User Panel
Reminder that the ATF is currently being sued over the NFA and 922(o)
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_Hollis_v__Holder___Lawsuit_over_922_o___NFA_and_various_other_items.html Go show your support. Fuck the ATF. |
|
Quoted:
Reminder that the ATF is currently being sued over the NFA and 922(o) http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_Hollis_v__Holder___Lawsuit_over_922_o___NFA_and_various_other_items.html Go show your support. Fuck the ATF. View Quote They are also currently being sued by Sig, not that there could EVER be a conflict of interest... |
|
|
Quoted:
They are also currently being sued by Sig, not that there could EVER be a conflict of interest... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Reminder that the ATF is currently being sued over the NFA and 922(o) http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_Hollis_v__Holder___Lawsuit_over_922_o___NFA_and_various_other_items.html Go show your support. Fuck the ATF. They are also currently being sued by Sig, not that there could EVER be a conflict of interest... Interesting, I forgot about the lawsuit over their PCC and it's 3 foot muzzle brake. |
|
Quoted:
At least per that letter, it seems so. As long as you attach it to your forearm as the original manufacturer intended. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
They are still legal overall though.........right? At least per that letter, it seems so. As long as you attach it to your forearm as the original manufacturer intended. We have two letters now.........one more restrictive than the other.......very confusing. The first letter was written to Sig though..........right? |
|
Quoted:
We have two letters now.........one more restrictive than the other.......very confusing. The first letter was written to Sig though..........right? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They are still legal overall though.........right? At least per that letter, it seems so. As long as you attach it to your forearm as the original manufacturer intended. We have two letters now.........one more restrictive than the other.......very confusing. The first letter was written to Sig though..........right? There has been a few letters (at least that I've seen) dealing with the SB15. The original one from Sig getting ATF approval, a second from a private individual that stated it DID NOT change the classification of the pistol to an SBR if you were to shoulder the SB15, and now this third one which states shouldering the SB15 WOULD turn your pistol into an SBR. Also, either someone in this thread or the one in AR Discussion stated the same dude who penned and signed the 2nd letter also penned and signed the 3rd letter. So we have one guy who has now given two completely opposite opinions, on the same accessory used in the same situation, all inside of about 6-8 months. Make sense now? |
|
Quoted:
.................. There has been a few letters (at least that I've seen) dealing with the SB15. The original one from Sig getting ATF approval, a second from a private individual that stated it DID NOT change the classification of the pistol to an SBR if you were to shoulder the SB15, and now this third one which states shouldering the SB15 WOULD turn your pistol into an SBR. Also, either someone in this thread or the one in AR Discussion stated the same dude who penned and signed the 2nd letter also penned and signed the 3rd letter. So we have one guy who has now given two completely opposite opinions, on the same accessory used in the same situation, all inside of about 6-8 months. Make sense now? View Quote Jesus Christ.................. Either way.......thanks for the info. |
|
So, the bigger question is, why do people keep writing to the ATF about this and bringing it back into their radar?
Bring something to someones attention often enough and they are bound to look at it differently.. |
|
I love reading these rulings and the convoluted logic that weaves through them. There is perhaps no better example of Government bureaucracy gone wild than an ATF ruling. Truly amazing and what is particularly mind boggling is that these types of rulings carry with them the potential for a violent, lethal attack on anyone that might be suspected of violating this interpretation of a regulation.
That just stuns me.....that the weight of Federal LE might be brought down on someone for what is in essence an avoidance of a tax. It really just shameful that our government has gotten to this point. So to re-cap....a Sig brace is now legal to use as an arm brace but illegal to shoulder. Is that correct? How about the old school CQB technique of centering the closed stock on your plate, center chest, for close in rapid engagements. Is that still GTG? I probably need to write tech branch for a ruling. Which brings us to my final point. Why in the FUCK do people continue to write these fucking letters? |
|
It all depends whether the Judge looks at the letters or pistol more closely.
If he looks at the letters mostly, he'll look at the prosecution table and go WTF? If he looks at the pistol with the SIG brace on it he'll say "looks like an SBR to me." |
|
Quoted:
I love reading these rulings and the convoluted logic that weaves through them. There is perhaps no better example of Government bureaucracy gone wild than an ATF ruling. Truly amazing and what is particularly mind boggling is that these types of rulings carry with them the potential for a violent, lethal attack on anyone that might be suspected of violating this interpretation of a regulation. That just stuns me.....that the weight of Federal LE might be brought down on someone for what is in essence an avoidance of a tax. It really just shameful that our government has gotten to this point. So to re-cap....a Sig brace is now legal to use as an arm brace but illegal to shoulder. Is that correct? How about the old school CQB technique of centering the closed stock on your plate, center chest, for close in rapid engagements. Is that still GTG? I probably need to write tech branch for a ruling. Which brings us to my final point. Why in the FUCK do people continue to write these fucking letters? View Quote Because they are either retards or attention whores... I'd love for one of these fucktards to come on here explain why they feel they need to write them |
|
Quoted:
<snip> Because they are either retards or attention whores... I'd love for one of these fucktards to come on here explain why they feel they need to write them View Quote Yup, I'd be interested as well to hear what emotional need drives these fuck tards to write these letters? It seems as if the letters keep getting written until the ruling becomes restrictive. I mean really, read through the guys letter...what the fuck drove him to ask questions that had already been answered? And asking about a Noveske flaming pig? Are you fucking kidding me?? |
|
If the letter only pertains to the one it is written to, then Sig is good to go, and good to sell them as a non-stock. The ATF did not write me a letter restricting how I may use a Sig product.
Taa Daa |
|
I agree with a couple of the other posters..
The way I read it, if you have a brace on an AR-15 and no vertical fore-grip then the gun is not designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder. If you should happen to shoulder it, you're still fine, you're just using the gun wrong and, as per the previous brace letter, the ATF's rules are about gun design and manufacture, not able use. If you put a VFG onto an AR-15 with a brace, THEN you (the "designer") are using the sig brace as a stock. And that makes an SBR. When they say "use the sig brace as a stock" they don't mean place it against your shoulder. They mean "use" from the design/manufacture point of view. Like when I built my last rifle, I used an A2 buttstock. The letter also says brace+AFG is good to go, since for some unknown reason the ATF decided long ago that an AFG was not a hand grip. -J |
|
Quoted: Well, trying to understand their logic here, it appears that there are now two steps of "designed or intended to be used as". Used to be, that as long as the original product wasn't designed by the manufacturer to be used as a shoulder stock, you were good to go no matter what you do with it. Now it appears they are in effect making the assembler of said "pistol" a "manufacturer" in the sense of the law. So, if you built it with the intent to shoulder it, you have now in effect manufactured an SBR. Not sure how they'd prove what your intent is, but after the whole doubling and tripling gun putting someone in prison, I wouldn't put it past them to try. Still not sure how they'd get around this if you purchased a pistol that already comes with an SB15. Somehow, they're trying to say that you are in effect altering the design of the weapon simply by shouldering it. ETA: I either think this letter won't stand, or they'll have to vacate their ruling on the SB15 being legal on a pistol completely. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So if I slap a Magpul CTR on a 10" pistol with no intention of shouldering it I'm good right? Well, trying to understand their logic here, it appears that there are now two steps of "designed or intended to be used as". Used to be, that as long as the original product wasn't designed by the manufacturer to be used as a shoulder stock, you were good to go no matter what you do with it. Now it appears they are in effect making the assembler of said "pistol" a "manufacturer" in the sense of the law. So, if you built it with the intent to shoulder it, you have now in effect manufactured an SBR. Not sure how they'd prove what your intent is, but after the whole doubling and tripling gun putting someone in prison, I wouldn't put it past them to try. Still not sure how they'd get around this if you purchased a pistol that already comes with an SB15. Somehow, they're trying to say that you are in effect altering the design of the weapon simply by shouldering it. ETA: I either think this letter won't stand, or they'll have to vacate their ruling on the SB15 being legal on a pistol completely. Yeah, how can they prove you intended to build it for shouldering?
|
|
Quoted:
At least per that letter, it seems so. As long as you attach it to your forearm as the original manufacturer intended. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
They are still legal overall though.........right? At least per that letter, it seems so. As long as you attach it to your forearm as the original manufacturer intended. That's what I'm getting out of it. Oh look, a water is wet letter. Meh. The stupid peeps that keep asking for "letters" are always the ones that fuck-up everything. |
|
Quoted:
I thought we already had a letter from the atf saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the atf about the SB-15?????? We already had the answer we wanted! View Quote Because people are fucking stupid. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought we already had a letter from the atf saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the atf about the SB-15?????? We already had the answer we wanted! Because people are fucking stupid. Next letter will be to clarify the discrepancies between the various letters. |
|
Quoted: Next letter will be to clarify the discrepancies between the various letters. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I thought we already had a letter from the atf saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the atf about the SB-15?????? We already had the answer we wanted! Because people are fucking stupid. Next letter will be to clarify the discrepancies between the various letters. ... I'm somewhat surprised some astute, enterprising law-firm hasn't taken BATFE to court over what seems to be pure incompetency, or simply shoddy management. Either one seemingly could imprison a citizen over an interpretation of a dang letter. One of many that is poorly written and worded |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, how can they prove you intended to build it for shouldering? View Quote If you recall, the position is that it becomes a stock if it is used as a stock. A prosecution under that determination would require evidence that the defendant used the device as stock. Rather than ask how the government can prove a defendant intended to shoulder it when the he built the weapon, ask yourself how a defendant will convince a jury that it isn't a stock once the jurors hear or see evidence of that person using it as a stock. |
|
Requesting a determination letter from the ATF is like requesting your local PD to offer their opinion on whether it's legal to burn trash in your yard. They might say yes, they might say no, they might be completely wrong and their opinion on the matter isn't going to sway the judges opinion on whether or not you broke the law burning your trash. They don't have any authority to make such determinations. These letters originated as a way for manufacturers to get the ATF's opinion on what they might find unlawful and prosecute, to prevent unnecessary court cases to determine legality of "gray area" products. Considering them to be some kind of writ or protection from prosecution however is wishful thinking. They're an opinion of some individual with no binding authority whatsoever.
You may as well write to "Ask Abbie" or some other columnist and get their opinion. |
|
A simple pistol buffer tube should be treated the same then.
|
|
Quoted:
Next letter will be to clarify the discrepancies between the various letters. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought we already had a letter from the atf saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the atf about the SB-15?????? We already had the answer we wanted! Because people are fucking stupid. Next letter will be to clarify the discrepancies between the various letters. Probably not. The BATFE doesn't feel the need to explain why it changes its position. BTW: Just a few days ago there was a thread about a different manufacturer which received a letter which approved a different brace. That letter contained similar language regarding using that brace to shoulder the weapon. |
|
So if I build a non-braced AR pistol with every intent to put the buffer tube to my shoulder, does that make the weapon a rifle if I do so?
EDIT: DAMMIT, beat by 90 seconds |
|
Quoted:
........................... Probably not. The BATFE doesn't feel the need to explain why it changes its position. BTW: Just a few days ago there was a thread about a different manufacturer which received a letter which approved a different brace. That letter contained similar language regarding using that brace to shoulder the weapon. View Quote IIRC, that other brace didn't have a strap? Does the later letter take precedence over the earlier letters? Or does the letter directly to Sig carry the day? |
|
Quoted:
IIRC, that other brace didn't have a strap? Does the later letter take precedence over the earlier letters? Or does the letter directly to Sig carry the day? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
........................... Probably not. The BATFE doesn't feel the need to explain why it changes its position. BTW: Just a few days ago there was a thread about a different manufacturer which received a letter which approved a different brace. That letter contained similar language regarding using that brace to shoulder the weapon. IIRC, that other brace didn't have a strap? Does the later letter take precedence over the earlier letters? Or does the letter directly to Sig carry the day? Who knows, the same guy that wrote the reply to Sergeant Bradley wrote this latest letter. In the letter to Bradley he states shouldering it is fine. Sig is going to have to clear this up or their sales will go in the toilet. |
|
|
What the fuck ever. I'm still using mine as a stock, the way I intended to when I built it.
|
|
Quoted:
This is what I'm thinking. If the ATF's opinion is now what's posted in the OP, by that logic, shouldering a bare pistol buffer tube would result in you manufacturing an illegal SBR as well. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
A simple pistol buffer tube should be treated the same then. This is what I'm thinking. If the ATF's opinion is now what's posted in the OP, by that logic, shouldering a bare pistol buffer tube would result in you manufacturing an illegal SBR as well. That's already been asked in other threads..........no one knows the fucking answer to this ATF clusterfuck. |
|
Quoted:
That's already been asked in other threads..........no one knows the fucking answer to this ATF clusterfuck. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A simple pistol buffer tube should be treated the same then. This is what I'm thinking. If the ATF's opinion is now what's posted in the OP, by that logic, shouldering a bare pistol buffer tube would result in you manufacturing an illegal SBR as well. That's already been asked in other threads..........no one knows the fucking answer to this ATF clusterfuck. Someone should write a letter... |
|
|
Quoted:
Who knows, the same guy that wrote the reply to Sergeant Bradley wrote this latest letter. In the letter to Bradley he states shouldering it is fine. Sig is going to have to clear this up or their sales will go in the toilet. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
........................... Probably not. The BATFE doesn't feel the need to explain why it changes its position. BTW: Just a few days ago there was a thread about a different manufacturer which received a letter which approved a different brace. That letter contained similar language regarding using that brace to shoulder the weapon. IIRC, that other brace didn't have a strap? Does the later letter take precedence over the earlier letters? Or does the letter directly to Sig carry the day? Who knows, the same guy that wrote the reply to Sergeant Bradley wrote this latest letter. In the letter to Bradley he states shouldering it is fine. Sig is going to have to clear this up or their sales will go in the toilet. I don't think Sig will be able to clear this up. If the sole reason the majority of people are buying these things is so they can circumvent the NFA, more specifically the SBR portion, Sig getting involved over the legality of using it as a stock may change the original ATF classification of it not being designed to be used as a stock. |
|
Quoted:
IIRC, that other brace didn't have a strap? Does the later letter take precedence over the earlier letters? Or does the letter directly to Sig carry the day? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
........................... Probably not. The BATFE doesn't feel the need to explain why it changes its position. BTW: Just a few days ago there was a thread about a different manufacturer which received a letter which approved a different brace. That letter contained similar language regarding using that brace to shoulder the weapon. IIRC, that other brace didn't have a strap? Does the later letter take precedence over the earlier letters? Or does the letter directly to Sig carry the day? IIRC, the letter to SIG does not address the question of using the device to shoulder the weapon. It simply said that the device was legal to install on a pistol and to use as a brace. If that is correct, there is no conflict between the letter to SIG and the more recent letters. The conflict is between a letter written to an individual (a police officer, if my memory serves) which said that shouldering the device did not alter the classification of the weapon and the recent letters which take a different position. |
|
Quoted:
This is what I'm thinking. If the ATF's opinion is now what's posted in the OP, by that logic, shouldering a bare pistol buffer tube would result in you manufacturing an illegal SBR as well. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
A simple pistol buffer tube should be treated the same then. This is what I'm thinking. If the ATF's opinion is now what's posted in the OP, by that logic, shouldering a bare pistol buffer tube would result in you manufacturing an illegal SBR as well. Correct, so this affects EVERY AR pistol, not just Sig Braced ones. I would be shocked if we don't see Sig making motions to sue the ATF here shortly. |
|
Quoted:
Correct, so this affects EVERY AR pistol, not just Sig Braced ones. I would be shocked if we don't see Sig making motions to sue the ATF here shortly. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A simple pistol buffer tube should be treated the same then. This is what I'm thinking. If the ATF's opinion is now what's posted in the OP, by that logic, shouldering a bare pistol buffer tube would result in you manufacturing an illegal SBR as well. Correct, so this affects EVERY AR pistol, not just Sig Braced ones. I would be shocked if we don't see Sig making motions to sue the ATF here shortly. With the ATF's logic here, every time you use a two-hand hold on a pistol, you're manufacturing an SBR. «tc2k11» |
|
Quoted:
That's already been asked in other threads..........no one knows the fucking answer to this ATF clusterfuck. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A simple pistol buffer tube should be treated the same then. This is what I'm thinking. If the ATF's opinion is now what's posted in the OP, by that logic, shouldering a bare pistol buffer tube would result in you manufacturing an illegal SBR as well. That's already been asked in other threads..........no one knows the fucking answer to this ATF clusterfuck. At this point, the only safe presumption is that BATFE will take the position that if someone uses the tube as a stock it becomes a stock. |
|
Quoted:
So if I slap a Magpul CTR on a 10" pistol with no intention of shouldering it I'm good right? View Quote no kidding. And if I install an m16 fcg, but I intend to only shoot it on semi, then it should be legal, right? After all, the ATF has just said it is all about "intention". Stupid fucking agency should be dismantled. |
|
Quoted:
............ IIRC, the letter to SIG does not address the question of using the device to shoulder the weapon. It simply said that the device was legal to install on a pistol and to use as a brace. If that is correct, there is no conflict between the letter to SIG and the more recent letters. The conflict is between a letter written to an individual (a police officer, if my memory serves) which said that shouldering the device did not alter the classification of the weapon and the recent letters which take a different position. View Quote Is this the Sig letter? If so...............the brace is not considered a stock made and intended to be fired from the shoulder. |
|
Why do people have to poke the bear? Reminds me of this quote from the movie Moneyball (awesome movie BTW).
Manager of the Oakland Athletics calls another team owner on a trade and hangs up abruptly: Peter Brand: I think he was gonna say something else. Billy Beane: When you get the answer you're looking for, hang up. |
|
Quoted:
... I'm somewhat surprised some astute, enterprising law-firm hasn't taken BATFE to court over what seems to be pure incompetency, or simply shoddy management. Either one seemingly could imprison a citizen over an interpretation of a dang letter. One of many that is poorly written and worded View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought we already had a letter from the atf saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the atf about the SB-15?????? We already had the answer we wanted! Because people are fucking stupid. Next letter will be to clarify the discrepancies between the various letters. ... I'm somewhat surprised some astute, enterprising law-firm hasn't taken BATFE to court over what seems to be pure incompetency, or simply shoddy management. Either one seemingly could imprison a citizen over an interpretation of a dang letter. One of many that is poorly written and worded I have a feeling that Sig is likely going to sue ATF on this one too. |
|
Quoted:
With the ATF's logic here, every time you use a two-hand hold on a pistol, you're manufacturing an SBR. «tc2k11» View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A simple pistol buffer tube should be treated the same then. This is what I'm thinking. If the ATF's opinion is now what's posted in the OP, by that logic, shouldering a bare pistol buffer tube would result in you manufacturing an illegal SBR as well. Correct, so this affects EVERY AR pistol, not just Sig Braced ones. I would be shocked if we don't see Sig making motions to sue the ATF here shortly. With the ATF's logic here, every time you use a two-hand hold on a pistol, you're manufacturing an SBR. «tc2k11» I think technically it would be an AOW. SBR if you shoulder it. |
|
Quoted:
I have a feeling that Sig is likely going to sue ATF on this one too. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought we already had a letter from the atf saying an ar pistol with an SB-15 wasn't an NFA firearm... That was good enough for me. Why are people still writing to the atf about the SB-15?????? We already had the answer we wanted! Because people are fucking stupid. Next letter will be to clarify the discrepancies between the various letters. ... I'm somewhat surprised some astute, enterprising law-firm hasn't taken BATFE to court over what seems to be pure incompetency, or simply shoddy management. Either one seemingly could imprison a citizen over an interpretation of a dang letter. One of many that is poorly written and worded I have a feeling that Sig is likely going to sue ATF on this one too. Why would Sig do that? They're selling a brace designed to strap around your arm. What would they hope to accomplish by suing other than coming out and saying the brace is only a thinly veiled circumvention of the NFA. To Sig it is a pistol brace and that has not changed. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Which brings us to my final point. Why in the FUCK do people continue to write these fucking letters? View Quote Because people don't trust how internet forums translate these types of opinions. Right now this is 2 pages of back and forth and it clarifies nothing. Some people say this letter is the current legal opinion of the ATF and not to shoulder the stock. Others are saying fuck it, build a real SBR and you'll never get caught. And a third group are saying any of these letters written after the original Sig letter mean nothing and continue on as if this never happened. Us law abiding folks want a real answer and not a GD answer. So some people can't get a question answered here and want to hear it from the ATF directly. Not a bad idea. I'd rather write the ATF a letter and get an answer I don't like, than listen to the meatheads here and be a test case for the ATF and getting to spend the next 10 years in a cell because I put a piece of plastic on my shoulder instead of holding it away from my face like a pistol. I had planned a pistol build in a couple months but after this I'm just going to start the paperwork and pay the $200 for an SBR. Cheap insurance, and you can avoid all of the opinions in threads like these. |
|
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.