Reposting this from the Armory for wide visibility. If you have a SIG brace that you use to work around the SBR requirements, that is no longer legal in the eyes of the ATF if you shoulder it

Armory post

It was always just a matter of time...

Wow, glad i spent $200 on the stamps vs $140 on the braces.. haha

So do you plan on turning yourself in to the popo anytime soon?

Well "Duh" is the only thing I can say info far as the stupid brace.

yep, these are gonna be about as desirable as Saiga 12 factory stocks here pretty soon. Sub-$20 in a matter of weeks I would guess. If you only have one arm, this is the greatest development ever.

$20 for a new Sig brace?  Where do I buy one?  

All you'll need is patients. Word is still getting out and prices definitely haven't hit rock bottom yet...

Are you a doctor?

This

yes.

This has been my argument all along for us here in WA state.  $140 for the brace and then most people also spent $40-80 on specific arm brace buffer tubes (Odin, KAK, etc).  It just doesn't make sense.

It does if you do not want to have a registered gun and also do not want to keep big brother posted about all the whereabouts of said gun.    

and it allows you  have it loaded while in your vehicle.  You can't have a loaded rifle in a car......

Sig is fighting back, there's a thread in GD about it.

The reasoning by the ATF puts them in a tight spot, as they've effectively said that it is either a design element or a usage element that determines the classification.  What else could one argue should have the standard applied to?

ATF Logic:
Sig brace equipped AR:  When used as designed, it's a pistol, but when used alternatively as a stock, it's an SBR

ATF in a bind:
Short barrel AR with a buttstock;  when used as a designed, it is a short barrel rifle.  But what if you never actually "shoulder" it, and shoot it exclusively as a pistol?  Isn't it then just a pistol and not subject to NFA?


Also, a friend pointed out rather interesting language in the our RCWs.  This isn't an I-594 change, which has introduced all kinds of conflicting definitions and requirements, but something that has existed for awhile.  The RCW in question is RCW 9.41.010, Terms Defined under section 18:


It says that ANY "firearm" with a barrel less than 16" (i.e. an SBR), OR, and that's a very big and distinct OR, designed to be fired by the use of one hand.  

So the characteristics of an SBR fit this particular state law's definition of a "pistol", and as a "Concealed PISTOL License" allows for the concealed carry of "pistols", it stands to follow that carrying a concealed SBR is indeed legal, and also legal while carried loaded in a vehicle.

But consult a lawyer, because I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night....

did some quick searching and wasn't able to locate it can you point me in the right direction pls? :)

Not if I wanted to take my M92 to Oregon when visiting family, unless I ask permission from the ATF first.

Also the aforementioned refusal to be entered into a formal national firearms registry, though like many I suspect 4473 records are conveniently stored somewhere in DC.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1709919_Looks_like_Sig_is_going_to_take_action_on_the_pistol_brace_opinion_letter.html

Might be because of the difference between "walk in, pay $140 cash, walk out" vs "where do I start this process, obtain paperwork, what is involved, who all do I need to go to, etc?"