User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:03:19 PM EDT
[#1]
@RB889 - It can if said person documents it on the internet, Like MANY have already.
But, Thats the last ill touch on this topic.. I plan to build me a nice PISTOL now tho :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:03:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: isn't that exactly the game you are trying to play? you think we don't know what you are trying to do?  you know full well pistol is not "intended to be fired from shoulder", and your asking "for the purpose of shoulder firing it" is playing exactly the game i outlined in last post Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. if you ask ATF "can I make a 9mm pistol with the intent of killing innocent people", the answer is of course no does that mean all 9mm pistol is illegal now? isn't that exactly the game you are trying to play? you think we don't know what you are trying to do? you know full well pistol is not "intended to be fired from shoulder", and your asking "for the purpose of shoulder firing it" is playing exactly the game i outlined in last post Go back through all these threads and honestly tell me that 99% of these people are not adding these simply for the purpose of shoulder firing. Or are you say that would be illegal too, like killing people in your example? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:05:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is exactly what I've been saying all along, at least your response shows you actually read what is posted. I have repeatedly stated that it is not how you fire the pistol that is the problem. I have told you all that firing a pistol from any position you want is 100% legal. My argument is in building a firearm, such as most here are doing, for the sole purpose of shoulder firing it is by the very definition a rifle regardless of what is used as a stock. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
InExile get in here and eat some crow! He'll argue it. He'll argue saying, "if someone puts it on with the direct intention of using it from the shoulder it's illegal". Just watch. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. Maybe they'll send you a JR ATF badge back with your letter. Why even ask the question in the first place? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:07:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, shoulder firing a pistol is not illegal, killing innocent people is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. if you ask ATF "can I make a 9mm pistol with the intent of killing innocent people", the answer is of course no does that mean all 9mm pistol is illegal now? isn't that exactly the game you are trying to play? you think we don't know what you are trying to do?
you know full well pistol is not "intended to be fired from shoulder", and your asking "for the purpose of shoulder firing it" is playing exactly the game i outlined in last post
you were not asking "shoulder firing a pistol", but "for the purpose of shoulder firing a pistol", which is illegal, and you were trying to get a no from ATF |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:09:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, shoulder firing a pistol is not illegal, killing innocent people is. Go back through all these threads and honestly tell me that 99% of these people are not adding these simply for the purpose of shoulder firing. Or are you say that would be illegal too, like killing people in your example? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. if you ask ATF "can I make a 9mm pistol with the intent of killing innocent people", the answer is of course no does that mean all 9mm pistol is illegal now? isn't that exactly the game you are trying to play? you think we don't know what you are trying to do? you know full well pistol is not "intended to be fired from shoulder", and your asking "for the purpose of shoulder firing it" is playing exactly the game i outlined in last post Go back through all these threads and honestly tell me that 99% of these people are not adding these simply for the purpose of shoulder firing. Or are you say that would be illegal too, like killing people in your example? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:11:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It cannot be proven in a court of law that an individual purchased one of the arm braces with the sole intent of shouldering it.(Hell, strap it to your arm for the first shoot and you're golden, according to your own logic) Say it with me now! CAN. NOT. BE. PROVEN. The burden of proof would be on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual never, not once used the arm brace as it was originally intended. Which is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. if you ask ATF "can I make a 9mm pistol with the intent of killing innocent people", the answer is of course no does that mean all 9mm pistol is illegal now? That particular question was asked in response to Desert_AIP's ridicules assertion and further insistence that because the SB15 was not classified as a stock it was impossible to design and build a rifle unitizing it as a stock. It cannot be proven in a court of law that an individual purchased one of the arm braces with the sole intent of shouldering it.(Hell, strap it to your arm for the first shoot and you're golden, according to your own logic) Say it with me now! CAN. NOT. BE. PROVEN. The burden of proof would be on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual never, not once used the arm brace as it was originally intended. Which is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Take the time to read all the locked threads (because people cant seem to have a honest discussion without resorting to personal attacks) and then tell me honestly that you believe that nobody, based on their posts alone, bought and installed these strictly for shouldering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:13:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Thank f'in God for this!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:19:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But it can be proven when you openly post the fact in a public forum, which many of you are doing. That has been my main point the whole time. Take the time to read all the locked threads (because people cant seem to have a honest discussion without resorting to personal attacks) and then tell me honestly that you believe that nobody, based on their posts alone, bought and installed these strictly for shouldering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. if you ask ATF "can I make a 9mm pistol with the intent of killing innocent people", the answer is of course no does that mean all 9mm pistol is illegal now? That particular question was asked in response to Desert_AIP's ridicules assertion and further insistence that because the SB15 was not classified as a stock it was impossible to design and build a rifle unitizing it as a stock. It cannot be proven in a court of law that an individual purchased one of the arm braces with the sole intent of shouldering it.(Hell, strap it to your arm for the first shoot and you're golden, according to your own logic) Say it with me now! CAN. NOT. BE. PROVEN. The burden of proof would be on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual never, not once used the arm brace as it was originally intended. Which is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Take the time to read all the locked threads (because people cant seem to have a honest discussion without resorting to personal attacks) and then tell me honestly that you believe that nobody, based on their posts alone, bought and installed these strictly for shouldering. It would take a very talented AUSA, ATF SA and FBI Cart to take these posts from this public forum and pull off a successful prosecution regarding the standard of intent. I am guessing you haven't spent much time around the Federal Court system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:22:08 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But it can be proven when you openly post the fact in a public forum, which many of you are doing. That has been my main point the whole time. Take the time to read all the locked threads (because people cant seem to have a honest discussion without resorting to personal attacks) and then tell me honestly that you believe that nobody, based on their posts alone, bought and installed these strictly for shouldering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. if you ask ATF "can I make a 9mm pistol with the intent of killing innocent people", the answer is of course no does that mean all 9mm pistol is illegal now? That particular question was asked in response to Desert_AIP's ridicules assertion and further insistence that because the SB15 was not classified as a stock it was impossible to design and build a rifle unitizing it as a stock. It cannot be proven in a court of law that an individual purchased one of the arm braces with the sole intent of shouldering it.(Hell, strap it to your arm for the first shoot and you're golden, according to your own logic) Say it with me now! CAN. NOT. BE. PROVEN. The burden of proof would be on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual never, not once used the arm brace as it was originally intended. Which is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Take the time to read all the locked threads (because people cant seem to have a honest discussion without resorting to personal attacks) and then tell me honestly that you believe that nobody, based on their posts alone, bought and installed these strictly for shouldering. Again, how can knowingly using something improperly be illegal when the ATF just said that using it improperly isn't illegal? Intent is immaterial. The threads get locked because you are trying to prove you are right at the suspense of our community. Why do you feel the need to get our rights further destroyed in order to prove you are correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:27:32 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, how can knowingly using something improperly be illegal when the ATF just said that using it improperly isn't illegal? Intent is immaterial. The threads get locked because you are trying to prove you are right at the suspense of our community. Why do you feel the need to get our rights further destroyed in order to prove you are correct? Are you saying I'm correct now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:32:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No the threads got locked due to personal attacks, read it for yourself in the last post. Are you saying I'm correct now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.ar15.com/biz/engine/click.html?id=1089&z=7 Again, how can knowingly using something improperly be illegal when the ATF just said that using it improperly isn't illegal? Intent is immaterial. The threads get locked because you are trying to prove you are right at the suspense of our community. Why do you feel the need to get our rights further destroyed in order to prove you are correct? Are you saying I'm correct now. I don't think he is saying that at all. I think we are all saying that it is time to tone down the arm chair legal expert thing you pretend to have going on. This letter defeated the heart of your argument and although you have left yourself an out because of the "specific wording" of your letter, the intent was to show the Sig Arm Brace/ shouldering members that they were indeed dancing in the grey area of the law. This letter clearly says they are not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:38:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If OP could possibly SCAN this and PDF it, it would be great. I believe this is the only letter like this and I would like to print one for sure. It would be great to have it as high quality as possible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nice and will be posting the PDF in some other places to have some others STFU... If OP could possibly SCAN this and PDF it, it would be great. I believe this is the only letter like this and I would like to print one for sure. It would be great to have it as high quality as possible. Well, unless that includes OCR to preserve text, it will just be a PDF of an image. Which I did here: SB-letter.pdf Which works for screen readability, but it needs to be at higher original rez than the images posted for decent printing. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 5:50:19 PM EDT
[#13]
Inexile, please stop spreading lies and false truths.
You have repeatedly argued against the sig brace for no good reason. Please stay out of AR pistol threads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:03:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is exactly what I've been saying all along, at least your response shows you actually read what is posted. I have repeatedly stated that it is not how you fire the pistol that is the problem. I have told you all that firing a pistol from any position you want is 100% legal. My argument is in building a firearm, such as most here are doing, for the sole purpose of shoulder firing it is by the very definition a rifle regardless of what is used as a stock. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
InExile get in here and eat some crow! He'll argue it. He'll argue saying, "if someone puts it on with the direct intention of using it from the shoulder it's illegal". Just watch. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. What about buying a complete pistol with the brace already installed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:04:07 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think he is saying that at all. I think we are all saying that it is time to tone down the arm chair legal expert thing you pretend to have going on. This letter defeated the heart of your argument and although you have left yourself and out because of the "specific wording" of your letter, the intent was to show the Sig Arm Brace/ shouldering members that they were indeed dancing in the grey area of the law. This letter clearly says they are not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://www.ar15.com/biz/engine/click.html?id=1089&z=7 Again, how can knowingly using something improperly be illegal when the ATF just said that using it improperly isn't illegal? Intent is immaterial. The threads get locked because you are trying to prove you are right at the suspense of our community. Why do you feel the need to get our rights further destroyed in order to prove you are correct? Are you saying I'm correct now. I don't think he is saying that at all. I think we are all saying that it is time to tone down the arm chair legal expert thing you pretend to have going on. This letter defeated the heart of your argument and although you have left yourself and out because of the "specific wording" of your letter, the intent was to show the Sig Arm Brace/ shouldering members that they were indeed dancing in the grey area of the law. This letter clearly says they are not. My whole point is in the building for the sole purpose of shouldering, and more directly, posting about it on a public forum. Posts referring to the BS15 as a "stock brace  " and outright calling it a "SBR loophole" prove to anyone reading the post what this is being used for right from the start i.e., designed and intended. It is this which will be the cause of more regulation not me trying to get you to stop being so open about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:04:36 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is exactly what I've been saying all along, at least your response shows you actually read what is posted. I have repeatedly stated that it is not how you fire the pistol that is the problem. I have told you all that firing a pistol from any position you want is 100% legal. My argument is in building a firearm, such as most here are doing, for the sole purpose of shoulder firing it is by the very definition a rifle regardless of what is used as a stock. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
InExile get in here and eat some crow! He'll argue it. He'll argue saying, "if someone puts it on with the direct intention of using it from the shoulder it's illegal". Just watch. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. That question does not say it is illegal to add something to a pistol buffer tube for the purpose of shouldering it. Therefore, you are not telling the truth when you say the question has been answered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:11:25 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What about buying a complete pistol with the brace already installed? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: InExile get in here and eat some crow! He'll argue it. He'll argue saying, "if someone puts it on with the direct intention of using it from the shoulder it's illegal". Just watch. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. What about buying a complete pistol with the brace already installed? ".Buying one already built takes your design and intent completely out of the picture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:14:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That question does not say it is illegal to add something to a pistol buffer tube for the purpose of shouldering it. Therefore, you are not telling the truth when you say the question has been answered. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: InExile get in here and eat some crow! He'll argue it. He'll argue saying, "if someone puts it on with the direct intention of using it from the shoulder it's illegal". Just watch. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. That question does not say it is illegal to add something to a pistol buffer tube for the purpose of shouldering it. Therefore, you are not telling the truth when you say the question has been answered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:19:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it says modifying it could be making it a shoulder stock. That is one of the questions in my letter, so yes as I stated that part has been answered. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
InExile get in here and eat some crow! He'll argue it. He'll argue saying, "if someone puts it on with the direct intention of using it from the shoulder it's illegal". Just watch. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. That question does not say it is illegal to add something to a pistol buffer tube for the purpose of shouldering it. Therefore, you are not telling the truth when you say the question has been answered. Modifying what? It specifically refers to a carbine buffer tube, which has NOTHING to do with this thread or the sig brace. You say that you are warning us about drawing attention to the SIG brace but you are the one writing the ATF letters doing your best to draw attention to it yourself. My questions are: do you have any intention of using the sig brace? Why are you writing the ATF asking those specific questions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:25:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You will never see Sig talking about how great it is to use as a stock. They have never referred to it as a "SBR Loophole". They have never put in print "stock brace ".
Buying one already built takes your design and intent completely out of the picture. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
InExile get in here and eat some crow! He'll argue it. He'll argue saying, "if someone puts it on with the direct intention of using it from the shoulder it's illegal". Just watch. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. What about buying a complete pistol with the brace already installed? ".
Buying one already built takes your design and intent completely out of the picture. Exactly... if one has an issue with building with the intent of shouldering.... just purchase with brace already installed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:27:08 PM EDT
[#21]
If I connect my glock frame to my glock slide with the intent of holding the glock against my shoulder have I made an SBR?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:27:35 PM EDT
[#22]
You can't be that disingenuous, You don't seem daft so you must be just playing a game that you lost..... Sooooo you should just admit that you are wrong and move on.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is exactly what I've been saying all along, at least your response shows you actually read what is posted. I have repeatedly stated that it is not how you fire the pistol that is the problem. I have told you all that firing a pistol from any position you want is 100% legal. My argument is in building a firearm, such as most here are doing, for the sole purpose of shoulder firing it is by the very definition a rifle regardless of what is used as a stock. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
InExile get in here and eat some crow! He'll argue it. He'll argue saying, "if someone puts it on with the direct intention of using it from the shoulder it's illegal". Just watch. I dare anyone to find one post where I said it was illegal to shoulder fire your pistol. It is you guys that keep turning it into an argument on the legality of shoulder firing. My letter should be back soon where I asked about adding the SB15 or anything including lengthening or modifying the receiver extension for the purpose of shoulder firing it. In actuality that RE question has been asked and answered a long time ago, the letter is in the stickies at the top of this forum. ETA: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/525036_Request___Scans_of_any_letters_from_the_BATFE__that_pertain_to_AR_pistols.html&page=3#i5911558 Page 2 of the letter, question and answer 1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:30:49 PM EDT
[#23]
I just want to say how pleased I am over this! I also do not want another "time out", so this is not directed to anyone personally
. I think that hall monitors should FOAD!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 6:57:19 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No the threads got locked due to personal attacks, read it for yourself in the last post. Are you saying I'm correct now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Again, how can knowingly using something improperly be illegal when the ATF just said that using it improperly isn't illegal? Intent is immaterial. The threads get locked because you are trying to prove you are right at the suspense of our community. Why do you feel the need to get our rights further destroyed in order to prove you are correct? Are you saying I'm correct now. No, you are most certainly not correct. I'm saying that intent of a person building a pistol is immaterial. Who cares if someone wants to buy the brace to use exclusively as a stock? The ATF ruled that improperly using the stock is not illegal, so how can it be illegal to intentionally use it improperly? What is so hard to understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 7:24:35 PM EDT
[#25]
All I can say is iNeXile556's stubbornness might be the single most impressive thing I have ever seen here on AR15.com
Gotta hand it to him.....he keeps fighting even after the fight is over and he already lost. Stay strong iNeXile556.....fight the good fight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 7:29:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Inexile, before I built my first AR pistol, I got on this forum and tried to gain an much info as I could. I recall you being involved in threads arguing about the cane tips, shouldering pistols, A2 extensions and most recently the Sig Arm Brace. In those threads you propose (forgive me if this is over simplified) at any point during their build, they construct the weapon for the purpose of shoulder, purchase or outfit the weapon with a product that would facilitate the shouldering of said weapon, the they are constructing an SBR. The recent letter indicates that the weapon's design trumps method of use and intent.
As far as specific wording, I went back and re-read your letter and the language was provocative and slanted in order to back the ATF into a corner into giving you a victory. This reasonable LEO beat you to the punch. Relax and let it go. You lost this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 9:07:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Thankfully I did not design or intend for this to be fired as a bazooka...
 
Letter is not a surprise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 9:23:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Can you not use a buffer tube if you intend to shoulder it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2014 10:12:35 PM EDT
[#29]
I think it's great the Feds won't prosecute for having a short barreled rifle using the Sig handicap helper. Now all one has to do is get the individual states to buy off on it. The states definitions don't always mirror the NFA definition of SBR. The Feds don't have preemption with their definition. That letter won't help you much in a State Superior Court.
The best part of this is if they don't get you for having an unregistered SBR, they'll get you for tax evasion. Because what most people are doing is really purchasing these to avoid a $200 tax. But it's fun while it lasts. Mr. Bosco pitched these as an aide for the handicapped which is what the intent of the design was. Their overwhelming popularity suggests that people aren't using these as intended. I give them about another year and then they'll be gone. I figure California while kill them first and then the Feds will ban them because of the unintended consequences. The alternative is millions are sold and nothing eventful will happen and they'll pull SBRs off the registry. HA HA HA! MY SIDE! MY SIDE! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 6:41:41 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it's great the Feds won't prosecute for having a short barreled rifle using the Sig handicap helper. Now all one has to do is get the individual states to buy off on it. The states definitions don't always mirror the NFA definition of SBR. The Feds don't have preemption with their definition. That letter won't help you much in a State Superior Court. The best part of this is if they don't get you for having an unregistered SBR, they'll get you for tax evasion. Because what most people are doing is really purchasing these to avoid a $200 tax. But it's fun while it lasts. Mr. Bosco pitched these as an aide for the handicapped which is what the intent of the design was. Their overwhelming popularity suggests that people aren't using these as intended. I give them about another year and then they'll be gone. I figure California while kill them first and then the Feds will ban them because of the unintended consequences. The alternative is millions are sold and nothing eventful will happen and they'll pull SBRs off the registry. HA HA HA! MY SIDE! MY SIDE! It's not tax evasion if you don't owe a tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 6:48:18 AM EDT
[#31]
InExile, if your blithering and communication to the ATF changes or reverses this, I hope your username becomes fact.
Screwing everyone in an attempt to be right is unconscionable and petty. What a sad shallow life you must lead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 7:04:13 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it's great the Feds won't prosecute for having a short barreled rifle using the Sig handicap helper. Now all one has to do is get the individual states to buy off on it. The states definitions don't always mirror the NFA definition of SBR. The Feds don't have preemption with their definition. That letter won't help you much in a State Superior Court. The best part of this is if they don't get you for having an unregistered SBR, they'll get you for tax evasion. Because what most people are doing is really purchasing these to avoid a $200 tax. But it's fun while it lasts. Mr. Bosco pitched these as an aide for the handicapped which is what the intent of the design was. Their overwhelming popularity suggests that people aren't using these as intended. I give them about another year and then they'll be gone. I figure California while kill them first and then the Feds will ban them because of the unintended consequences. The alternative is millions are sold and nothing eventful will happen and they'll pull SBRs off the registry. HA HA HA! MY SIDE! MY SIDE! This has to be the silliest post of the year. Have you handled the SIG brace? It feels as much like a stock as 2 waffles and a roll of duck tape. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 7:29:23 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
InExile, if your blithering and communication to the ATF changes or reverses this, I hope your username becomes fact. Screwing everyone in an attempt to be right is unconscionable and petty. What a sad shallow life you must lead. +1. Anything else I have to say about his need to be right and what he is trying to do would be coc non-compliant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 7:58:48 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
InExile, if your blithering and communication to the ATF changes or reverses this, I hope your username becomes fact. Screwing everyone in an attempt to be right is unconscionable and petty. What a sad shallow life you must lead. There is a better chance of winning the lotto than that agenda driven letter changing anyones mind at the ATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 9:30:45 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
InExile, if your blithering and communication to the ATF changes or reverses this, I hope your username becomes fact. Screwing everyone in an attempt to be right is unconscionable and petty. What a sad shallow life you must lead. So let me get this straight: Exile was proven wrong, and in response to be proven incorrect, he writes a letter to the ATF tech branch asking for a second look at the brace in the hopes that it gets deemed as illegal so he can come running here and say, "SEE! I told you so!!!"? So someone gave him a gift horse and he looked at horse teeth? So someone gave him a bag of money and he's bitching that he's got to carry it? If you actually wrote and sent in a letter to ATF because you were found wrong, you should be banned from this site at once. If you actually manage to screw up what is *LITERALLY* the first good decision the ATF has made in years, I think you should leave the country and your REAL NAME should be whispered in hushed tones alongside those of 0bama, Arock, and Jesse Ventura. Your name should become a fucking verb. "Hey I was going to get a three way from Jennifer Anniston and Jessica Biel but I InExiled that shit because I don't think either of them are good enough for me to bang." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 9:53:00 AM EDT
[#36]
If you actually wrote and sent in a letter to ATF because you were found wrong, you should be banned from this site at once. If you actually manage to screw up what is *LITERALLY* the first good decision the ATF has made in years, I think you should leave the country and your REAL NAME should be whispered in hushed tones alongside those of 0bama, Arock, and Jesse Ventura. Your name should become a fucking verb. If that happens, I will personally spend my own money (if I have to) to make sure the entire online gun community knows what happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 10:30:42 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.... So let me get this straight: Exile was proven wrong, and in response to be proven incorrect, he writes a letter to the ATF tech branch asking for a second look at the brace .... No. He sent his inquiry a couple of 6 weeks ago. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 10:36:08 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. He sent his inquiry a couple of weeks ago. - OS Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.... So let me get this straight: Exile was proven wrong, and in response to be proven incorrect, he writes a letter to the ATF tech branch asking for a second look at the brace .... No. He sent his inquiry a couple of weeks ago. - OS What exactly was the inquiry? How was it worded? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 10:44:19 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What exactly was the inquiry? How was it worded? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.... So let me get this straight: Exile was proven wrong, and in response to be proven incorrect, he writes a letter to the ATF tech branch asking for a second look at the brace .... No. He sent his inquiry a couple of weeks ago. - OS What exactly was the inquiry? How was it worded? Top of page: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/637084_SB_15_brace__Washington__and_other_places_.html&page=5 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 10:45:05 AM EDT
[#40]
edit: beat by 46 seconds
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 10:50:10 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.... So let me get this straight: Exile was proven wrong, and in response to be proven incorrect, he writes a letter to the ATF tech branch asking for a second look at the brace .... No. He sent his inquiry a couple of weeks ago. - OS What exactly was the inquiry? How was it worded? Top of page: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/637084_SB_15_brace__Washington__and_other_places_.html&page=5 My how time flies, it was actually more like 6 weeks ago then, duh. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 11:15:09 AM EDT
[#42]
I posed these questions in the GD thread discussing AR pistols with the Sig brace installed, but as of yet no one has replied to it. Any thoughts?
Does the brace make up part of the "overall length" of the weapon? Because although in most reports they seem to be snug to install and stay where you put them, I have seen reviews claiming they did not fit that tight and needed some tape or similar wrap on the tube to make the diameter large enough for a snug fit. Especially when using a rifle buffer tube. Plenty have said that they or people they have seen have not pushed them all the way onto the tube so that they would have a longer length of pull. So If your "pistol" was only 25" OAL, could you just install the brace without pushing it the last inch and a half, and create a "firearm" that you could run a VFG on? Simple answer is use the A2 tube, or the KAK tube, or the KAK tube with the new extension, but what if you are already using the longest configuration obtainable with those options, and you are still a little shy of the 26" mark? Is leaving the brace back just enough to gain what length is needed to pass the magical 26" mark sufficient to be legit to run a VFG? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 11:25:47 AM EDT
[#43]
Don't think it counts. The receiver extension Does though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 11:29:26 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.... Does the brace make up part of the "overall length" of the weapon?.. No. Nothing has ever been ruled as contributing to the legal OAL on the butt end except functional part of the firearm itself or stock. - OS |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 11:53:22 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
InExile, if your blithering and communication to the ATF changes or reverses this, I hope your username becomes fact. Screwing everyone in an attempt to be right is unconscionable and petty. What a sad shallow life you must lead. Indeed. I am consistently reminded of how utterly self-serving and narcissistic some individuals can be, both in person and behind the safety of presumed internet anonymity. Trying to leverage the power of the federal government against people who purchased and used an already approved device, simply to gain some self-righteousness, is reprehensible. That approach is intellectually the same as asking the ATF if very rapid fire, despite being legal, is actually naughty because the shooter might be desirous of shooting a fully automatic weapon. "But someone bump firing might be intending to simulate full auto, and that's against the spirit of the law." This verges on being guilty by reason of "pre crime." It does absolutely nothing for the rights of gun owners, and potentially jeopardizes individual owners as well as a large firearms manufacturer. I would suspect, however, that their legal department was shrewd enough to do enough due diligence on this matter before investing in large-scale production. I will not wish misfortune on anyone, nor make any COC-violating statements. If something unfortunate and publicly humiliating happened to the individual in question, I would be sorely tempted to revel in a moment of schadenfreude at the karmic retribution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 12:02:52 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed. I am consistently reminded of how utterly self-serving and narcissistic some individuals can be, both in person and behind the safety of presumed internet anonymity. Trying to leverage the power of the federal government against people who purchased and used an already approved device, simply to gain some self-righteousness, is reprehensible. That approach is intellectually the same as asking the ATF if very rapid fire, despite being legal, is actually naughty because the shooter might be desirous of shooting a fully automatic weapon. "But someone bump firing might be intending to simulate full auto, and that's against the spirit of the law." This verges on being guilty by reason of "pre crime." It does absolutely nothing for the rights of gun owners, and potentially jeopardizes individual owners as well as a large firearms manufacturer. I would suspect, however, that their legal department was shrewd enough to do enough due diligence on this matter before investing in large-scale production. I will not wish misfortune on anyone, nor make any COC-violating statements. If something unfortunate and publicly humiliating happened to the individual in question, I would be sorely tempted to revel in a moment of schadenfreude at the karmic retribution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
InExile, if your blithering and communication to the ATF changes or reverses this, I hope your username becomes fact. Screwing everyone in an attempt to be right is unconscionable and petty. What a sad shallow life you must lead. Indeed. I am consistently reminded of how utterly self-serving and narcissistic some individuals can be, both in person and behind the safety of presumed internet anonymity. Trying to leverage the power of the federal government against people who purchased and used an already approved device, simply to gain some self-righteousness, is reprehensible. That approach is intellectually the same as asking the ATF if very rapid fire, despite being legal, is actually naughty because the shooter might be desirous of shooting a fully automatic weapon. "But someone bump firing might be intending to simulate full auto, and that's against the spirit of the law." This verges on being guilty by reason of "pre crime." It does absolutely nothing for the rights of gun owners, and potentially jeopardizes individual owners as well as a large firearms manufacturer. I would suspect, however, that their legal department was shrewd enough to do enough due diligence on this matter before investing in large-scale production. I will not wish misfortune on anyone, nor make any COC-violating statements. If something unfortunate and publicly humiliating happened to the individual in question, I would be sorely tempted to revel in a moment of schadenfreude at the karmic retribution. Well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 12:10:26 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed. I am consistently reminded of how utterly self-serving and narcissistic some individuals can be, both in person and behind the safety of presumed internet anonymity. Trying to leverage the power of the federal government against people who purchased and used an already approved device, simply to gain some self-righteousness, is reprehensible. That approach is intellectually the same as asking the ATF if very rapid fire, despite being legal, is actually naughty because the shooter might be desirous of shooting a fully automatic weapon. "But someone bump firing might be intending to simulate full auto, and that's against the spirit of the law." This verges on being guilty by reason of "pre crime." It does absolutely nothing for the rights of gun owners, and potentially jeopardizes individual owners as well as a large firearms manufacturer. I would suspect, however, that their legal department was shrewd enough to do enough due diligence on this matter before investing in large-scale production. I will not wish misfortune on anyone, nor make any COC-violating statements. If something unfortunate and publicly humiliating happened to the individual in question, I would be sorely tempted to revel in a moment of schadenfreude at the karmic retribution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
InExile, if your blithering and communication to the ATF changes or reverses this, I hope your username becomes fact. Screwing everyone in an attempt to be right is unconscionable and petty. What a sad shallow life you must lead. Indeed. I am consistently reminded of how utterly self-serving and narcissistic some individuals can be, both in person and behind the safety of presumed internet anonymity. Trying to leverage the power of the federal government against people who purchased and used an already approved device, simply to gain some self-righteousness, is reprehensible. That approach is intellectually the same as asking the ATF if very rapid fire, despite being legal, is actually naughty because the shooter might be desirous of shooting a fully automatic weapon. "But someone bump firing might be intending to simulate full auto, and that's against the spirit of the law." This verges on being guilty by reason of "pre crime." It does absolutely nothing for the rights of gun owners, and potentially jeopardizes individual owners as well as a large firearms manufacturer. I would suspect, however, that their legal department was shrewd enough to do enough due diligence on this matter before investing in large-scale production. I will not wish misfortune on anyone, nor make any COC-violating statements. If something unfortunate and publicly humiliating happened to the individual in question, I would be sorely tempted to revel in a moment of schadenfreude at the karmic retribution. Same. My comment about his user name is that I hope he gets banned "exiled". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 12:12:11 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.... So let me get this straight: Exile was proven wrong, and in response to be proven incorrect, he writes a letter to the ATF tech branch asking for a second look at the brace .... No. He sent his inquiry a couple of weeks ago. - OS What exactly was the inquiry? How was it worded? Top of page: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/637084_SB_15_brace__Washington__and_other_places_.html&page=5 He sent *THAT!?!* Jesus fucking Christ on the cross! Some people's capacity to be a halfwitted idiot never ceases to ASTOUND me. If there isn't already a pit thread going on about this, there should be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 1:35:32 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
snip .... So let me get this straight: Exile was proven wrong, and in response to be proven incorrect, he writes a letter to the ATF tech branch asking for a second look at the brace .... No. He sent his inquiry a couple of weeks ago. - OS What exactly was the inquiry? How was it worded? Top of page: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/637084_SB_15_brace__Washington__and_other_places_.html&page=5 He sent *THAT!?!* Jesus fucking Christ on the cross! Some people's capacity to be a halfwitted idiot never ceases to ASTOUND me. If there isn't already a pit thread going on about this, there should be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
snip .... So let me get this straight: Exile was proven wrong, and in response to be proven incorrect, he writes a letter to the ATF tech branch asking for a second look at the brace .... No. He sent his inquiry a couple of weeks ago. - OS What exactly was the inquiry? How was it worded? Top of page: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_122/637084_SB_15_brace__Washington__and_other_places_.html&page=5 He sent *THAT!?!* Jesus fucking Christ on the cross! Some people's capacity to be a halfwitted idiot never ceases to ASTOUND me. If there isn't already a pit thread going on about this, there should be. Yep. Unfuckingbelievable, right? 
ETA: From one of his posts in the locked thread. Talk about hubris. Nothing like killing the patient in order to save them... Quoted:
The letter went out exactly as written here. It was written like that because every one of those question I asked, I was told in this forum, and some even in this thread, that it was 100% legal. That is simply not the case as we will see when the letter is answered. Nothing is going to change the classification of the SB15. There is nothing illegal or wrong with shouldering any weapon to fire it. But as I have tried to point out, building a firearm that is designed and intended to be shoulder fired is a rifle regardless of how it built or what its built out of. As I said also, talking about it and building/designing to make it more comfortable to shoulder fire is doing nothing but confirming that you are building and intending it to be shoulder fired. THAT IS A RIFLE. Openly discussing this, "loophole" as one called it, is doing more harm to gun rights than anyone could ever do writing a letter. Your taking a product that has received a certification from the ATF based on a particular use and are using it to say FU to the gun laws because you think it is ok to use it to build these SBRs. By openly scoffing these laws you are the ones doing the harm. On idiot even claimed you can't design a shoulder fired weapon without a buttstock. Even going as far as to claim if he designed and built a firearm with 2X4 to shoulder it, it would not be a rifle because the ATF hasn't classified it as one. I'll post the letter when I get it back. Maybe some of you will realize that what you think is legal is not. Then maybe you'll quite posting and discussing openly on a public forum. IM or email would be a much better form of communications when discussing gray area subjects. And as for the moron who thinks you can't design a shoulder fired weapon without a but stock I suggest you google any of these: RPG-2 RPG-7 RPG-18 RPG-22 RPG-26 RPG-27 RPG-28 RPG-29 RPG-32 Carl Gustav recoilless rifle B-40 Rocket Propelled Grenade GIAT Wasp 58 Light Anti-Armour Weapon Panzerschreck Panzerfaust Panzerfaust 3 PIAT Anti Tank Rocket PF-98 Anti-Tank Rocket Launcher "Queen Bee" Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) M72 LAW RPG-76 Komar Type 25 AT4 LRAC F1 Instalaza C90-CR (M3) C-100 Bazooka MBT LAW FIM-92 Stinger Igla 9K32 Strela-2 9K34 Strela-3 Anza FIM-43 Redeye Anti-aircraft Missile PZR Grom Shorts Blowpipe Be careful what you wish for... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2014 2:10:09 PM EDT
[#50]
Holy Jesus, the recieved letter is nice but I am with iNeXile556 as he has been pretty much on point time and time again. And others are just going to fuck it up, which is to be expected with the world wide web. The education that Ohshoot and iNeXile556 have continually provided has been a great service to this particular forum.
|
|
|
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.
