Yeah, I see about zero chance that the ATF will actually arrest anyone for it. However, there's always the chance that a local LE will, based either/both on ATF opinion and their interpretation of their own state law, some of which mirrors the USC as to definition of rifle (ours does). So I imagine that even a local case could work its way up the court system even though it didn't start as a federal charge, and have much the same outcome, whatever that might be.

- OS

Ah, ok.  I'm with Inexile556 in that the letter never talks about shouldering other than in the definitions from statute.  And he never talks about redesigning a pistol either.  He only states that redesigning the device (meaning the brace) to function as a stock is prohibited.  There may be some precedent to that.  Shoe strings are legal unless you redesign them to fire a weapon automatically.  In that configuration, the shoestring becomes a machine gun.  Max makes the same leap with the brace.  Redesigning (alter appearance or function) the brace to a stock is prohibited.  He gives other examples which are weak, in my opinion (but not the shoestring).  My only problem with his argument is that the redesign is only evident upon use (whether premeditated or by ignorance).   The pistol itself with a brace is indistinguishable in it's design or redesign so the prohibition becomes somewhat arbitrary and/or capacious which doesn't make for a very good rule.

Yes, but he says that the redesign is due purely to the usage.

' ... and therefore, use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device...'

Falls back on the same arguments that shooting a Glock with two hands or a rifle from the hip "redesigns" them into another classification of firearm.

- OS

What weapon class is this?  

https://youtu.be/tlMz2sCDCA4

nm, link didn't work for me first time, I was going to fix it, seems you did.

I've mentioned this feller myself more than once in the various discussions about firearm "usage".

- OS

I originally thought it was use of the pistol, but that's not their argument.  It's the use of an additive device not original to the pistol design.  You can shoot a pistol anyway you want free of an additive device.  You can add a shoestring to a rifle in many different ways, all legal.  But if you change the use of the shoestring which results in a classification change, the shoestring becomes illegal.  It's a leap but not an impossible one.

I think they're saying use of the additive device one way is fine and the other way it becomes a prohibited device.  I don't know what legal precedent there is for that, but I bet they can come up with one.  

As I read it, it doesn't matter how you use a Sig Brace when properly installed on the weapon it was designed for. It's not illegal to use it improperly.

On the other hand, if you installed JUST A BUFFER TUBE on this:


you wouldn't be doing anything wrong necessarily. But, obviously there would be no lawful purpose for that, except maybe you could convince someone you were "getting ready for when your stamp came in," but that's just stupid. But, if you did this, would you actually be doing anything illegal? No. But, if you shouldered it you'd be revealing your true motives; to make what the ATF calls an SBR. That's not just using something improperly; that's breaking the law.

Then again, if that's what the ATF meant, why didn't they just say that? My guess is that they didn't want to come out and admit that secretly they LIKE the Sig Brace, thinking that it saves them paperwork, but that 1.  they can't get away with allowing it on just ANY gun and  2.  they didn't actually save themselves anything  because people keep poking the fucking bear.

Maybe. But remember, that shoelace of a certain length with the loops attached a certain way is an unlawful config, whether gun is fired or not. Same as any other unlawful config is unlawful in and of itself, regardless of how it's used.

Here we're dealing with a perfectly lawful config that magically changes to unlawful depending on how you use it. Same as any other lawful config, like the Glock.

- OS

This is the one point we have always disagreed on. Interpreting "to be fired from the shoulder" as requiring a stock there must then be a definition of a stock. Anything that doesn't fit that definition would make it legal to use to build a shoulder fired weapon. That would defeat the rifle definition. You could define a stock as anything that is used to support the firing of a weapon when placed against the shoulder. But then we are right back to where we start.



I contend that it is the "and intended to be fired from the shoulder" that is the key point. This letter can also be said to support that view. Use as a shoulder stock does redesign it for that use, not by physical change but by the actual usage. Just as a baseball bat is not a weapon until it is used as one, same can be said of most any thing used as a weapon. The letter also outlines the rifle definition and actually emphases the "and intended to be fired from the shoulder" part.  So intention plays a big part in this.



I have always held that putting anything on a firearm for the purpose of shoulder firing is building a rifle regardless of what the anything is. We all know full well that the great majority of people that bought the brace did so for the sole purpose of shoulder firing and as such redesigned the brace into a stock by it's use. This letter clarifies that in the second to last paragraph. "Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a stock.... must first file an ATF form 1...." further validating my contention that anything used as a stock is a stock. It also address the common thought that because it was not ruled a stock I can put it on my pistol and shoulder fire it. While it is not illegal to fire a handgun from any position, it is the addition of the brace for the purpose of shoulder firing that is the problem child here.



So now how to deal with the intent part. That is the ATF's problem here.  I think this letter is the only solution they could come up with. It suggests that firing a pistol from your shoulder is illegal without actually saying it. It says that using the a handgun brace as a shoulder stock, makes it a shoulder stock which makes the pistol a NFA firearm.

I interpenetrate "use as a shoulder stock" to mean intending to use it as a shoulder stock from the onset, a view which seems to be supported by the second to last paragraph.



Now there are people gonna scream that I can't say what their intentions are or were when they bought their stock. But if you are able bodied and find yourself in a courtroom it will be up to you to prove that you did not install it with the intention of using it as a stock even though you are "innocent until proven guilty". That's all I'll say about that.







 

I think the straw that broke the brace is the fact that people started installing tubes on ak and hk style pistols in order to accomadate the brace.

The tube wasnt necessary to the function of those types of pistols,as it is in the ar-15.

Call me crazy but adding the buffer and the tube, ismore of a leap toward stock, than just adding the brace to an existing tube.

My mind is made up, I will remove brace and shoot it however I please.

Ever since SBR became extant, the ATF has "defined" what is a stock and what is not a stock by approving or disapproving any questionable designs. I'm perfectly content to let that tradition continue as settled law until we can dump SBR law period.

I've said any number of times, ATF could simply change their opinion that these braces are stocks, and that would be that.

To keep from outraging the small percentage of actual handicapped folks who might want to use these things, there are any number of design parameters that would facilitate them being used for that purpose while also making them impractical enough to use against the shoulder that nobody would do it.

- OS

Here is something to completely muddy the waters

Over in the industry forum, the Green Mountain barrels folks have been giving out 1/6 twist barrels to anyone who would agree to complete a build and post test results.

Here I am with the 10.5 barrel.

As I state in the thread

The purpose of the sling is to add some stability to the test process. The rear buffer tube is a KAK gen 1 model that I simply screwed a sling swivel stud into and attached the sling.

It allows me to have better stability when shooting from the bench and shooting off hand.







You are actually pushing the weapon away from you with your dominant hand and the sling acts as stabilizing force.



I learned this technique back in the 1970's when I attended the SFQC as a weapons sgt and we had rather lengthy training on the use and deployment of American and foreign submachine guns. You can also shoot offhand using this technique.

You can lengthen the sling and carry the weapon slung and simply pull the pistol up with your dominant hand and push it forward like you would a handgun.  You are not pulling the pistol towards you, you are pushing it away to increase sling tension and thus increase stability. You can fire it one handed or use your support hand under the handguard to increase stability.

You can use this technique while wearing body armor by simply running the sling through a snap link attached to the top of the body armor. Doing it this way also allows a transition to a different weapon by simply letting the pistol drop down to your side.

I am not trying to encourage the use of this system, simply demonstrating another way to increase stability of the AR pistol while firing.


The only modification to the buffer tube is the placement of a sling swivel which will decrease your ability to shoulder the buffer tube.

Another matter to muddy the water is the "letter" seemingly refers to the owner or person who installed the SigBrace, not everyone shooting it.  Hence, someone who borrows your brace equipped AR pistol at the range, then fires it from the shoulder, did not install the brace with the intent to shoulder it, he just shot it the way it looks like it should be shot.  Another question is, are you obligated to recite this letter and your interpretation of it, to everyone who may shoot it while you go on a Subway run?

But that is not interpreted by the court as you suggest it would be. For the court to rule it as such a stock would need to be defined.

As far as the ATF ruling on stocks; they ruled the brace is not a stock yet here we are.



 

I have a double loop sling plate under my buffer tube anticipating the same use - a sling around the upper torso in some way to help stabilze the rear of the gun and improve the sighting. I agree, you push away to create tension. I have also installed a Magpul K grip to get my hand rotated to hold the lower elbow against the ribcage, further reducing movement.

As for interpretations and nuances of the ATF, nothing printed in this forum or thread defines the issue. If the Court doesn't rubber stamp it, it does not have any legal effect. And the Court has crossed swords with the ATF before and the ATF lost.  

Interpretive banter or debate has no legal standing either in a court of law, on a range, or after a defensive shooting. If we allow that to determine our use, then we allow Range Officers to throw AR pistol shooters off the premises, or a Conservation Agent to arrest a hunter for using a firearm illegally because he held it up to his shoulder. What we need are clearly written guidelines, what we are getting are undefined and poorly worded legalese that isn't clarifying anything..

The issue at hand is can you shoot the pistol with a buffer tube against your shoulder?. The reality is why tilt your head down to an awkward position and attempt a sight picture with the gun below your natural viewing plane? It's a bad question from the beginning, because it's basic assumption is that it would make it more accurate. From the perspective of having a cramped view of the scene, is that better when you need to assess a complete view of what is happening?  And if you train with other weapons with a higher sighting plane, doesn't that complicate your habits and create a weakness?

If you shoot with the sighting plane above your shoulder then shoot the pistol the same way. Don't make things worse.

Goes to the ATF - I'll repeat it, a lot of people are reading what they want in the letters, and it's not always a binding legal opinion. Worse, they are forcing it on others and driving wedges in the shooting community.

In Congress and/or the ATF can't put it in plain language, maybe we DO need to keep writing more letters. Every day. From now on into the foreseeable future. If they make things worse take it back to Congress and fix it. Congress is who started this fight by creating the NFA, and Congress can stop it all by gutting it. The anti gunners aren't going to stop, why should we?

Well that's all well and good but the question remains is it legal to shoulder the buffer tube.

You gave a good reason why not to shoulder it but did not give any thought or opinion as to the question at hand.

We are simply discussing our personal interpretations, not trying to legislate or pontificate the law. If we can't do it in a gun forum we may as well just post pictures of our builds in hope of getting peer approval and cheap internet acceptance from faceless strangers.  



So what are your thoughts on the question at hand?

And that's my uber point. I think the courts would rule in a practical sense here, given the long history of the ATF's rulings regarding a stock to be necessary to make an SBR,  that "intended to be fired from the shoulder" would be synonymous with "stock".

Not every court case hinges on exact narrow and exact verbiage used in a statute. (witness the ACA individual mandate as suddenly becoming a tax, without the word used in the statute, and likely the upcoming decision as well, based on the word "state", which is in there). The ATF enforcement is largely regarded as the equivalent of case law, unless actually overturned by case law itself, as in the Thompson Case.

I just don't think the ATF "logic" can fly, that:

- a stock makes a pistol an SBR, and legal to use if you pay the tax
- you may shoot your taxed SBR without the stock if you like
- the brace is not a stock, and legal to put on a pistol without a tax
- but if the brace is shouldered it becomes a stock, and hence SBR for which you must pay a tax

Just too many "have it both ways" arguments by the ATF and I believe a practical ruling would emerge, simply that the configuration determines legality/illegality.

My guess is that if pressed, Mad Max will rule that the buffer tube on a direct impingement AR, if fired from the shoulder, would be same as using the brace from the shoulder. I rather hope someone presses the issue to get his ruling on that, as would even more so highlight the absurdity -- that really would be logically exactly equivalent to firing a handgun with both hands as making an AOW, as in both cases nothing beyond the parts designed for necessary function would be in the equation.

And even if not, consider this: lots of handguns have a squared and/or textured trigger guard, an added feature, not necessary for function of the firearm. And what's it for? To more securely facilitate using the second hand on a firearm designed to be fired with one hand,  of course. Similar to a vertical forward grip even, yowser.

Meaning in all, for every argument the ATF may make for a certain ruling of the actual wording, contrary arguments could be made based on their previous and long standing interpretations of it, combine that with the fact that it's a virtually unenforceable interpretation, and ultimately the courts would simply take the more pedestrian and practical road and rule that configuration rather than usage determines legality regarding the spirit of that rifle definition.

Again, all ATF has to do is declare the existing brace designs as stocks, make designers come up with "braces" that can't be realistically used as stocks, or perhaps even medically license their use,  and all the true controversy goes away. Almost certainly the courts would agree that for all practical purposes for 99+% of users, they are indeed stocks.

- OS

The ATF never said that shouldering a brace turns it into a stock, it contends that using a brace as a stock turns it into a stock. The two handed hold on a pistol doesn't come into play here. This letter is not saying the pistol itself is changed in status by the way it is used; it is the brace that is changed by it's use. It is "redesigned" into a stock by it's use as one, just as the baseball bat becomes a deadly weapon when used as one.  So by your own interpretation that the stock makes the rifle, or SBR, then you must conclude that the resulting pistol with this now redefined "stock" is in fact a SBR.



I hold that anything you install on a firearm for the purpose of shouldering that firearm is, by it's actual use as a stock, a stock. If it is not then one could take the padded end of a crutch affix it to a pistol and use it to shoulder fire that pistol without creating a NFA firearm.  Magpul could market a MOE pistol support provided their claimed design and intended use is simply as a stand to keep the pistol upright in a safe. This would create a need for the ATF to make a ruling, not a opinion, on each and every device placed on the end of any handgun before it would be an NFA firearm.



The ATF cannot rule the brace as a stock without the ADA folks raking them over the coals. They can, and did, declare handgun braces are stocks if they are used as one. By used as one I mean installed solely to allow shoulder firing, the ATF might have a different view but that is how I also interpret their "use" wording in the letter. Either way there is precedent in changing the classification of an item depending on use.



I have an Ramset and a Hilti gun both of which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive from a .25cal brass shell, a firearm as spelled out in the firearm definition. The only thing that keeps these from being a firearm is the fact that they are not a "weapon" as specified that definition, but if it is used as a weapon it becomes one by it's use and as such then meets the definition of a firearm. There are cases of people being prosecuted and found guilty for just such a weapons charge.



I have a friend that caught another guy with his wife. Cracked him on his head with one of those petite souvenir ball bats given away at some games. 7 years for assault with a deadly weapon.  A "weapon" they handout to kids at the ballpark.



The 26" VFG firearm we all know and love is converted into a NFA firearm by simply concealing it on the person. The ATF contends that a firearm 26" or greater in OAL is not concealable and therefore is does not meet the definition of an AOW. However concealing such a firearm changes that by the fact that it is actually concealed. There are other examples but....



While I do agree that there needs to be some oversite and review on the rule making process and the rules made I have been pouring over the APA but find it just as convoluted as anything else. while the APA does have a process for the Federal courts to directly review agency decisions, The federal APA does not require oversight of regulations prior to adoption.
Now, for the people that keep saying the ATF cannot make it's own laws you might want read up on Administrative Law. The ATF is an administrative agency of the US government and has the power to legislate, adjudicate and enforce regulations that are codified in the C.F.R., in other words they do have the power to make laws. Another more familiar agency that does the same thing is the IRS. New tax laws come from them every year, even every quarter and there are some very stiff penalties for not following their rules. The scary part is the ATF was once simply a division within the IRS so they know how to play the game.



And just for the record I do not support the ATF in their decisions or even their right to exist although current legal status does force me to acknowledge their existence and abide by said rules provided those rules do not violate the Constitution. I consider this banter as nothing more than a conversation / food for thought, on current events in relation to the political agenda currently in play.

It's a question that won't be definitively answered until someone (hopefully Sig) challenges the decision that a brace is not a stock but it is redisigned and is a stock if it is used like one. Until that happens, this is all an exercise in mental masturbation.

And FYI, this coversation is nothing new. Check out the post below from otto_esq in 2005. here is a link to the thread if you want to experience deja vu.

2005 Shouldering Buffer Tube Thread

otto_esq  [Team Member]
8/23/2005 2:34:35 PM EDT
We seem to have a back-n-forth argument spread over 10 days regarding what is "legal" but no one has yet referenced or argued a single point based on the law. Geez, folks. When you are arguing about conduct that might constitute a 10-year felony and conviction for an unregistered Short Barreled Rifle, I'd think you'd want to be more sure that the reasons I see stated here. I would suggest at least referencing the law that would be the basis for a prosecution regarding whether such activity is or is not legal.

So far we have:

Using the buffer tube as a stock to stablize the pistol would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle.


A buffer tube is not a stock. A buffer tube is a buffer tuber no matter what you do with it as long as you don't put a stock on it.


Hold it how you like, as long as it doesn't have a "shoulder stock" attached to it you are legal.


[T]he ATFE regarding the use of CAR length tubes on pistol builds ... DO NOT SAY the tube is a butt stock if you rest it against your shoulder (in the above tacked letter )


It's not illegal to put the buffer tube on you're shoulder.


Buffer tubes are NOT stocks.


With the exception of the ATFE letter reference (**), the above statements are all conclusions with no stated legal argument to support them.

(**Regarding the ATFE letter reference: It does not appear from the ATFE response that they were asked about the condition of firing an AR pistol from the shoulder, so I am not surprised that it was not addressed in the response.
The ATFE did not say in that letter that you couldn't put FA fire control parts in an AR pistol either, but we'd all agree that their lack of reference would not make it legal.
At most, the ATFE letter is negative evidence, which is not really proof of anything other than the specific question the agency was asked to address.
"Is it inherently illegal to use a carbine buffer tube sans the collapsible "stock" portion to house the recoil mechanism of an AR pistol?" Answer: "No."
Note that the question to the ATFE probably did not include, "how about if the "buffer tube" is used in place of the missing "stock" portion?"
Hence, the ATFE did not mention anything about that scenario.)

The National Firearms Act, alluded to in the "would basically constitute a Short Barreled Rifle" comment, above, defines items by their form as well as their function.

Form: "having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length"

Function: "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"

I would argue that the comments, above, that state a "buffer tube" is not, and by implication, can never be a "stock" are focusing too much on the form and the description of the items in a schematic or parts list, instead of examining the function the buffer tube is fulfilling when it is placed against the shoulder for firing.

The NFA definition for a "rifle" does not say "a weapon that has a stock", but instead defines a rifle by function, "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder". . .

An AR pistol can become a "rifle" under the NFA if it is a "weapon . . . intended to be fired from the shoulder"; the "designed or redesigned, made or remade" aspect of the definition shows the legislative intent to capture in the NFA definition of "rifle" prior non-"rifles" that are in some way converted to rifles based on intent, namely, like in this case, that they are "intended to be fired from the shoulder."

Just because you don't call an aluminum tube sticking out the back of the receiver a "stock" in the classical sense, that does not prevent the legal interpretation that A function of the aluminum tube, i.e. to support the weapon against the shoulder during firing, is a de facto stock.

If you take the position that the buffer tube is not functioning as a stock when it is placed against the shoulder for firing, what is it doing? How does it's FUNCTION differ from the "stock" that could be placed on the same buffer tube? It is not adjustable for length of pull, it is shorter, it does not "widen out" at the rear where it contacts the body, it doesn't look like a traditional stock. So what? If not for the function it performs, how in the world do you define a stock? None of those items are even mentioned in the definition of a "rifle" either; instead, a "rifle is a weapon fired from the shoulder" and is thus defined by function, not whether or not it has a traditional oiled maple, checkered walnut, molded plastic, or wide rubber butt-padded "stock". Only the diameter of the "tube" distinguishes it from a "stock"; none of you would argue that placing a wider, flared piece of metal, plastic or rubber on the end of the tube is not a "stock". However, the only difference would be shooter comfort. Again the NFA does not reference "a weapon that is intended to be fired comfortably from the shoulder".

Remember, those that would be working for the prosecutor are the same group that try to get a weapon to malfunction and thus fire more than one round per trigger manipulation for a charge of unregistered machine guns. How is your argument, "your Honor, although the buffer tube functions as, and therefore takes the place of a stock, it doesn't look like one", going to hold up against them?
Poorly, I'd predict.

Probably "too much said"

Cheers, Otto

(Edited for speling)



ETA: In case my position wasn't clear, my money would be on the prosecutor, 2-1 over the defense attorney.

Its been ten years since this question has been asked on ARF.com

I thought it would be more frequently discussed.

Thanks for posting Otto, very well said argument.

Yeah, good job Otto, except that was 10 years ago when pistols weren't as ubiquitous as they are today.  Lots of manufactures pumping out de facto short barreled rifles and not one gives a disclaimer about the penalties associated with them for misuse.  

I think a judge might go that way in the commission of a crime.  But for the casual owner, I can't see a judge going that route.  We do have consumer protection in this country and if the ATF allows these to be sold by large corporations without disclaimers, then I think it's the manufacturers and ATF problem not the consumer.  Obviously the argument changes a bit for those making them, but I don't see the disclaimers on the parts sellers websites either.

I think it isn't more frequently discussed because it isn't something to worry about.  No one is getting arrested for shouldering a buffer tube, brace, etc.  To take it a step further, the number of people arrested for possessing an unstamped SBR is laughably small and I can't think of a single instance of it ever occurring outside of being a tacked on charge with another more serious crime (have I missed one?).  I don't think the ATF sees it as a priority or even a point of concern.  They only bring it up in letters because people went crazy with the letter writing campaign.  They received something like 80,000 comments about the proposed green tip ban over the course of a month.  Imagine how much correspondence they've received in regards to the brace.

Quit asking

Just go about your business and unless you regularly shoot with Agents in attendence NO problem

I frankly don't think even that is an issue. Nationwide, seems we'd probably know already if they intended to enforce shooting from shoulder with brace, let alone without. I'm sure there are ATF guys who shoot all over the country at various ranges, no special sting operation required.

Hell, I shoot at private club where I do know by sight a couple of the city/county LEOs who belong, but I'm sure I don't know all of them since I don't have a clue who 90% of the folks who shoot there are, and for all I know we've got an ATF guy or two also. (field offices in all 4 major cities).

Also shoot at another range run by the police, though they're seldom at range itself. But again, I don't know 5% of the folks who shoot there, they could be anyone, and there's beaucoup folks who belong.

- OS

At gun shop a couple of weeks ago some kid was looking at a henry pistol sorta like the one pictured below.



The kid put it to his shoulder, and the store owner said "good job, you've just committed a felony"

Point is, You never know who could get a burr up their butt, and make it a problem.

The logical comeback is "are you prepared to make a citizen's arrest?"

- OS

You could say that about just about anything.  You could be cited for jaywalking but all of us who live in a city do it regularly in front of police officers.  Same thing for nominal speeding or 922r compliance.  The fact is no one has EVER been arrested for "shouldering" a brace or buffer tube.  Even if by some great fluke you were arrested for such a thing you'd still need to actually be convicted.  That would never happen unless you made many grave and stupid errors in the courtroom.  Even then you would have a STRONG case for appeal because there is no precedent and the law is written so subjectively any lawyer with more than a year of experience could tear it to shreds.





Edited...VA-gunnut

Or "you mean WE just committed a felony, you want your contraband back?"

"Your honor, I always shoot my AR pistol 3/64" from my shoulder but sometimes the recoil makes it look like I shouldered it."  

I think they just want us spray firing our bullet hoses from the hip like that ugly California lady says.

How about bladed with the grip arm held close to the chest ,buffer over the shoulder, nose to the charging handle, off hand in front of the mag well thumb under the handguard and arm held close.

The "Kingrey Stance."

Certainly no sillier than some of the Olympic stances used for the last 50 years. And no chicken wing.

The @#$!ed up part of this whole thing is...

Based on the piss poor opinion from the ATF, then just about anything added or changed on an AR Pistol could make it illegal to shoulder it!  That might not only include things attached to or covering the buffer tube, it might also include things like optics.

It's always been their opinion that the intent to build a shoulder fired weapon is in violation of the law without NFA registration.

Well, that's not quite right you have to design or redesigned it, too.  There are actually four possibilities for the statutory construction.

1)  designed, made and intended
2)  designed, remade and intended
3)  redesigned, made and intended
4)  redesigned, remade and intended

One of those four scenarios have to be met before one is in violation.  So they've interpreted that adding a part redesigned as a stock also redesigns the weapon to be fired from the shoulder and is in violation.  That's pretty plausible.  The big leap they are making, that really is the question, are the braced pistols actually manufactured by companies and used improperly.  

What needs to occur (or some variation of it), is for someone to purchase a Sig AR pistol.  That owner needs to loan it to a friend who takes it to a range for a demo day.  The gun needs to be clearly identified and video taped with lots of unknown people demoing the gun as they see fit.  The video and the gun then needs to be given to an attorney who will send both the gun and video to ATF asking whether or not that particular gun is a short barreled rifle.  If ATF does not give it back, then a complaint could be filed.  

I'm sure there are other ways to find out, but that's the one that seems the least risky (other than the cost of funding the adventure.)  

Actually the scenario would be better with two guns, a braced pistol and one without a brace being sent in for evaluation with a video.

need to add the option "who cares" to the poll

as stated, the chances of you being called out on it and then charged/convicted for it are quite slim especially if you take even the most modest precautions

learn to operate in the gray areas and become practiced in saying with a straight face, "i'm sorry sir, i didn't know i couldn't do that"


no man can answer the age old question for you....is the juice worth the squeeze? well, is it?

No more illegal than firing a handgun with two hands.

No better way to demonstrate the illogical nature of the Sig brace opinion memo.

Anyone know when there will be any decisions on the legalities of the ATF's decision?

Sure, the ATF decision is binding and it's not going to change because nothing really has changed other than you can't use the brace as a stock.  And guess what, that's not an unreasonable decision since the brace isn't a stock.

Sig is not going to win because there is no complaint to make.  They can still market and sell their brace and braced guns.  So what's there to complain about?  "We aren't selling as many" is not going to win the heart and mind of many judges.

So is it illegal to shoulder a firearm i.e. oal is 26" or over?  Or has nothing been said on the subject of firearms?

It's not illegal but you still can't use the brace as a stock on anything but a rifle or registered SBR.

When SIG submitted the brace for ATF review, the ATF accepted the device for use on a pistol and further went on to say that is was not a stock, therefore not subject to NFA regulations…

Fast forward to the current ATF open letter. ATF still references the SIG brace for use on a pistol thus it is still not a stock, or otherwise it would be illegal to install on a pistol…

This brings us to the legal term of ambiguity;

In Constitutional Law, statutes that contain ambiguous language are VOID FOR VAGUENESS. The language of such laws is considered so obscure and uncertain that a reasonable person cannot determine from a reading what the law purports to command or prohibit. This statutory ambiguity deprives a person of the notice requirement of Due Process of Law, and, therefore, renders the statute unconstitutional.

So, the house of cards the ATF is hiding behind will simply collapse if and/or when it is ever challenged in the court of law.

How much of an air gap is required to cross the illegal->legal threshold?


If I can use my other hand to steady the weapon when firing with two hands, can I place my non-dominant hand on my chest and rest the buffer tube on it?  The gun would not be touching my shoulder, it is only touching my hand.  Sure my hand would be receiving support from my torso, but it does the same when shooting two handed.

Why is it legal to shoot a pistol off of a bench rest?  Should we start building pistol bipods?  That would probably be even more stable than shooting from the shoulder with a short/narrow ended buffer tube.

I think Sig is leading the ATF down a well thought-out path and the ATF lawyers are taking the bait.  The absurdity of all of this will become too much even for the ATF to support.

The problem with the ATF argument is that of the casual user.  Before, a gun was easily identified as a short barreled rifle and it's status could be made permanent.  Now, and depending on casual or accidental use, any number of guns would be permanently altered to an illegal state (based on past ATF precedent of once an SBR always an SBR).  The ambiguity becomes worse on determining the illegal possessor.  Is the person liable the one who created the illegal SBR by casual use or the owner or both?  There's just so much gray area.  

Unless there is some threshold established to determine when a violation occurs, their ruling is certainly vague (and arbitrary and capricious).  

Nothing new about that:





- OS

Just dont go grabbing onto that bipod - illegal vfg on a pistol

i was just thinking (dangerous, i know.. hope all the dust and cobwebs up there dont catch on fire).. IF someone were to shoulder my ar 15 pistol and create a SBR.. would i now be obligated to turn the SBR over to the atf, or does it magically convert back to a pistol when unshouldered?

Thinking? You stop that. Right now.

If you witness a crime, you're supposed to report it. The responding law enforcement will deall with evidence collection. I would think they'd confiscate the pistol as evidence, and if found to have been used in such a way, would likely be held and destroyed after the case is decided and evidence need not be held any longer.

But no, you wouldn't be obligated to turn it over to the ATF, only to report the crime and assist LE with the investigation and collecting evidence. It'll be the responsibility of that LEA to turn it over, if needed, though I don't think they would either.

"See something - say something," as we say in the nuclear industry.

This thread has truly made my head hurt.  

I am watching the movie "Interstellar" while reading this thread.
All these "what if's" in both. LOL.

So, if I make a unregistered SBR and never place it to my shoulder while a round is igniting...

I never shot it, so it is completely legal.





Kind of like...
I don't want to turn into a ham sandwich myself.

Homer Simpson


Edit: it was a turkey sandwich ( I Goggled it )
Time for bed.

 

Just get a letter from a medical doctor stating that your shirt is not part of your shoulder. Should hold up to the ATF opinion letters right?