User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 10:50:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It does look like a stock, and seems I could function pretty decently as a stock... The problem with that common sense logic, is the way the law is written. The first letter makes sense. If a firearm is built of components intended to build a one handed pistol, then it's a pistol. Same logic for why firing a pistol with two hands doesn't make it a rifle. If the ATF doesn't like it, they can try to have the law re-written. Issuing an opinion to intimidate and confuse shouldn't work... But it seems to be working on many. Just the latest form of infringement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:That's a lot of words to say I support this infringement, and have accepted my JBT overlords supreme authority and abuse of our rights. The issue is...at this moment...this is the law. Accepting and following are two different things. Just because I follow the law, doesn't mean I accept it. It means I'm not reckless and stupid. Abolishing the ATF would be a dream come true. Sadly...were too busy constantly fighting off another AWB "1994 style" or bullshit local laws like mag-cap, type-bans, anti CCW, or other 2A infringements to even get to the ATF and their stupidity. What he said about the ATF is 100% true. At this moment, they can and will change their mind at any time. Thumbing your nose at them is stupid and something of that nature is never productive or "standing up for your rights". Look at it this way, is breaking the speed limit on a back country road a smart way to protest traffic laws? Nope, it's a good way to get arrested if you take it far enough. Making matters worse by asking the police "Hey...can I drive 92mph on country road 1285? There's no speed limit signs posted" and positing videos/pics of you speeding on country road 1285 online is a good way to get a speed limit sign posted there and a cop sitting in the bushes 24 hrs a day running radar. Adding 100's of your buddies asking/filming/posting the same thing over and over and over again is even more stupid and pointless. If someone wants to fight for their rights in this law laden, corrupt government...skirting the law and then being dumb enough to ask those that write the regulations about skirting the law while posting videos of you skirting the law is just absurd. The ATF didn't just legislate a law. They wrote an opinion letter on the law. One that contradicted themselves. The fact that people can't distinguish the difference between a law, and an opinion is disturbing. It is funny how people can talk themselves into something even though they despise the agency telling them. I've never considered the brace anything but a pseudo stock. I think it has merits within the American Disability Act, but outside that it's just a rubber stock. My biggest problem is that the law says you have to register a short barreled rifle. That's flat out what it says. And just because some tech writer in an agency I'm not a fan of says it isn't a stock, that still hasn't convinced me at least at the state level that it isn't a stock. Of course, going against this administration is second nature coming from Arizona where we don't agree with much that these guys do. But in any case, I have doubts that the Feds would call preemption when it comes to most State laws that mirror the federal law for short barreled rifles. Just because the Feds won't arrest you, doesn't mean your local agency won't. In Arizona, I doubt they'd fight the Feds on this one. But I wouldn't want to own one in a State that doesn't allow short barreled rifles. To me it just shows how small a community this is, that it's flown under the radar of the States for this long. And I wouldn't bet on a judge in California not calling it a stock regardless of what the tech writer at the Fed says. I think it would be an interesting argument, though, for both sides. I'll be really surprised if Sig wins these arguments even with the great Stephen Halbrook on their team. It's nice the Feds gave them an argument to make in the first place. Should be interesting. I hope everyone gets to keep their crappy rubber stocks. The whole NFA premise of concealment is quite obsolete given most states allow for concealed weapons to some degree. Now if we can just figure how to get new machine guns back. The bump fire stocks are a good start, let's hope the ball keeps rolling in a positive direction for our community. Sig really needs to be commended and supported for making the efforts they're doing. It's funny it takes a primarily foreign corporation to go to bat for us. You'll never see a Ruger, Colt or Remington challenging the system. Might have to go buy something Sig today for good measure. It does look like a stock, and seems I could function pretty decently as a stock... The problem with that common sense logic, is the way the law is written. The first letter makes sense. If a firearm is built of components intended to build a one handed pistol, then it's a pistol. Same logic for why firing a pistol with two hands doesn't make it a rifle. If the ATF doesn't like it, they can try to have the law re-written. Issuing an opinion to intimidate and confuse shouldn't work... But it seems to be working on many. Just the latest form of infringement. Here's the definitions as codified in US Code Title 26 & Title 27. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 (c) Rifle The term “rifle” means 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 cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.11 Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). The Sig Brace either makes something a rifle or it makes it a pistol (it's highly unlikely that it can be both). I believe a judge would say intention must be defined on the most probable application of the design regardless of an individual or corporate desire. I would include the handgun definition but handguns aren't in the make, manufacturer definitions. Handguns only exist after a weapon is made and that definition only exists to control transfers of certain pistols. (That's my opinion based on where the handgun definition exists which is Title 18, Chapter 44). "Made" is not in the definition of handgun. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 10:50:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think this opinion letter is anything other than one mans official opinion. It's worth exactly what we paid for it. I don't believe it has the force of regulation. I don't think it will be used in a court............................... Then I guess one man's opinion in the letter to Alex Bosco doesn't hold water either and means the Sig brace is not legal to install on an AR pistol. You can't believe the letters you want to and disregard the ones you don't like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 10:55:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then I guess one man's opinion in the letter to Alex Bosco doesn't hold water either and means the Sig brace is not legal to install on an AR pistol. You can't believe the letters you want to and disregard the ones you don't like. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't think this opinion letter is anything other than one mans official opinion. It's worth exactly what we paid for it. I don't believe it has the force of regulation. I don't think it will be used in a court............................... Then I guess one man's opinion in the letter to Alex Bosco doesn't hold water either and means the Sig brace is not legal to install on an AR pistol. You can't believe the letters you want to and disregard the ones you don't like. It does have the force of regulation because the enforcing body is telling you what they are going to enforce. Doesn't mean they'll win in a courtroom, just means you're going there to find out if they're right. And they do get the presumption that they're correct. The person arrested has to convince a judge they're wrong. So you start out handicapped so to speak. Har har. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:12:08 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your statement with the speed limit makes no sense and BATFE has Delegated Authority through the Administrative Procedure Act as provided to them by Congress. The letters will carry the weight because the Courts will side with them on this issue. The main issue isn't the letters but the fact that folks were buying this as a walk around from NFA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The issue is...at this moment...this is the law. Accepting and following are two different things. Just because I follow the law, doesn't mean I accept it. It means I'm not reckless and stupid. Abolishing the ATF would be a dream come true. Sadly...were too busy constantly fighting off another AWB "1994 style" or bullshit local laws like mag-cap, type-bans, anti CCW, or other 2A infringements to even get to the ATF and their stupidity. What he said about the ATF is 100% true. At this moment, they can and will change their mind at any time. Thumbing your nose at them is stupid and something of that nature is never productive or "standing up for your rights". Look at it this way, is breaking the speed limit on a back country road a smart way to protest traffic laws? Nope, it's a good way to get arrested if you take it far enough. Making matters worse by asking the police "Hey...can I drive 92mph on country road 1285? There's no speed limit signs posted" and positing videos/pics of you speeding on country road 1285 online is a good way to get a speed limit sign posted there and a cop sitting in the bushes 24 hrs a day running radar. Adding 100's of your buddies asking/filming/posting the same thing over and over and over again is even more stupid and pointless. If someone wants to fight for their rights in this law laden, corrupt government...skirting the law and then being dumb enough to ask those that write the regulations about skirting the law while posting videos of you skirting the law is just absurd. The ATF didn't just legislate a law. They wrote an opinion letter on the law. One that contradicted themselves. The fact that people can't distinguish the difference between a law, and an opinion is disturbing. Have an issue with that? Get Congress to repeal the Administrative Procedure Act I don't believe that applies here either. A better example for that would be the landowners dealing with the Department of interior/Exterior. I don't think this opinion letter is anything other than one mans official opinion. It's worth exactly what we paid for it. I don't believe it has the force of regulation. I don't think it will be used in a court. Worse case scenario is an agent or LEO makes an arrest for an NFA violation after having had their opinion swayed by the letter/policy. Then it would have to play out in court. The actual laws haven't changed. The previous letter stating it was ok, was not a law, and neither is this. The only difference is people are just swaying in the wind with the ATFs opinion. The law is unchanged. It's like theres a 55MPH speed limit, but everyone in your town drives cars that only go 45mph. Then Joe gets a Corvette and wants to go 55, so he writes the State troopers and asks if they will ticket him for going 55. They respond no. Then tons of other guys want to be Joe and Chevy, so they write letters. State Trooprs get sick of it, and start writing letters saying that 55MPH in a 55MPH zone is speeding. Then all the 'vette owners get their panties in a bunch and sell their 'vettes. The troopers opinion isn't law, and a speeding ticket for going the speed limit won't hold up. Your statement with the speed limit makes no sense and BATFE has Delegated Authority through the Administrative Procedure Act as provided to them by Congress. The letters will carry the weight because the Courts will side with them on this issue. The main issue isn't the letters but the fact that folks were buying this as a walk around from NFA. They have delegated authority to contradict laws with opinion letters? You 'll have to show me where that is explained. I must've missed it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:23:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then I guess one man's opinion in the letter to Alex Bosco doesn't hold water either and means the Sig brace is not legal to install on an AR pistol. You can't believe the letters you want to and disregard the ones you don't like. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't think this opinion letter is anything other than one mans official opinion. It's worth exactly what we paid for it. I don't believe it has the force of regulation. I don't think it will be used in a court............................... Then I guess one man's opinion in the letter to Alex Bosco doesn't hold water either and means the Sig brace is not legal to install on an AR pistol. You can't believe the letters you want to and disregard the ones you don't like. I didn't believe the first one because I agreed with it, I believed it, because it makes sense given the way the laws are written. I also don't understand why people who thought they were following the law would suddenly think otherwise, after reading the second logic defying letter. I can only assume that of the millions of Sig Braces sold, several hundred to several thousand informed and responsible gun owners also reviewed the applicable laws prior to buying. And they all reached the same conclusion, it's legal. Now the ATF wants to tell us we can't read...Sorry too late. I suspect the only people freaking out and selling are the ones who never understood the law, thought they had a loophole, but were actually in violation of NFA the whole time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:26:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It does have the force of regulation because the enforcing body is telling you what they are going to enforce. Doesn't mean they'll win in a courtroom, just means you're going there to find out if they're right. And they do get the presumption that they're correct. The person arrested has to convince a judge they're wrong. So you start out handicapped so to speak. Har har. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think this opinion letter is anything other than one mans official opinion. It's worth exactly what we paid for it. I don't believe it has the force of regulation. I don't think it will be used in a court............................... Then I guess one man's opinion in the letter to Alex Bosco doesn't hold water either and means the Sig brace is not legal to install on an AR pistol. You can't believe the letters you want to and disregard the ones you don't like. It does have the force of regulation because the enforcing body is telling you what they are going to enforce. Doesn't mean they'll win in a courtroom, just means you're going there to find out if they're right. And they do get the presumption that they're correct. The person arrested has to convince a judge they're wrong. So you start out handicapped so to speak. Har har. I want to argue the ideals about presumption of freedom and innocence, but I know you are right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:29:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't believe the first one because I agreed with it, I believed it, because it makes sense given the way the laws are written. I also don't understand why people who thought they were following the law would suddenly think otherwise, after reading the second logic defying letter. I can only assume that of the millions of Sig Braces sold, several hundred to several thousand informed and responsible gun owners also reviewed the applicable laws prior to buying. And they all reached the same conclusion, it's legal. Now the ATF wants to tell us we can't read...Sorry too late. I suspect the only people freaking out and selling are the ones who never understood the law, thought they had a loophole, but were actually in violation of NFA the whole time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think this opinion letter is anything other than one mans official opinion. It's worth exactly what we paid for it. I don't believe it has the force of regulation. I don't think it will be used in a court............................... Then I guess one man's opinion in the letter to Alex Bosco doesn't hold water either and means the Sig brace is not legal to install on an AR pistol. You can't believe the letters you want to and disregard the ones you don't like. I didn't believe the first one because I agreed with it, I believed it, because it makes sense given the way the laws are written. I also don't understand why people who thought they were following the law would suddenly think otherwise, after reading the second logic defying letter. I can only assume that of the millions of Sig Braces sold, several hundred to several thousand informed and responsible gun owners also reviewed the applicable laws prior to buying. And they all reached the same conclusion, it's legal. Now the ATF wants to tell us we can't read...Sorry too late. I suspect the only people freaking out and selling are the ones who never understood the law, thought they had a loophole, but were actually in violation of NFA the whole time. Amen! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:48:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryHere's the definitions as codified in US Code Title 26 & Title 27. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 (c) Rifle The term “rifle” means 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 cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.11 Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). The Sig Brace either makes something a rifle or it makes it a pistol (it's highly unlikely that it can be both). I believe a judge would say intention must be defined on the most probable application of the design regardless of an individual or corporate desire. I would include the handgun definition but handguns aren't in the make, manufacturer definitions. Handguns only exist after a weapon is made and that definition only exists to control transfers of certain pistols. (That's my opinion based on where the handgun definition exists which is Title 18, Chapter 44). "Made" is not in the definition of handgun. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44 Correct. Those are the definitions. And my point was that the series of letters are arbitrary. By the same lines of logic they could issue an open letter determining all handguns being fired with more than "one hand" are now redesigned to be an AOW as no longer functions as it was originally "designed." The end user has now "redesigned" the pistol to be used with more than "one hand." The ATF has already ruled that adding a vertical grip to a pistol is a no-no" ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. That is the slippery slope of sloppy and capricious determinations on the part of the ATF. Short of a few shooting disciplines, most people commonly fire pistols with two hands. Does that instantly make everyone felons with unregistered AOWs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 2:28:58 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted: Oh, I quite agree with you. I'm in the Guard. I really don't want to fight an insurrection. Interesting dilemma... - would you fight your fellow Americans if the Guard called you up for such a thing? I hope it never comes to that. Civil war is a terrible dilemma. There are battlefields all over this country that show how terrible it is. My oath is to the Constitution. Whichever side remains within that, is where my loyalty lies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 3:57:07 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only thing I commented on was the pic of the guy shooting the gun in his crotch - that was almost enough to make me a gun-banner. And that's what I stated. FYI I've been here since 2005 (different account - long story). Read the thread and who responded to what before you comment from now on... And quit being a snob when it comes to folks with low post counts - everybody here had low post count at some point in their history. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
another new DU troll account? WTF You referring to me?  yes, listen, I'm not trying to escalate, so if you insist that you are serious than I will take you at your word and leave it at that. I just find it suspicious that there are suddenly numerous new accounts w/ less than 100 posts that are arguing that it is wrong to have "misused" the arm brace. The only thing I commented on was the pic of the guy shooting the gun in his crotch - that was almost enough to make me a gun-banner. And that's what I stated. FYI I've been here since 2005 (different account - long story). Read the thread and who responded to what before you comment from now on... And quit being a snob when it comes to folks with low post counts - everybody here had low post count at some point in their history. Not being a snob b/c you have a low post acct. I was being suspicious you were a DU troll or something b/c there have been at least three posters w/ brand new accountsin the pistol forum telling people that shouldering the sig brace was wrong/illegal etc, basically trying to shame people for "breaking the social contract" or beinga a "law breaker" or whatever, which would be like going to DU and tellying everyone that obungo was born in Cuba or something. I guess you weren't saying that but you were really messing up our defiance circle jerk by hating on that guy for trolling the ATF so hard 
I apologize. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 4:00:38 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The difference between throwing tea in Boston Harbor and now is that there is NO taxation without representation now. We are in full control of our destiny through the ballot box  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: What he said about the ATF is 100% true. At this moment, they can and will change their mind at any time. Thumbing your nose at them is stupid and something of that nature is never productive or "standing up for your rights". Yes, just like throwing the tea in Boston Harbor. The difference between throwing tea in Boston Harbor and now is that there is NO taxation without representation now. We are in full control of our destiny through the ballot box ho-lee-shit! you really believe that 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 4:27:34 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ho-lee-shit! you really believe that Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: What he said about the ATF is 100% true. At this moment, they can and will change their mind at any time. Thumbing your nose at them is stupid and something of that nature is never productive or "standing up for your rights". Yes, just like throwing the tea in Boston Harbor. The difference between throwing tea in Boston Harbor and now is that there is NO taxation without representation now. We are in full control of our destiny through the ballot box ho-lee-shit! you really believe that Well, you either believe that, or you're a coward, so take your pick. I don't see anyone marching on Washington DC w/ rifles in their hands. So we're either a nation of patriots who believe in the Constitution, or we're a nation of cowards ruled by the NSA & the bureaucracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 5:59:19 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, you either believe that, or you're a coward, so take your pick. I don't see anyone marching on Washington DC w/ rifles in their hands. So we're either a nation of patriots who believe in the Constitution, or we're a nation of cowards ruled by the NSA & the bureaucracy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: What he said about the ATF is 100% true. At this moment, they can and will change their mind at any time. Thumbing your nose at them is stupid and something of that nature is never productive or "standing up for your rights". Yes, just like throwing the tea in Boston Harbor. The difference between throwing tea in Boston Harbor and now is that there is NO taxation without representation now. We are in full control of our destiny through the ballot box ho-lee-shit! you really believe that Well, you either believe that, or you're a coward, so take your pick. I don't see anyone marching on Washington DC w/ rifles in their hands. So we're either a nation of patriots who believe in the Constitution, or we're a nation of cowards ruled by the NSA & the bureaucracy. faulty dilemma |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 8:25:58 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They have delegated authority to contradict laws with opinion letters? You 'll have to show me where that is explained. I must've missed it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The ATF didn't just legislate a law. They wrote an opinion letter on the law. One that contradicted themselves. The fact that people can't distinguish the difference between a law, and an opinion is disturbing. Have an issue with that? Get Congress to repeal the Administrative Procedure Act I don't believe that applies here either. A better example for that would be the landowners dealing with the Department of interior/Exterior. I don't think this opinion letter is anything other than one mans official opinion. It's worth exactly what we paid for it. I don't believe it has the force of regulation. I don't think it will be used in a court. Worse case scenario is an agent or LEO makes an arrest for an NFA violation after having had their opinion swayed by the letter/policy. Then it would have to play out in court. The actual laws haven't changed. The previous letter stating it was ok, was not a law, and neither is this. The only difference is people are just swaying in the wind with the ATFs opinion. The law is unchanged. It's like theres a 55MPH speed limit, but everyone in your town drives cars that only go 45mph. Then Joe gets a Corvette and wants to go 55, so he writes the State troopers and asks if they will ticket him for going 55. They respond no. Then tons of other guys want to be Joe and Chevy, so they write letters. State Trooprs get sick of it, and start writing letters saying that 55MPH in a 55MPH zone is speeding. Then all the 'vette owners get their panties in a bunch and sell their 'vettes. The troopers opinion isn't law, and a speeding ticket for going the speed limit won't hold up. Your statement with the speed limit makes no sense and BATFE has Delegated Authority through the Administrative Procedure Act as provided to them by Congress. The letters will carry the weight because the Courts will side with them on this issue. The main issue isn't the letters but the fact that folks were buying this as a walk around from NFA. They have delegated authority to contradict laws with opinion letters? You 'll have to show me where that is explained. I must've missed it. The problem we have nowadays is that the courts have abandoned the Nondelegation Doctrine and any semblance of separation of powers between the legislative and executive branch. The nondelegation doctrine was all but gone in 1984 when the courts decided agencies could interpret the limits of their own authority in Chevron USA v. NRDC, and it was totally eviscerated in 1989 by Mistretta v. US, which held that it's good enough for Congress to enact "broad general directives" leaving agencies with the power to fill in all those annoying little details that have the force of law. Congress doesn't pass real laws anymore. They pass "frameworks" which allow the agencies to fill in the blanks. Pelosi wasn't lying when she said "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". Most laws include a clause along the lines of: The Department of ______________________ may promulgate such rules and regulations required in order to establish and enforce this law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 8:27:34 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I didn't believe the first one because I agreed with it, I believed it, because it makes sense given the way the laws are written. I also don't understand why people who thought they were following the law would suddenly think otherwise, after reading the second logic defying letter. I can only assume that of the millions of Sig Braces sold, several hundred to several thousand informed and responsible gun owners also reviewed the applicable laws prior to buying. And they all reached the same conclusion, it's legal. Now the ATF wants to tell us we can't read...Sorry too late. I suspect the only people freaking out and selling are the ones who never understood the law, thought they had a loophole, but were actually in violation of NFA the whole time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't think this opinion letter is anything other than one mans official opinion. It's worth exactly what we paid for it. I don't believe it has the force of regulation. I don't think it will be used in a court............................... Then I guess one man's opinion in the letter to Alex Bosco doesn't hold water either and means the Sig brace is not legal to install on an AR pistol. You can't believe the letters you want to and disregard the ones you don't like. I didn't believe the first one because I agreed with it, I believed it, because it makes sense given the way the laws are written. I also don't understand why people who thought they were following the law would suddenly think otherwise, after reading the second logic defying letter. I can only assume that of the millions of Sig Braces sold, several hundred to several thousand informed and responsible gun owners also reviewed the applicable laws prior to buying. And they all reached the same conclusion, it's legal. Now the ATF wants to tell us we can't read...Sorry too late. I suspect the only people freaking out and selling are the ones who never understood the law, thought they had a loophole, but were actually in violation of NFA the whole time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 9:16:38 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was leg to be used as intended. An aid for the physically disabled. Millions bought it as a walk around for NFA. Simple as that. You say that like it's a bad thing. There's just one problem with that position. The ATF originally said in writing that allowing a brace to touch the shoulder during firing was legal, and did not cause the weapon to fall under the purview of the NFA. Then they changed their mind. According to the rationale they used to justify reversing their position, firing a pistol with two hands "redesigns" it into an AOW, and anyone who does so could face felony prosecution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:12:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not being a snob b/c you have a low post acct. I was being suspicious you were a DU troll or something b/c there have been at least three posters w/ brand new accountsin the pistol forum telling people that shouldering the sig brace was wrong/illegal etc, basically trying to shame people for "breaking the social contract" or beinga a "law breaker" or whatever, which would be like going to DU and tellying everyone that obungo was born in Cuba or something. I guess you weren't saying that but you were really messing up our defiance circle jerk by hating on that guy for trolling the ATF so hard
I apologize. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
another new DU troll account? WTF You referring to me? yes, listen, I'm not trying to escalate, so if you insist that you are serious than I will take you at your word and leave it at that. I just find it suspicious that there are suddenly numerous new accounts w/ less than 100 posts that are arguing that it is wrong to have "misused" the arm brace. The only thing I commented on was the pic of the guy shooting the gun in his crotch - that was almost enough to make me a gun-banner. And that's what I stated. FYI I've been here since 2005 (different account - long story). Read the thread and who responded to what before you comment from now on... And quit being a snob when it comes to folks with low post counts - everybody here had low post count at some point in their history. Not being a snob b/c you have a low post acct. I was being suspicious you were a DU troll or something b/c there have been at least three posters w/ brand new accountsin the pistol forum telling people that shouldering the sig brace was wrong/illegal etc, basically trying to shame people for "breaking the social contract" or beinga a "law breaker" or whatever, which would be like going to DU and tellying everyone that obungo was born in Cuba or something. I guess you weren't saying that but you were really messing up our defiance circle jerk by hating on that guy for trolling the ATF so hard
I apologize. Accepted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2015 10:15:40 PM EDT
[#18]
I'm not aware of any such letter
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 12:26:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, you either believe that, or you're a coward, so take your pick. I don't see anyone marching on Washington DC w/ rifles in their hands. So we're either a nation of patriots who believe in the Constitution, or we're a nation of cowards ruled by the NSA & the bureaucracy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: What he said about the ATF is 100% true. At this moment, they can and will change their mind at any time. Thumbing your nose at them is stupid and something of that nature is never productive or "standing up for your rights". Yes, just like throwing the tea in Boston Harbor. The difference between throwing tea in Boston Harbor and now is that there is NO taxation without representation now. We are in full control of our destiny through the ballot box ho-lee-shit! you really believe that Well, you either believe that, or you're a coward, so take your pick. I don't see anyone marching on Washington DC w/ rifles in their hands. So we're either a nation of patriots who believe in the Constitution, or we're a nation of cowards ruled by the NSA & the bureaucracy. This is like that crap you hear on msnbc or the du crowd. What a setup that statement is. The politicians have everyone so ignorant in this country we cant even agree on what the Constitution says. It is a very simple document, each section is direct and only a few sentences long yet even in a tight community as this we cant agree as to the meaning of a few words. Here we are arguing with each other as they move forward making their own laws and rules outside the bounds of the Constitution that sink us deeper away from the freedoms this country once afford its citizens. We have confused freedom for a feeling of safety and security and at some point a very high price will have to be paid for our negligence. BATF and the politicians have overstepped their bounds and are far outside their powers under the Constitution. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Pretty damn simple, you don't need an army of lawyers to understand this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 12:28:06 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, you either believe that, or you're a coward, or you're woefully naive, so take your pick. I don't see anyone marching on Washington DC w/ rifles in their hands. So we're either a nation of patriots who believe in the Constitution, or we're a nation of cowards ruled by the NSA & the bureaucracy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: What he said about the ATF is 100% true. At this moment, they can and will change their mind at any time. Thumbing your nose at them is stupid and something of that nature is never productive or "standing up for your rights". Yes, just like throwing the tea in Boston Harbor. The difference between throwing tea in Boston Harbor and now is that there is NO taxation without representation now. We are in full control of our destiny through the ballot box ho-lee-shit! you really believe that Well, you either believe that, or you're a coward, or you're woefully naive, so take your pick. I don't see anyone marching on Washington DC w/ rifles in their hands. So we're either a nation of patriots who believe in the Constitution, or we're a nation of cowards ruled by the NSA & the bureaucracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 6:51:12 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This letter writing campaign is the same as the Open Carry Tards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 11:34:00 AM EDT
[#22]
Don't know if you fellas missed it...but there's been a decades long movement to ban anything black rifle related and make criminals out of all of us unless we conform. This is no different and comes as no surprise.
Stop playing the "Blame Game."
It's the ATF's decision and the reasons/excuses don't flipping matter... Again, if they were supposedly sick of letters as a popular blog suggested than Do Not Encourage Everyone To Write A Personalized Letter! That's a lame excuse if there ever was one, anyway. If it was put up on the ATF's site like the "Brace Ban" letter there'd be no questions. I agree with others on that the very wording, definitions, and the generally unprofessional manner these latest opinions have been presented are terrible. Ultimately, it is what it is until challenged. The lame infighting and misdirected anger is pointless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 12:09:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct. Those are the definitions. And my point was that the series of letters are arbitrary. By the same lines of logic they could issue an open letter determining all handguns being fired with more than "one hand" are now redesigned to be an AOW as no longer functions as it was originally "designed." The end user has now "redesigned" the pistol to be used with more than "one hand." The ATF has already ruled that adding a vertical grip to a pistol is a no-no" ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. That is the slippery slope of sloppy and capricious determinations on the part of the ATF. Short of a few shooting disciplines, most people commonly fire pistols with two hands. Does that instantly make everyone felons with unregistered AOWs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's the definitions as codified in US Code Title 26 & Title 27. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845 (c) Rifle The term “rifle” means 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 cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.11 Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s). The Sig Brace either makes something a rifle or it makes it a pistol (it's highly unlikely that it can be both). I believe a judge would say intention must be defined on the most probable application of the design regardless of an individual or corporate desire. I would include the handgun definition but handguns aren't in the make, manufacturer definitions. Handguns only exist after a weapon is made and that definition only exists to control transfers of certain pistols. (That's my opinion based on where the handgun definition exists which is Title 18, Chapter 44). "Made" is not in the definition of handgun. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44 Correct. Those are the definitions. And my point was that the series of letters are arbitrary. By the same lines of logic they could issue an open letter determining all handguns being fired with more than "one hand" are now redesigned to be an AOW as no longer functions as it was originally "designed." The end user has now "redesigned" the pistol to be used with more than "one hand." The ATF has already ruled that adding a vertical grip to a pistol is a no-no" ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. That is the slippery slope of sloppy and capricious determinations on the part of the ATF. Short of a few shooting disciplines, most people commonly fire pistols with two hands. Does that instantly make everyone felons with unregistered AOWs? I've always had a problem with ATF sticking to their guns with the definition of handgun. It's like they want someone to challenge it because it's essentially obsolete and they're tired of dealing with an obsolete definition. Wikipedia is interesting in that even in 2001, someone recognized the US definition as having flaws. It's like they were obviously aware of the US definition but were smart enough to know it couldn't encompass everything (whoever wrote it). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Handgun&oldid=256315 vs. what it's morphed into on the latest page which still doesn't fit our 1968 definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun It's apparent to me the collective will of this country is no longer in the "fired by the use of a single hand" era. Seems to me that line of thinking is what got them into this corner with the Sig Brace. Like, hey, we have to allow this brace. It facilitates our mantra so let's not recognize it looks and functions like a stock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2015 10:47:59 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Somebody needs to write the ATF about attaching a tennis ball to a buffer tube. Wouldn't that be redesigning the tennis ball? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2015 11:54:28 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Civil war is a terrible dilemma. There are battlefields all over this country that show how terrible it is. My oath is to the Constitution. Whichever side remains within that, is where my loyalty lies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Oh, I quite agree with you. I'm in the Guard. I really don't want to fight an insurrection. Interesting dilemma... - would you fight your fellow Americans if the Guard called you up for such a thing? I hope it never comes to that. Civil war is a terrible dilemma. There are battlefields all over this country that show how terrible it is. My oath is to the Constitution. Whichever side remains within that, is where my loyalty lies. That depends on how you interpret the constitution I guess if you are right or wrong |
|
|
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.
