In reference to your recent ruling that the Sig SB 15 pistol brace is not a stock and does not convert the pistol into a NFA firearm, or does not convert the firearm to a shoulder fired weapon ( 903050:MMK 3311/2013-0172), I would like clarification on a few questions.

1. Is it legal to for me to install a SB-15 on an existing AR15 pistol?

2. Is it legal to install a SB-15 on a new AR15 style build with a barrel less that 16" to provide more comfort should I wish to brace it with my shoulder and fire the pistol at some point?

3. I realize that a firearm made, remade, designed or redesigned and intended to be fired from the shoulder is generally classified as a rifle. However the SB-15 has been ruled as not being a stock and that a pistol I built with a SB-15 brace installed would not be classified a rifle even if I may choose to fire it from my shoulder at some time. Is that correct?

4. Is it legal to use the longer A1 or A2 rifle receiver extension on an AR15 pistol to increase the LOP should I wish to brace it with my shoulder and fire the pistol?

5. Is it legal to make a longer, or lengthen a AR 15 pistol receiver extension to increase LOP should I wish to brace it with my shoulder and fire the pistol?

6. Is it legal to install a cane tip on the end of an AR15 pistol receiver extension to provide comfort should I choose to shoulder firing it?

7. What is considered to be, or the legal definition of, a stock for the purpose of designing and or intending a firearm to be shoulder fired?

Thank You,

Exactly now point to the part where I asked if it was OK to shoulder.


I asked "should I wish to brace it with my shoulder and fire the pistol at some point". (emphasis added)


Purposely leaving any original design or intent out of it.





 
 

No, sir. Sugar coat it however you want but apparently this whole mess is YOUR FAULT.

You're only lying to yourself, kid.

Indeed I have such power!



 

It's right there in my letter that YOU posted.

For the record I retired in 1997, kid.



 

This is a tech thread - not GD... so take all the bickering (& the foul language) to the bear pit.

I want answers.

You WANT answers?  **Jack Nicholson voice**

You can't handle the truth

Sorry folks but this is pretty much exactly what I recall IneXile stating time and time again.  He isn't against us, just trying to keep some of us numbskulls from meeting up with Bubba.  I hope Sig kicks their ass but in the end it could end up being an all or nothing verdict.

I wonder how well a timeline argument would hold up in court......?

The open letter is, itself, undated. But a search of the ATF website shows the letter dated Feb 21, 2013.

The letter states all previous letters are voided. "Previous" being the operative word, meaning coming before in chronological order.

The letter to Sgt. Bradley that states it is perfectly legal to fire the brace from the shoulder is marked March 5, 2014.

So you could argue that the date of the letter is Feb 21, 2013 and only affects previous letters, so the later dated March 5, 2014 letter saying it is legal to shoulder the brace would be the legally controlling opinion, as it is the most recent.

Or you could argue that since the open letter only voids "previous" letters, but is undated, it is illegally vague on what letters are actually void, making the open letter unenforceable.

The only thing that would have made it more of a sham was to have waited until April 1st to release the letter.

This thread is nonsense, just got at your own and who cares anymore.

AR15.com is even starting to sensor SB15 shouldering images by the way.

This. The 2014 letter is more recent than the 2013 letter, and therefore supercedes it.

I thought the same thing but the "2013 letter" comes up on the "news" link dated 2013. If you right click on the letter and open "document properties" you can see it was created on 1/16/15 and last modified that same day. This was pointed out by someone who figured it out but I can't remember which thread.

Still, a "letter" without a date or letter head is nothing I consider credible.

Not computer rocket science -- document properties in Adobe Reader shows creation date as 1/16/2015, 4:18:25 PM.

- OS

Which shows the date the document was scanned, NOT when it was signed. The lack of a date on the original document (not the scanned PDF copy) makes it legally worthless.

It's a pretty universal principle in law that documents have to be dated AND signed to have any validity. Otherwise you have no way to know which version of a will, contract, or other document is the most current, or supersedes other related documents.

All true enough, but seems non sequitur to debate the "legitimacy" of the document because of how it's formatted. It's not a contract or a statute, not even one of their "official rulings", but simply an informational edict, an implied statement of intent as to how ATF will enforce existing law (if they choose too).  The format of the document itself won't be the issue if argued in criminal or civil court system.

- OS

It was created in Microsoft Word by "Ryan2222" and saved as a pdf. Signatures are easily saved and inserted in documents, although that one looks different than the Max Kingery signature on the Bradley letter. It is an electronic copy which doesn't need to be scanned.

So anyone with access to the BATFE site could have created the document and pasted in Kingery's signature without him even knowing.

I'm don't doubt that the ATF leadership feels that way, but this theoretically could be an intern's idea of a prank.

Uh, no. Get over the conspiracy compulsion. It's just a pdf file uploaded to a link with a 2013 date. I agree that it means nothing without a date and letterhead but it was written this month.

We could use some more input like this. It adds so much to the discussion.

Not that. People have been flaunting brace misuse since misuse was legal but "not recommended." Funny how all those videos dissappeared overnight.

Again, the ATF themselves say letters are good only to those they are addressed to. If they didn't want a slew of letters they should have said otherwise.

I don't believe it's a prank, I'm just pointing out it's incredibly sloppy methodology legally. The kind of stuff a first-year law student would know better than to do. And IMO that sloppiness (among other things) could be used as grounds to challenge it.

Can I legally fire my Glock 19 with a 2-handed grip without filing a form 1?

IWI just released an Uzi and a Galil pistol with a side-folder brace. They are obviously not concerned about the ATF.Wonder if they had any patent issues with Sig.

https://iwi.us/Catalog2015/default.aspx

Screw the ATF and the government they rode in on. End of rant.

The braces for the IWI Galil and Uzi are made by Alex Bosco's company SB15 Tactical.

Yeah, SB Tactical to be exact.

Of course I have no idea of the business arrangements on these things between Alex and SIG/Century/IWI, but I'm guessing he probably holds the patent rights.

- OS