User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 9:58:02 PM EDT
[#1]
This is why I'm going with the Thordsen/CAA saddle device on my next AR pistol. For us who can't get SBR's the Sig brace was nice to have.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 9:58:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry Yeah, not a lot of rhyme or reason how things are scattered around and/or not updated on ATF site. For example, on rulings page, the latest one referenced is from July of 2013: http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/index.html - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:00:54 PM EDT
[#3]
I noticed the prices on the Sig Braces dropping this evening already.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:32:42 PM EDT
[#4]
WTF?? Screw this BS. I'm totally sending in a letter asking if holding a pistol with two hands makes it an AOW.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:34:38 PM EDT
[#5]
Well with the way this thing is worded opens a lot of questions up. Such as handguns are designed to be fired with one hand does firing them with both hands now make it AOW?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:35:33 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WTF?? Screw this BS. I'm totally sending in a letter asking if holding a pistol with two hands makes it an AOW. Great minds think alike I spose |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:37:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.
According to The logic In The letter, Just firing It with 2 hands redesigns It And makes It an AOW. According to this letters logic, anyone who has ever fired a pistol 2 handed made an AOW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:40:35 PM EDT
[#8]
There are so many holes in this that they are going to have to reclassify it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:42:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to The logic In The letter, Just firing It with 2 hands redesigns It And makes It an AOW. According to this letters logic, anyone who has ever fired a pistol 2 handed made an AOW. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.
According to The logic In The letter, Just firing It with 2 hands redesigns It And makes It an AOW. According to this letters logic, anyone who has ever fired a pistol 2 handed made an AOW. Imagine all those lawbreaker cops out there 
It would be hilarious to see the police all shooting one handed Barney Fife style again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:43:00 PM EDT
[#10]
None of this would have even happened if the people at the ATF were not retarded to begin with. Or, better yet, the ATF didn't exist. Watch, people will now send a bazillion letters asking about other items that can be placed on a buffer tube. If those idiots keep it up, we won't be allowed to purchase foam pads, cane ends, saddles and maybe even f'ing AR pistols.
The real question is, WTF are we all going to do with this $110 piece of rubber? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:43:41 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are so many holes in this that they are going to have to reclassify it. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:47:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Imagine all those lawbreaker cops out there
It would be hilarious to see the police all shooting one handed Barney Fife style again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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.
According to The logic In The letter, Just firing It with 2 hands redesigns It And makes It an AOW. According to this letters logic, anyone who has ever fired a pistol 2 handed made an AOW. Imagine all those lawbreaker cops out there
It would be hilarious to see the police all shooting one handed Barney Fife style again. That Is What must happen If This "letter" Is to be The law. What about the handguard on an AR pistol? It is not necessary to the function of the rifle so how is it legal? You Don't need It because It Is now illegal to shoot It with 2 hands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:48:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None of this would have even happened if the people at the ATF were not retarded to begin with. Or, better yet, the ATF didn't exist. Watch, people will now send a bazillion letters asking about other items that can be placed on a buffer tube. If those idiots keep it up, we won't be allowed to purchase foam pads, cane ends, saddles and maybe even f'ing AR pistols. The real question is, WTF are we all going to do with this $110 piece of rubber? Is there a class action law suit by Sig here against the ATF? I would think, but what do I know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:48:07 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The moral of the story...Stop Writing Fucking Letters to the ATF, or whatever the fuck they call themselves today. This, they ruled in our favor right off the bat. Not a single letter should have been written after |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:50:38 PM EDT
[#15]
I'm going to all the local gun ranges tomorrow and look for guys shouldering their SIG braces. If I find anyone doing so, I'm taking a picture and telling ATF!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:52:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a class action law suit by Sig here against the ATF? I would think, but what do I know. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
None of this would have even happened if the people at the ATF were not retarded to begin with. Or, better yet, the ATF didn't exist. Watch, people will now send a bazillion letters asking about other items that can be placed on a buffer tube. If those idiots keep it up, we won't be allowed to purchase foam pads, cane ends, saddles and maybe even f'ing AR pistols. The real question is, WTF are we all going to do with this $110 piece of rubber? Is there a class action law suit by Sig here against the ATF? I would think, but what do I know. Don't see how they have the standing for one. They've never sold the brace as a shoulder fired device. I think it's gonna have to come from first person charged criminally on federal level. I'm still wondering if ATF really wants to go there at all. Last time that sort of thing happened led to the Thompson decision in SCOTUS, where ATF lost significant leeway for prosecution. I'm still thinking they'll be content to just continue their tradition of intimidation via the FUD route. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 10:55:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This, they ruled in our favor right off the bat. Not a single letter should have been written after Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The moral of the story...Stop Writing Fucking Letters to the ATF, or whatever the fuck they call themselves today. This, they ruled in our favor right off the bat. Not a single letter should have been written after Exactly. You keep poking at the hornets nest eventually something bad is going to happen. We as gun owners are going to destroy ourselves within. Sad. This ruling hasn't change anything for me. I'm not going to be a typical gun owners and panic and sell. Look at the EE. Pathetic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:01:10 PM EDT
[#18]
I do not blame the letter writes at all. It's good to get clarification regarding ATFs opinion re firearms law for our protection from prosecution.
I blame the ATF for misleading and arbitrary opinions. The newest opinion is therefore also misleading and arbitrary. The law has not changed and does not change arbitrarily. Case law can provide guidance in interpretations of law, but the law has not changed. Am I right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:02:01 PM EDT
[#19]
"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. They're going to have an interesting time in court with that argument. They're stating that any use of any device other than as strictly intended by the manufacturer constitutes the legal definition of "redesign". If I beat down an attacking dog with my walking stick, have I "redesigned" my walking stick into a club? Or have I simply engaged in an alternate use of my walking stick? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:08:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Excellent point. If you put an end-cap on the tube (to keep it from sliding across the floor when you lean it up against the wall) and you shoulder it, is the cap now a stock on an SBR? IF ATF prosecutes someone, even Saul could spank .gov in the courtroom. And in losing, ATF would open up a whole new can of worms WRT NFA and SBRs. For example, if I put a real stock on my AR pistol (for looks), but never fire it form the shoulder, have I then redesigned the stock? How about if I install a full-auto FCG but never turn on the happy switch? Have I redesigned the FCG into a legal configuration? They can't have it both ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:18:49 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Glad I got my trust today. E-file here I come....  thats what the ATF is really after, control & revenue.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:22:10 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None of this would have even happened if the people at the ATF were not retarded to begin with. Or, better yet, the ATF didn't exist. Watch, people will now send a bazillion letters asking about other items that can be placed on a buffer tube. If those idiots keep it up, we won't be allowed to purchase foam pads, cane ends, saddles and maybe even f'ing AR pistols. The real question is, WTF are we all going to do with this $110 piece of rubber? Well, it means we can have a fully configured AR15, as a pistol with barrel less than 16" in our home, car (where it's legal), etc. and not have to worry about anything. The ATF IMO will NOT ban the sig brace. If they did that they would 100% with out question get sued. And would most certainly lose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:28:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Don't even start.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:41:24 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: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. ok, that's just ridiculous. It wasn't SBR guy who was writing letters about this to the ATF. SBR guy doesn't give a shit about crappy stocks...certainly not enough to write the ATF a letter about them. If anyone ruined this, it was the tards that kept poking the bear asking if they could attach a sig brace to (insert yet another weapon here) and still dodge NFA. Oh wait, you bolted a sig brace onto a minigun made in 1994? Must be legal now, send the ATF a letter! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:41:43 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryThe real question is, WTF are we all going to do with this $110 piece of rubber? Only use it as a brace when shooting your pistol properly. You're on the honor system not to use it incorrectly when nobody is around 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:42:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're going to have an interesting time in court with that argument.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
"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. They're going to have an interesting time in court with that argument.... This guy Kingery could turn out to be a real pariah for them. I wonder if he is favorite of Todd Jones, Obama's hand picked director from the outside. If this makes it to court system, ATF could lose significantly more prosecutorial power than they did in the Thompson decision. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:44:58 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excellent point. If you put an end-cap on the tube (to keep it from sliding across the floor when you lean it up against the wall) and you shoulder it, is the cap now a stock on an SBR? IF ATF prosecutes someone, even Saul could spank .gov in the courtroom. And in losing, ATF would open up a whole new can of worms WRT NFA and SBRs. For example, if I put a real stock on my AR pistol (for looks), but never fire it form the shoulder, have I then redesigned the stock? How about if I install a full-auto FCG but never turn on the happy switch? Have I redesigned the FCG into a legal configuration? They can't have it both ways. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Excellent point. If you put an end-cap on the tube (to keep it from sliding across the floor when you lean it up against the wall) and you shoulder it, is the cap now a stock on an SBR? IF ATF prosecutes someone, even Saul could spank .gov in the courtroom. And in losing, ATF would open up a whole new can of worms WRT NFA and SBRs. For example, if I put a real stock on my AR pistol (for looks), but never fire it form the shoulder, have I then redesigned the stock? How about if I install a full-auto FCG but never turn on the happy switch? Have I redesigned the FCG into a legal configuration? They can't have it both ways. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:50:04 PM EDT
[#28]
I keep seeing the argument that "they can't ban a different use of a 100% legal product!", and it's obviously a losing argument. Driving 65 on the interstate is legal, driving 90 isn't. 100% legal product in both cases. There's countless other examples. There are good arguments to be had here, but most of them are based on change-it-on-a-whim former ATF rulings, which really don't mean much. The fact is, the Sig brace has always been a shitty stock...that you could put your arm through to use one handed, but pretty much no one did. That use is still legal, so if you're a 1 armed bandit, you're a-ok with this ruling. It's sort like if some guy made a gizmo that functioned as a full auto sear, but he sold it as a bottle opener. As a bottle opener, it is legal. Start using it to shoot full auto with, yeah...not so much. Same product, "100% legal" when used in one way....100% illegal in another.
don't misconstrue any of the above to think that I approve of this decision or anything else ATF does. I don't think there should be a single federal gun law unless it's banning exporting weapons to enemies of the US or something. Other than that, get rid of them all. If I became President, Ted Nugent would be my choice for ATF chief...so I'm on the good guy's side here. I'm just not surprised by this decision, at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2015 11:52:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real question is, WTF are we all going to do with this $110 piece of rubber? I will melt my sig brace down, form it it the shape of a dildo, mail it ATF and tell them to shove it up there ass! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:32:41 AM EDT
[#30]
The first ATF letter to Sgt. Bradley stated that there was no incorrect way to fire a pistol and that firearms are classified based on their characteristics and not how an individual uses the weapon. The ATF letter also goes on to state that the “firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of the weapon.” Now all of a sudden it's the exact opposite? How is there no case here?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:37:09 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will melt my sig brace down, form it it the shape of a dildo, mail it ATF and tell them to shove it up there ass! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The real question is, WTF are we all going to do with this $110 piece of rubber? I will melt my sig brace down, form it it the shape of a dildo, mail it ATF and tell them to shove it up there ass! This actually is a perfect example of redesigning the sb15! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:39:54 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The first ATF letter to Sgt. Bradley stated that there was no incorrect way to fire a pistol and that firearms are classified based on their characteristics and not how an individual uses the weapon. The ATF letter also goes on to state that the “firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of the weapon.” Now all of a sudden it's the exact opposite? How is there no case here? probably because letter does not = law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:48:05 AM EDT
[#33]
What does this do for the "firearm" owners? Would getting around this be as simple as installing a VFG on a 26"+ pistol? I'm looking for the definition of a firearm, but it's almost midnight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 1:04:10 AM EDT
[#34]
So now you're honor bound not to shoulder this thing just as they're honor bound to uphold the Constitution...
Eta: their goal from the beginning has likely been to ban this thing they just couldn't concoct a story. This "redesign" BS is just that story. This was likely a deliberate, if slowed, effort on their part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 1:05:51 AM EDT
[#35]
Well, gun owners have again proved themselves to be their own worst enemy. The worst part is I firmly believe (but could never prove) that at least some of the letters and more provocative statements have actually originated from legitimate SBR owners that wanted the ATF to come down hard on the "cheaters" so as to maintain the exclusive club. It's just like how members of the full auto crowd so vehemently oppose the relaxation or repeal of the '86 law because it would turn their $10k "investment" into a $400 investment. Nobody ever wants to see anyone else get anything cheaper or easier than they themselves had or got.
<==== called this years ago when it first came out, that the ATF would change their mind... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 1:11:25 AM EDT
[#36]
And to answer the question, does anybody ever use the Brace illegally, here it is, just today: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-ca-man-charged-owning-sbr-pistol-brace-equipped-ar-15/
Will the ATF pick that up to prosecute, who knows? It's basically a home invasion case, where the perp was using it. Ironic, that. Stay tuned for further adventures in "What constitutes a firearm and how does it get redesigned?" Somebody named Silvers could answer that, he was on the team that redesigned the .300 Whisper to .300 Blackout. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 1:15:25 AM EDT
[#37]
i see no evidence that SBR owners had anything to do with this. No SBR owner I know gives a crap about the Sig brace, unless they are using it while they wait for their stamp. Protecting the investment is much more likely to come into play with a machine gun than an SBR. The sig brace was less than $100 less than a stamp...the more cheaply built MGs are $500, instead of $5000, without the government being in the way. So it's kind of an apple to truck load of apples comparison here.
I do dislike the brace because it's a POS stock and pretty fugly, but I would never, in a million years, write to the ATF about it for ANY reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 1:19:02 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I keep seeing the argument that "they can't ban a different use of a 100% legal product!", and it's obviously a losing argument. Driving 65 on the interstate is legal, driving 90 isn't. 100% legal product in both cases. But if you drive 90 in a 65mph zone, the car doesnt become illegal... Doing so doesnt transform it into a non street legal Indy racer... This latest letter from ATF say if you use it incorrectly, it becomes an SBR, which without being registered is now illegal... Its not the firing that is illegal, anyone can pull the trigger on an SBR... Its the mere fact you are now in possession of an unregistered SBR that is the crime.... In your analogy driving=firing the pistol shouldered & car=pistol w/sig brace |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 1:25:40 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And to answer the question, does anybody ever use the Brace illegally, here it is, just today: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-ca-man-charged-owning-sbr-pistol-brace-equipped-ar-15/ Will the ATF pick that up to prosecute, who knows? It's basically a home invasion case, where the perp was using it. Ironic, that. They might try, but the pending charge is a state charge, that even the article said its likely to be thrown out... For ATF to prosecute it, it would have to be taken to fed court. Not likely to happen for a single charge in a test case. They wouldnt have any leverage to try and plea bargain with and if they lost it would open pandoras box for the ATF with SBR's... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 1:27:35 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i see no evidence that SBR owners had anything to do with this. No SBR owner I know gives a crap about the Sig brace, unless they are using it while they wait for their stamp. Protecting the investment is much more likely to come into play with a machine gun than an SBR. The sig brace was less than $100 less than a stamp...the more cheaply built MGs are $500, instead of $5000, without the government being in the way. So it's kind of an apple to truck load of apples comparison here. I do dislike the brace because it's a POS stock and pretty fugly, but I would never, in a million years, write to the ATF about it for ANY reason. So what your second statement implies is that sbr owners(who don't have a stamp yet??) actually do care about the brace because it serves a purpose! Your last statement...you call it a brace then a stock? It's a brace not a stock. So confusing it makes my head want to explode |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:35:24 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What does this do for the "firearm" owners? Would getting around this be as simple as installing a VFG on a 26"+ pistol? I'm looking for the definition of a firearm, but it's almost midnight. Interesting thought. So 26" oal, brace, stubby vfg is a "firearm" so it is good to go except on a ccw permit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:35:49 AM EDT
[#42]
Love this part
Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked. Ummm...forget what we said before, we were wrong. Or...are they wrong now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:38:45 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is why I'm going with the Thordsen/CAA saddle device on my next AR pistol. For us who can't get SBR's the Sig brace was nice to have. They'll change their mind on that too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:41:28 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The first ATF letter to Sgt. Bradley stated that there was no incorrect way to fire a pistol and that firearms are classified based on their characteristics and not how an individual uses the weapon. The ATF letter also goes on to state that the “firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of the weapon.” Now all of a sudden it's the exact opposite? How is there no case here? Exactly |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:41:31 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The first ATF letter to Sgt. Bradley stated that there was no incorrect way to fire a pistol and that firearms are classified based on their characteristics and not how an individual uses the weapon. The ATF letter also goes on to state that the “firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of the weapon.” Now all of a sudden it's the exact opposite? How is there no case here? Easy. The lastest ruling is the current ruling. And the one that will be enforced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:46:50 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And to answer the question, does anybody ever use the Brace illegally, here it is, just today: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-ca-man-charged-owning-sbr-pistol-brace-equipped-ar-15/ CA Crazy ass law notwithstanding, if that weapon was made from a virgin receiver then it doesn't appear to fit any of the CA definitions of an SBR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:50:45 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CA Crazy ass law notwithstanding, if that weapon was made from a virgin receiver then it doesn't appear to fit any of the CA definitions of an SBR. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And to answer the question, does anybody ever use the Brace illegally, here it is, just today: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-ca-man-charged-owning-sbr-pistol-brace-equipped-ar-15/ CA Crazy ass law notwithstanding, if that weapon was made from a virgin receiver then it doesn't appear to fit any of the CA definitions of an SBR. I beleive all stripped lowers are transferred as rifles in CA. That's why 80%ers were so popular and I think you could single shot exempt them, but that ended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:52:27 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i see no evidence that SBR owners had anything to do with this. No SBR owner I know gives a crap about the Sig brace, unless they are using it while they wait for their stamp. Protecting the investment is much more likely to come into play with a machine gun than an SBR. The sig brace was less than $100 less than a stamp...the more cheaply built MGs are $500, instead of $5000, without the government being in the way. So it's kind of an apple to truck load of apples comparison here. Just look back at old threads - they're half filled with SBR owners that claim to want nothing to do with the Sig brace ranting about its use and being all butthurt that it DOES make for a decent shouldering point when used in that way. They'd try to paint it as a poor substitute for a stock(it isn't, it actually works just as well as a fixed stock, hence the popularity, and if you've never used one you wouldn't know that - if you have used one, you'd know how wrong you are about it being a poor stock). It's what ever now though. The ATF has the perfect Mark for legal precedent in the home invasion guy, and they've shut down one of the fastest growing segments of the market just before SHOT show.This seems more like a well orchestrated and timed blitz than a rash of coincidence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:31:29 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I beleive all stripped lowers are transferred as rifles in CA. That's why 80%ers were so popular and I think you could single shot exempt them, but that ended. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And to answer the question, does anybody ever use the Brace illegally, here it is, just today: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/breaking-ca-man-charged-owning-sbr-pistol-brace-equipped-ar-15/ CA Crazy ass law notwithstanding, if that weapon was made from a virgin receiver then it doesn't appear to fit any of the CA definitions of an SBR. I beleive all stripped lowers are transferred as rifles in CA. That's why 80%ers were so popular and I think you could single shot exempt them, but that ended. Not on 4473, federal rules apply, but that seems to be the case for the state DROS registration. But anyway, a state case doesn't mean anything to the overall issue. States obviously can have damn near any restriction they want, short of denying ownership of all firearms period. I still don't think the feds are gonna arrest anyone to get this clarified in court -- too much perceived authority to risk, and they're having enough fun giggling over all the intimidation from just a few untested words on paper, and I expect that to continue indefinitely. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:45:45 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Easy. The lastest ruling is the current ruling. And the one that will be enforced. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The first ATF letter to Sgt. Bradley stated that there was no incorrect way to fire a pistol and that firearms are classified based on their characteristics and not how an individual uses the weapon. The ATF letter also goes on to state that the “firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of the weapon.” Now all of a sudden it's the exact opposite? How is there no case here? Easy. The lastest ruling is the current ruling. And the one that will be enforced. Um...Just to be clear...The BATFE doesn't make "rulings" as they are not part of the Judicial Branch of our government. Instead, they give opinions... & the only thing they are authorized to "enforce" are laws......& of course maybe an occasional unconstitutional directive as well.
|
|
|
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.
