User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 8:47:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Now are we all focusing on M855? What's the word on the brace is anyone challenging it? I am out of the loop been hording ammo No legal challenge yet, nobody arrested for using it against shoulder yet, including myself. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 8:51:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No legal challenge yet, nobody arrested for using it against shoulder yet, including myself. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Now are we all focusing on M855? What's the word on the brace is anyone challenging it? I am out of the loop been hording ammo No legal challenge yet, nobody arrested for using it against shoulder yet, including myself. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 9:05:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you tried it at the range? I need to sight mine in, just got my front buis on it tonight. I'd like to sight it at the range but could always go to BFE in case I accidentally shoulder it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now are we all focusing on M855? What's the word on the brace is anyone challenging it? I am out of the loop been hording ammo No legal challenge yet, nobody arrested for using it against shoulder yet, including myself. - OS I shoot at a range where any number of city and county cops are members. Don't have any ATF guys as members to my knowledge, but we might. Not worrying about it. I personally don't think ATF wants it in court period. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 9:36:21 PM EDT
[#4]
Everyone knew it was coming. The outrage was feigned.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 9:38:33 PM EDT
[#5]
I was actually able to contain my Hysteria.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 10:16:52 PM EDT
[#6]
It's not really enforceable, the BATFE would need to make the SIG brace illegal to effectively enforce their insane interpretations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 10:54:58 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not really enforceable, the BATFE would need to make the SIG brace illegal to effectively enforce their insane interpretations. Go test your theory out in front of an agent and report back on your findings. I for one don't feel like going to federal pound me in the ass prison. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 10:59:17 PM EDT
[#8]
What about a Sig braced pistol loaded with XM855?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 11:10:58 PM EDT
[#9]
IBTL!
I'm not a brace fan, but the wife doesn't particularly like my buffer tubed guns. If she ever decides to get her own I'll build her a 7" SBX braced keymod railed 9mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 11:36:37 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a Sig braced pistol loaded with XM855? oh fuck, that is HARDCORE |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2015 11:51:40 PM EDT
[#11]
I'm glad I waited to get one. When the hysteria hit I got one at a great discount!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 8:10:23 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a Sig braced pistol loaded with XM855? That is my trunk gun 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 8:46:53 AM EDT
[#13]
An easy way to troll both the ATF and busybody Range dicks is to use a registered SBR with a Sig Brace and see what happens. Tell both to Fuck Off if they decide to make an issue out of shouldering. If several of us do it all over the country we will find out just how far they intend to go. I will start when mine is approved.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 8:54:02 AM EDT
[#14]
sig brace on a 16 inch barrel
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 10:42:23 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a Sig braced pistol loaded with XM855? ...based on a 80% lower...Ghost Gun. Scarey
Don't forget the banana clip and shoulder thingy that goes up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 10:43:56 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
sig brace on a 16 inch barrel Naww. Pinned/welded 14.5 with a VFG 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 12:13:04 PM EDT
[#17]
As long as threads get closed for "criminal activity," the hysteria will continue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 12:33:42 PM EDT
[#18]
I love how my sig brace helps me stabilize my pistol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 2:11:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An easy way to troll both the ATF and busybody Range dicks is to use a registered SBR with a Sig Brace and see what happens. Tell both to Fuck Off if they decide to make an issue out of shouldering. If several of us do it all over the country we will find out just how far they intend to go. I will start when mine is approved. I filed for my tax stamp to do this exact thing a few weeks ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 3:06:01 PM EDT
[#20]
Mine is still on my truck gun and won't change.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 4:25:06 PM EDT
[#21]
I love my AR pistol and I will shoot it however I want.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2015 7:16:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Who's got the best prices on Sig Braces these days?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 12:32:41 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who's got the best prices on Sig Braces these days? This is the right answer |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 12:35:05 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go test your theory out in front of an agent and report back on your findings. I for one don't feel like going to federal pound me in the ass prison. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's not really enforceable, the BATFE would need to make the SIG brace illegal to effectively enforce their insane interpretations. Go test your theory out in front of an agent and report back on your findings. I for one don't feel like going to federal pound me in the ass prison. I am willing to go to federal pound me in the ass prison for shouldering a fucking piece of foam with a strap on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 9:58:21 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a Sig braced pistol loaded with XM855? And a shoestring tied around the trigger
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 1:41:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am willing to go to federal pound me in the ass prison for shouldering a fucking piece of foam with a strap on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not really enforceable, the BATFE would need to make the SIG brace illegal to effectively enforce their insane interpretations. Go test your theory out in front of an agent and report back on your findings. I for one don't feel like going to federal pound me in the ass prison. I am willing to go to federal pound me in the ass prison for shouldering a fucking piece of foam with a strap on it. "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 2:20:42 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What about a Sig braced pistol loaded with XM855? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 2:22:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ...based on a 80% lower...Ghost Gun. Scarey Don't forget the banana clip and shoulder thingy that goes up. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What about a Sig braced pistol loaded with XM855? ...based on a 80% lower...Ghost Gun. Scarey Don't forget the banana clip and shoulder thingy that goes up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 5:26:25 PM EDT
[#29]
X2....
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An easy way to troll both the ATF and busybody Range dicks is to use a registered SBR with a Sig Brace and see what happens. Tell both to Fuck Off if they decide to make an issue out of shouldering. If several of us do it all over the country we will find out just how far they intend to go. I will start when mine is approved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 8:04:54 PM EDT
[#30]
Just got this in my email from Sig.
BATFE REAFFIRMS PISTOL BRACE LEGAL TO OWN, INSTALL AND USE Newington, N. H. (February 20, 2015) – SIG SAUER, Inc. has issued the following statement relative to the January 2015 open opinion letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding the SB15 and SBX Pistol Stabilizing Braces. BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER®. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product “which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol.” SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter’s experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2015 10:40:36 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just got this in my email from Sig. BATFE REAFFIRMS PISTOL BRACE LEGAL TO OWN, INSTALL AND USE Newington, N. H. (February 20, 2015) – SIG SAUER, Inc. has issued the following statement relative to the January 2015 open opinion letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding the SB15 and SBX Pistol Stabilizing Braces. BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER®. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product “which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol.” SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter’s experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed. Nothing new there. SIG has never suggested using the braces against the shoulder. Which is why they'd have no standing in a suit claiming any kinds of damages to loss of sales or whatever. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2015 9:03:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing new there. SIG has never suggested using the braces against the shoulder. Which is why they'd have no standing in a suit claiming any kinds of damages to loss of sales or whatever. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just got this in my email from Sig. BATFE REAFFIRMS PISTOL BRACE LEGAL TO OWN, INSTALL AND USE Newington, N. H. (February 20, 2015) – SIG SAUER, Inc. has issued the following statement relative to the January 2015 open opinion letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding the SB15 and SBX Pistol Stabilizing Braces. BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER®. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product “which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol.” SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter’s experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed. Nothing new there. SIG has never suggested using the braces against the shoulder. Which is why they'd have no standing in a suit claiming any kinds of damages to loss of sales or whatever. - OS I figured the ATF would back off on that one...addressing use a a tricky thing for a technical ranch... I swear, this M855 ban is kind of a "fuck you" to us pistol owners due to this SIG brace crap...courtesy of the ATF... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2015 10:40:33 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I figured the ATF would back off on that one...addressing use a a tricky thing for a technical ranch... I swear, this M855 ban is kind of a "fuck you" to us pistol owners due to this SIG brace crap...courtesy of the ATF... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just got this in my email from Sig. BATFE REAFFIRMS PISTOL BRACE LEGAL TO OWN, INSTALL AND USE Newington, N. H. (February 20, 2015) – SIG SAUER, Inc. has issued the following statement relative to the January 2015 open opinion letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding the SB15 and SBX Pistol Stabilizing Braces. BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER®. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product “which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol.” SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter’s experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed. Nothing new there. SIG has never suggested using the braces against the shoulder. Which is why they'd have no standing in a suit claiming any kinds of damages to loss of sales or whatever. - OS I figured the ATF would back off on that one...addressing use a a tricky thing for a technical ranch... I swear, this M855 ban is kind of a "fuck you" to us pistol owners due to this SIG brace crap...courtesy of the ATF... I dont think that is why the ATF is banning the ammo. think about the other calibers AR pistols are chambered for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2015 11:30:55 PM EDT
[#34]
So glad to see a bit of logic in this thread- specifically this forum- over my usual forum where every single owner seemed to just curl up in a ball and give in over the whole shouldering bit.
There is very clear wording in one of the letters stating that it is only illegal to assemble the pistol with the intention of avoiding the NFA. Meaning it's the ill intention that is illegal, and the intention that would have to be proven and punished. I intended to use it as designed, but if it's cozy against my cheek that's a nice bonus to this legal product. Let's stop focusing on a detail within a detail within a detail, shall we? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2015 11:50:28 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So glad to see a bit of logic in this thread- specifically this forum- over my usual forum where every single owner seemed to just curl up in a ball and give in over the whole shouldering bit. There is very clear wording in one of the letters stating that it is only illegal to assemble the pistol with the intention of avoiding the NFA. Meaning it's the ill intention that is illegal, and the intention that would have to be proven and punished. I intended to use it as designed, but if it's cozy against my cheek that's a nice bonus to this legal product. Let's stop focusing on a detail within a detail within a detail, shall we? However, the only "open letter" on the subject claims to rescind all previous ones. And says that shouldering the brace changes the classification to that of an NFA firearm. So that is the "directive" we can either obey or ignore. So far, I'm doing the latter, as I do not believe the opinion can be supported by federal law -- that it is "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" by its configuration, and not its use. If the ATF wants to ban the braces by calling them stocks, that's one thing, but they can't have it both ways. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 11:31:33 AM EDT
[#36]
The ATF thinks they can "design or redesign, make or remake" what they want of federal law by lame reinterpretation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 6:55:19 AM EDT
[#37]
I have to admit... all this ATF crap is making me rather numb to what they say is a felony or not...
Is it getting to the point yet where we don't care about what they say makes an NFA gun or not? Caring less and less all the time. If you're going to be a bear, might as well be a grizzly? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 8:03:40 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have to admit... all this ATF crap is making me rather numb to what they say is a felony or not... Is it getting to the point yet where we don't care about what they say makes an NFA gun or not? Caring less and less all the time. If you're going to be a bear, might as well be a grizzly? When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 8:46:04 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Now are we all focusing on M855? What's the word on the brace is anyone challenging it? I am out of the loop been hording ammo GD is just like the news media. When one topic/story gets worn out......it's on to the next one. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 1:05:19 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have to admit... all this ATF crap is making me rather numb to what they say is a felony or not... Is it getting to the point yet where we don't care about what they say makes an NFA gun or not? Caring less and less all the time. It took until now? Personally, knowing that the very existence of the BATFE is a Constitutional violation, as all NFA restrictions on SBRs are blatent 2nd Amendment violations (as argued by US prosecution) due to their appropriateness for combat, there are no associated laws. They can write all the "opinion letters" they want. Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. – Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 4:26:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It took until now? Personally, knowing that the very existence of the BATFE is a Constitutional violation, as all NFA restrictions on SBRs are blatent 2nd Amendment violations (as argued by US prosecution) due to their appropriateness for combat, there are no associated laws. They can write all the "opinion letters" they want. Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. – Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have to admit... all this ATF crap is making me rather numb to what they say is a felony or not... Is it getting to the point yet where we don't care about what they say makes an NFA gun or not? Caring less and less all the time. It took until now? Personally, knowing that the very existence of the BATFE is a Constitutional violation, as all NFA restrictions on SBRs are blatent 2nd Amendment violations (as argued by US prosecution) due to their appropriateness for combat, there are no associated laws. They can write all the "opinion letters" they want. Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. – Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256) There is a whole lot of nonsense written as law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2015 7:48:11 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It took until now? Personally, knowing that the very existence of the BATFE is a Constitutional violation, as all NFA restrictions on SBRs are blatent 2nd Amendment violations (as argued by US prosecution) due to their appropriateness for combat, there are no associated laws. They can write all the "opinion letters" they want. Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. – Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have to admit... all this ATF crap is making me rather numb to what they say is a felony or not... Is it getting to the point yet where we don't care about what they say makes an NFA gun or not? Caring less and less all the time. It took until now? Personally, knowing that the very existence of the BATFE is a Constitutional violation, as all NFA restrictions on SBRs are blatent 2nd Amendment violations (as argued by US prosecution) due to their appropriateness for combat, there are no associated laws. They can write all the "opinion letters" they want. Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court: The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . . A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. – Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256) It took until now for me to not be worried about the solidly-illegal NFA stuff, yes. I don't care to test it though. It's too bad what 'should be' won't keep a person out of prison for doing something that is obviously covered in the Constitution. That's where all the Constitutionalist stuff ends up being nothing but babble from the mid+ right conservatives (like myself). People are -almost- right to think we're crazies, since none of it seems to get us anywhere. It was once ruled that shotguns weren't covered under the 2A for shorter barrels because the military didn't (at the the time) use them regularly. Well, now we use the M500 mils and 590's all the time. My troop at 35 of them overseas alone. That said, they have longish barrels still. The M4 now has a 14.5" barrel, so technically the new minimum should be 14.5" barrels for rifles. I believe the 16" barrel ruling was based off of the M1 Carbine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2015 2:45:15 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.... I believe the 16" barrel ruling was based off of the M1 Carbine? Dunno. NFA wasn't amended to be 16" for rifles until 1960, I believe. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2015 5:21:39 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryIt's too bad what 'should be' won't keep a person out of prison for doing something that is obviously covered in the Constitution. That's where all the Constitutionalist stuff ends up being nothing but babble from the mid+ right conservatives (like myself). People are -almost- right to think we're crazies, since none of it seems to get us anywhere. It was once ruled that shotguns weren't covered under the 2A for shorter barrels because the military didn't (at the the time) use them regularly. Right - but the point of the Miller/SBS case is that the US PROSECUTION argued that shotguns weren't covered under the 2A for shorter barrels because they weren't "appropriate" for combat. Being that SBRs are used extensively by the military and law enforcement, I strongly believe that NFA wouldn't hold up in court after bringing Miller up as precedent. Same with the stupid Sig brace thing - one can easily argue that while a sig brace has the rough appearance of a stock, and can be brought toward the shoulder, it is impossible to properly shoulder a brace-equipped pistol since your nose will hit the charging handle before the brace hits your shoulder. So, be it pistol or SBR, who gives a crap, since NFA "laws" on SBRs are non-valid. I don't have a sig brace, but I'd fight it to the supreme court if I had to - and I think I'd win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2015 10:41:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No legal challenge yet, nobody arrested for using it against shoulder yet, including myself. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Now are we all focusing on M855? What's the word on the brace is anyone challenging it? I am out of the loop been hording ammo No legal challenge yet, nobody arrested for using it against shoulder yet, including myself. - OS On May 4th near N 42* 02.470 W 081* 59.388 while wearing yellow carnation in my lapel I may shoot my AR pistol with the Sig brace 1/4" from my shoulder and, depending on how hot my ammo is, the recoil may push the brace against my shoulder. I'll post a follow-up when I make bail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 8:09:54 PM EDT
[#46]
Since putting something to your shoulder now magically transforms a pistol to a SBR I want to to know how the .alphabetsoup will enforce this:
A gun shop in fly over country has a SB15 equipped pistol on the rack for sale. Bubba Gump asks to see the pistol to decide if he wants to buy one. Once Bubba has the pistol in hand he for some reason braces the SB15 against his shoulder. According to .alphabetsoup he has now created an NFA item. Bubba decides the pistol (now a redesigned SBR) is not what he wants and hands it back to the gun shop owner and walks out of the store. Gun shop owner now has an illegal NFA item on his rack who I assume will transfer it at some point to some ignorant citizen. Now what..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 8:29:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On May 4th near N 42* 02.470 W 081* 59.388 while wearing yellow carnation in my lapel I may shoot my AR pistol with the Sig brace 1/4" from my shoulder and, depending on how hot my ammo is, the recoil may push the brace against my shoulder. I'll post a follow-up when I make bail. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now are we all focusing on M855? What's the word on the brace is anyone challenging it? I am out of the loop been hording ammo No legal challenge yet, nobody arrested for using it against shoulder yet, including myself. - OS On May 4th near N 42* 02.470 W 081* 59.388 while wearing yellow carnation in my lapel I may shoot my AR pistol with the Sig brace 1/4" from my shoulder and, depending on how hot my ammo is, the recoil may push the brace against my shoulder. I'll post a follow-up when I make bail. You know, that is just one example of a thousand or more of how illogical the ruling is. I think by interpreting the law, you would be correct. Just another example of how ridiculous the ruling is. There is just so much fail in it, in a general sense in so many ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 8:33:39 PM EDT
[#48]
My local range has banned them after the ATF letter... I'll be wearing this on my next visit.
http://www.endoapparel.com/never-shoulder-never-forget-shirt/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 9:13:47 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love my AR pistol and I will shoot it however I want. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 12:04:48 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I love my AR pistol and I will shoot it however I want. |
|
|
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.
