I wunder if they send him a letter to that effect? They basically gave him written legal advice, IMO.

http://www.recoilweb.com/sig-braces-atf-rulings-and-the-inimicable-mr-kingery-56799.html

What that letter proposes has no basis in logic.

The entire premise is ludicrous.

These clownish acts continue to undermine their credibility.

Has there been a bigger reversal?

I know there is one more infamous.

They have to define the term "alter" if they want this to stand up - "to alter the appearance or function of."

If you make no physical change or "alteration" to the thing, you cannot by definition "alter" the function of said device.

Firing a pistol with the brace on it from the shoulder no more alters the device or configuration of the weapon than firing a rifle from the hip "alters" it into a pistol (since it is no longer fired from the shoulder).

Any court would see this as capricious and inconsistent.

So from what I see in the ATF's opinion letter, if I take my 16" AR rifle and hold it out at arms length and fire it, I just manufactured a pistol right?

That would be the first thing a decent defense attorney would ask an agent on the stand... and regardless of whether he says yes or no, the attorney would rip him apart...

I would not want to be the first ATF agent to take this to trial. even a second year law student would beat beat the balls off them.

Why does the new letter come up under News with a date of Feb. 21, 2013 when searching the ATF site for Sig Brace? And unlike other open letters, it has no letterhead or date, only the signature and title of Kingery. Why?

Search Results

Enter terms    
Search results
News

atfgov/.../news
Feb 21, 2013 – 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.” ATF ...

Search Results SIG BRACE

Pistols are concealable, which means < 26" OAL. So, no, unless your 16" AR is somehow an SBR.


Constructive possession sounds pretty stupid, too, and has almost never been prosecuted to a guilty verdict on its own account. 922r has literally never been enforced against an individual to anyone's knowledge. Yet you'll still find legions of ARFCOM'ers who spend inordinate amounts of time worrying about both problems. It's almost irrelevant whether the BATFE will prosecute or not - just issuing the opinion is enough to almost totally destroy the usage of these braces as stocks.

I also suspect you will find defense in a case like this to be significantly more problematic than you think, due to the amount of regulatory power that the BATFE has under law (and the lack of definitions in the law).

They are only revoked if he's correct, which unfortunately he's not because his definition of redesign is arbitrary and capricious.  But people really don't want this in court.  It'll just be declared a medical device by prescription only as this was the original design intent (like a steering wheel suicide knob).  Everyone else will just have to own a brace that doesn't have the utility as a stock.  That's a pretty simple design for those not handicapped.  Any number of braces can be made that don't rigidly attach to the pistol but instead strap to the arm which then is strapped to the pistol.  Double straps which aren't rigid which have a spacer in between.  That should suffice for the non-handicapped.  And of course, the handicapped will get to shoulder them and everyone else will just have to park further away from the entrance.  

Guess you were wrong, though, it appears you must have design and intent, not just intent.  We did learn something from that letter.

Molon Labe.

deleted

Serious question; Most of the discussion revolves around the Sig Brace specifically. How would this current BATFE interpretation be any different with a Thordsen/CAA tube cover or even a bare buffer tube? The very act of obtaining a cheek weld would bring the buffer tube in close proximity to my shoulder. So unless I fire my AR pistol one handed and arm extended, it seems I may be guilty of "redesign", regardless of what is on my buffer tube. Personally, I think the new ruling is un enforceable, but the uncertainty makes me nervous about firing my pistol at a public range at all. Maybe that's the real intent...

Ding ding ding.  Cower the masses with fear and the opinion of one man (who seems to like to contradict himself).  This letter is more effective than a ban because it's a massive legal gray area and makes people fearful of being arrested or having their door kicked in and dog shot.  Just look at the EE, people are falling all over themselves to get rid of them.

ETA: yes, if this letter's logic is applied, shouldering the CAA cheek weld, cane tip, buffer tube etc, would constitute redesign and the creation of an SBR according to ATF

ALL IS LOST!

Burn it all down!!!

Anything law or ruling that makes felons out of thousands of law abiding Americans should be deemed unconstitutional.

It appears to be unenforceable, as has been mentioned.

I built my first before the Sig brace phenomenon. It did put AR pistols into the mainstream. Hopefully that gives us some weight.

The decision is plain stupid.

The decision is obvious.

The only way to ever really beat this thing would be to reform/repeal the NFA. Otherwise, we will keep trying to find loopholes. Widening them as people clumsily jump through without care, until they slam shut.

Unconstitutional.... there is an act, regulation, etc in existence to counter each and every 'right' in the Bill of Rights. If you haven't noticed, the Bill of Rights currently grants us nothing, and any right it supposedly acknowledged can be easily stripped away. Where have you been living??

I guess this ruling will make bumpfire stocks illegal too. The rifle was designed to shoot semi automatically. By adding bump fire you are mimicking a machine gun (same thing with the brace, mimicking a stock), thus altering what was designed to do.

Only thing left to do now, since so many disagree with the official ruling = is to riot and start destroying local stores and sh*t....

Isn't that the accepted trend now a days?



(= sarcasm)

I just sold mine for a great price.  I have repositioned that money back into the market, vice the gov, to buy AR500 body armor (something else I'm sure the gov is looking into keeping us from having (pure speculation of course)).  However, if the ruling changes on the brace, I'll buy the brace again.  I refuse to give the gov $200 more of my money to own an SBR.  This decision is purely based on my own beliefs as not to snub others that have decided to fund the gov.

Adding a Bumpfire stock does not change the function of the weapon. It is still a semi-auto weapon. It is one round fired per one pull of the trigger. The Bumpfire stock just enables to user to have an accelerated trigger pull rate. Some of you guys have really gotten ridiculous over these new developments in regard to the SB15. Many of you are responsible for the predicament you are currently in. Even when the SIG Brace approval letter came out, the ATF made a statement in there where they said that they do not recommend the use of the Brace for anything other than its intended purpose. That, gentlemen, was the writing on the wall. However, many have decided to push the envelope and the ATF's statement to a point where you crossed the line into illegality. There is no excuse for ignorance, nor for trying the patience of the ATF. Guys all across this country have contributed to these latest letters being issued. When you stray from the path that is straight and narrow, you will only find yourselves on a rock-paved path full of bumps and troubles along the way, ultimately to break down and fall.

To some others, the ATF can rule how ever they want as long as it is within the scope of their jurisdiction and enforcement as it pertains to the NFA and GCA. Nothing they have done violates your 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Additionally, the SB15 is still perfectly legal, as long as it is used as it was designed and intended. Use it as a stock, you will find yourself playing with fire. If not careful, you will get burned.

I think technically the act of bumpfireing is "redesigning" the firearm, according to their logic.

Nice try.





At least a couple dozen times in the past 14 months I have quoted the definition of a rifle and told you to stop posting pics and videos and stop referring to it by thinly veiled codes ( stock brace) or talking about shouldering it outright, even listing the brace in their parts list of firearms they were planning to build. Talking about LOP and additions to buffer tubes to get better shouldering.





The Design or redesign, make or remake was always there and never questioned. Very few people believed me about the intended part, but everybody else sure pummeled me with insults while the rest of the lemmings followed blindly.





So it appears you were wrong, not me, and you did learn something too bad you learned it too late.





It's funny that there is nobody that uses the brace as intended on here crying about this. Why? Because it is still legal. The people bitching about it and trying to sell them off as fast as they can are the people that bought and installed them solely to shoulder them, i.e. make a rifle/SBR exactly as spelled out in the definition. Exactly what I tried to warn about.





 

Nope, I don't own one because I've always considered it a de facto stock (for my use) no matter what the ATF said and I have no use for a brace.  Within the letters written by the ATF, it's still a brace.  I disagree with your interpretation and the last letter written from a technical standpoint.

Bumpfiring doesn't meet the definition of machinegun.

The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

You have come closest of the various commenters on figuring out WHY an ATF agent who had stated one thing in writing has suddenly reversed himself.



Answer: He was TOLD to reverse his opinion.



In the last week, Obama has been telling his supporters he is NOT a lame duck President and he was going to go on OFFENSE.



Do you REALLY believe making a 180 degree turn on the SB15, NFA trusts and what constitutes "manufacturing a gun" - all via regulatory procedures - is an accident????



Welcome to the final 2 years and 2 days of a SCOAMF willing to destroy this country so he remains the center of attention by doing exactly what his most radical supporters want him to do.



Don't bother calling your Congresscritter and complaining about JUST this issue - they don't control Congress - John Boehner and Mitch McConnell control Congress - call and complain that now that they have control of BOTH parts of Congress, Boehner & MCConnell are focused on NOT challenging the unconstitutional actions (i.e. illegal executive amnesty, this ATF crap, etc) so the MSM says nice things about them.



 

Who in the bloody fuck ever said anything about bump firing. Stop trying to quote me for things I never said. Grow up, lick your wounds and go home.



 

For those who have built the pistol using a sig brace, and wants to convert it to a SBR by changing the sig brace to a folding/collapsable stock, is the procedure the same or different? As much as I don't want to pay the extortion fee, don't want to chance going to the range, have a brain cramp and shoulder it, and get popped by some gun ho SOB.

Sorry, didn't mean to throw sand in your vagina.  I was addressing multiple posts and that was a bit confusing.  

I'll look back but I'm pretty sure you never addressed use being a redesign.  That's completely new (and wrong, in my opinion which is worthless) from what's in my memory.  I'll apologize if that was part of your opinion.

This letter was from February 2013.  Subsequent letters including the one to SGT Bradley indicates shouldering is ok. I believe there's another letter on ar15.com here that says a letter to one is a letter all?  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Btw, note for the record that I have disagreed with you off and on regarding the subject, but not about your assertion of the language in the USC as being illogical, or that it could indeed be a possible reason for an ATF attempt to curtail the use of various attachments to a short barreled firearm.

I've only disagreed that such interpretation, if made by ATF,  will possibly stand upon scrutiny of the courts -- either because the "intended" part will be found vague if not actually unconstitutional  (no such thing as "intended crime" or the like in legal constructs, would be "thought crime", etc), or will be interpreted in real world terms and precedent to mean "intended to be fired from the shoulder" = "stock".

I still have my doubts that either of us will be proven right or wrong ultimately though, as I'm assuming ATF will not want to test this unless they can help it, but rather stay in traditional character of gray area FUD intimidation.

I didn't even vilify you for sending in the letter you did, as after all, I assumed you weren't the only one in America doing so.

I too wonder about the actual politics of the whole agency, btw. The shifting branch designations, folks moving around in different "acting" roles, etc. Nowhere can I find an actual current organizational chart, for example. Without donning too much tin foil, it is nonetheless interesting to wonder about the role of the fairly new director BHO put in there over much disagreement (53-42 Senate confirmation), the fact he was brought in from the outside, and the fact that BHO is indeed known to micromanage certain aspects of gummit he seems to pick almost at random while ignoring the big picture.

- OS

But by the ATF's logic, using the off-road vehicle on an interstate is a redesign - so why would it be illegal? It is now an interstate vehicle...

Also the ATF relied on the Webster definition of redesign which says a alteration in appearance or function. The word function here is clearly in reference to "operation" - as in how it works.

The ATF used the meaning of function as in "purpose" - as in what is used for.

So, if I take a screw driver and replace the smooth wooden handle with a textured polymer handle - I have redesigned it by changing the appearance. If I add a motor to the shaft of it such that it automatically turns when activated then I have redsigned it by changing how it operates. Finally, if I take the basic wooden screw driver and grip it by the metal and bang in a nail with the handle - I have changed it's purpose but I haven't redesigned it. If you don't believe me - try to file a patent on a plain screw driver and call it a "nail driver" since you "redesigned" it. I suspect you would be laughed out of the patent office.

No worries OS I have always considered you very knowledgeable and agree with most of your assessments. While I full admit that intention is never going to be easy to prove it is codified into the USC and as such does play a role in the definition. This latest letter I do not agree with. The rifle definition, as written in plain English, clearly does not refer to the redesign of a part or accessory such as this letter eludes to, but of the firearm itself. Clearly use may change a classification of a firearm, but not the position in which it is fired.





I have always maintained that installing anything to the RE of an AR style pistol for the purpose, thus intent, of shoulder firing is building a rifle by definition.


That does not mean I contend that is the only consideration in defining a rifle. ALL perimeters of the definition must be met to classify a firearm as a rifle. Further attributes of barrel length and OAL further define it as a NFA firearm if those conditions are so met.





I do not agree with most of the CGA/NFA. But it is actually less prohibitive now then when it was enacted. $200 was a great deal of money in 1934. It served to keep those firearms out of nearly every law abiding citizen while did nothing to keep them out of the hands of criminals. Although it did make it less convenient to obtain. Times were you could buy a Thompson in the hardware store for $45. I would also hate to see what would happen in the rash of school shootings if machine guns were easy to get. Some regulation does make since even though I get a bad taste in my mouth even saying that.





But this is where we are now. And as we can keep fighting in a legal manner or we can simply ignore the law. The latter will lead to new stricter laws and restrictions.


While the brace is legal for use as intended and designed , it has taken the life of a end play to skirt NFA. This has lead to stricter restrictions.





Most of the comments here are that the ATF is not the law makers and this is just their opinion. In reality the ATF is the administrative agency charged with enforcement the TAX laws concerning the commerce of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. They can indeed make rules exactly in the same way their sister agency, the IRS does. Don't abide by one of the IRS rules and see what happens.





In the end it comes down to ones own morals. Did you build that lower into a rifle first then decide on a pistol?


Did you intend that firearm to be shoulder fired?



As far my intent reasoning, I maintain it is the intent of the the designer/builder not the user. If the builder intends the firearm to be a shoulder fired firearm then it is. Sig pistols that have a brace already installed are pistols, Sig is the maker and I'm certain Sig intends this to be a pistol and the brace used as designed and intended and not  shoulder fired. Anyone buying one of these Sig pistols cannot change the classification or remake the pistol simply by the position in which it is fired. This would never hold up in any court. The firearm meets all the definition of a pistol including "originally designed" as such.





Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.





 

So the fed-cops stopped me today and asked me what I was doing walking around with a pistol in my hand.  I explained that I had just used it to drive some nails in my fence so it was now a hammer.   I showed them the latest letter and they said OK and let me and my "hammer" go.  

Then they came back again and found me with a SBR that I had stapled a Velcro strap to the stock and had the strap wrapped around my forearm.  They admired my new "pistol" and let me go.

Finally they stopped by my house tonight and found a .50 BMG in my living room, but I showed them that I keep my beer on it so it is really an end-table.  After that they left me alone.

I like having the ability to change things.  I never really had a super-power until just recently.



(BTW, maybe the anti-gunners are the ones responsible for all the crazy stupid letters???)

No, that is now non sequitur. The act of shouldering a brace on a short barreled firearm is now the issue, period, regardless of previous intent when purchasing or installing it.

And btw,  until this latest "opinion" by a mid-level bureaucrat in a temporary position is enforced,  the entire discussion is moot anyway.

- OS

The original Sig letter proclaiming the brace as okay to shoulder is dated Nov 26 2012.
https://www.sigsauer.com/upFiles/ATF-Compliant-Letter.pdf

What about the people that may have purchased a brace at the local gun store and don't use the internet much or belong to any forums? How would that person ever know about all the BS going on with the ATF and the brace?

Im wondering the same thing.

 

"most" people don't want to see anyone get into trouble. I would hope that even if a member of the ATF saw a person firing the SB15 from the shoulder at the range, that they would politely tell them about the new open letter and advise them what they are doing is now illegal.

If they responded with a fuck off... All bets are off then. With a ATF agent or other member of LE at least.

I believe this is how 99% of those that see others firing the SB15 from the shoulder in the future will happen.

Also anyone that doesn't know about it will be OK.
In Staples v US Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the Supreme Court reversed the 10th circuit and decided that in order to convict someone under the NFA of possessing an unregistered (untaxed) weapon, they must prove the defendant knew it was the sort of gun regulated by the NFA.



 

You people are going to ruin this again, aren't you????

They've basically said; don't show it off or get caught doing it, but you can still own it and keep it installed on your weapons.



But NO, you're all going to fuck this up too, until they have to make the brace completely restricted and the option is gone forever.

I would bet a Tavor TAR-21 is just as maneuverable as my 10.5 inch AR. It may even be shorter.

Point being?

Sounds like the AR-15 pistol as a viable option has just been invalidated.

Point is, there are rifle platforms out there that perform better than a short barreled AR. I believe the barrel on the Tavor is 18 inches and the gun is the same length as my 10.5 inch AR pistol.  I don't see why the ATF is so concerned with anyone wanting to shoulder a Sig braced AR pistol. Who gives a f*ck

The TAVOR is available in 16.5" and 18". My 16.5" TAVOR is just a bit shorter than my 7.5" AR pistol (w/o SIG Brace).

Sorry if this has been asked already in this thread but can I still shoulder a bare pistol buffer tube?  Or is that also a change in design?

No specific taboos we know of have surfaced.

- OS

And shotgun news is printing articles telling people it is legal.

Time to get back to the buffer tube/cheek rest/cane tip/side saddle shouldering letter campaigns.

So a bunch of Internet badasses bought something that was believed to be legal, but it closely represented something that would be illegal without a tax and permission slip. So a bunch of people asked to make sure it was legal and were given a copy of the applicable laws, and a logical, though slightly complicated explanation for why it is legal.

Then for reasons unknown, a different beurocrat writes an illogical letter, with a different opinion of the laws, and how they apply. Rather than ignore the illogical opinion, gunowners immediatly act as if a law was changed, and react as if King George has just raised the tax rate on Tea. But instead of any resistance, they decided to sell their tea kettles before they become worthless.

It's a sad day when productive and law abiding citizens are so afraid of their government.