Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/18/2015 1:26:20 PM EST
Oh the irony!

The ATF, in order to circumvent the Constitution decides to recreate, out of thin air, a new meaning of the word "design". This new meaning does not actually require a physical change in the Sig Brace, like the old meaning of the word did. Now, thanks to the new meaning, a person can violate the NFA by intending to use the Brace in a manner in which it was not designed with out having to actually change the design.

The new meaning allows the ATF to change the meaning of the NFA law, which uses the word "design", without having to go through Congress. This change in the meaning of the NFA law was their intent. They intended to circumvent the law (the Constitution) by changing the meaning of a word used in the NFA law.

In other words, it was the ATF's intent to violate the law by using the word "design" in a manner in which it was not intended to be used, with out having to actually change the word in the NFA law itself.


Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:33:14 PM EST
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:43:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:46:39 PM EST
“Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand… Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29).
View Quote



have they ever, in plain english defined what a "short stock" is?
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:46:50 PM EST
They haven't even started toying with the meaning of the single hand vs "intended" to be used with two hands game yet.

Same thing. It means what they say it means regardless of what it meant yesterday.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:47:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 1:50:37 PM EST by FrankDrebin]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.
View Quote


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This



Is different than this.

Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:49:33 PM EST
Years ago, there was this thing called taxation without representation. As a result, we said enough was enough, freed ourselves from dependence on those people, then we killed them.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:51:39 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Blake:
Years ago, there was this thing called taxation without representation. As a result, we said enough was enough, freed ourselves from dependence on those people, then we killed them.
View Quote


Can't we just start with dressing up as Indians and throwing some tea in the water?
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:52:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Blake:
Years ago, there was this thing called taxation without representation. As a result, we said enough was enough, freed ourselves from dependence on those people, then we killed them.
View Quote

Our forefathers would consider us slaves
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:53:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 1:53:33 PM EST by bigtex84]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


So everyone that has one of these braces has heard the new ruling? I doubt it.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:54:28 PM EST
Between the brace and the MPX-C, I think Sig's trolling the ATF.

I'd be really surprised and extremely disappointed if Sig wasn't waiting for this ruling with a pack of salivating lawyers.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:54:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By azarak512:

Our forefathers would consider us slaves
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By azarak512:
Originally Posted By Blake:
Years ago, there was this thing called taxation without representation. As a result, we said enough was enough, freed ourselves from dependence on those people, then we killed them.

Our forefathers would consider us slaves


Yes, yes they would.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:55:00 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigtex84:


So everyone that has one of these braces has heard the new ruling? I doubt it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


So everyone that has one of these braces has heard the new ruling? I doubt it.


You're not required to hear about the ruling before being convicted of a crime. Courts do not generally entertain an argument based upon ignorance of the law or a federal agency's interpretation of the law. It doesn't work that way.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:58:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


You're not required to hear about the ruling before being convicted of a crime. Courts do not generally entertain an argument based upon ignorance of the law or a federal agency's interpretation of the law. It doesn't work that way.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


So everyone that has one of these braces has heard the new ruling? I doubt it.


You're not required to hear about the ruling before being convicted of a crime. Courts do not generally entertain an argument based upon ignorance of the law or a federal agency's interpretation of the law. It doesn't work that way.


Like you would know.




Link Posted: 1/18/2015 1:59:42 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


You're not required to hear about the ruling before being convicted of a crime. Courts do not generally entertain an argument based upon ignorance of the law or a federal agency's interpretation of the law. It doesn't work that way.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


So everyone that has one of these braces has heard the new ruling? I doubt it.


You're not required to hear about the ruling before being convicted of a crime. Courts do not generally entertain an argument based upon ignorance of the law or a federal agency's interpretation of the law. It doesn't work that way.


What if I read the first letter that the ATF published saying it was ok to shoulder or had someone show it to me, but now have no way to know that they reversed their ruling.

Example my grandfather has one of these stocks and I showed him the ATF letter saying it was ok to shoulder. But he has no internet as has no way to know that what he is doing is now illegal.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:03:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 2:04:48 PM EST by NinerMaine]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg
They are different in the eyes of the law. One was designed as a pistol and one was designed as a rifle. The law used the word, "design" so that is what the jury and the judge need to follow. According to the words in the law, it is the design that is illegal, not the use. But, now, thanks to the new invention of the word "design" there is no difference, yet the law was not changed.

But that was not my point. My point was that in order to outlaw the shouldered use of the Sig Brace, the ATF had to do exactly what they are accusing the users of the Sig Brace of doing. The ATF is using the word "design" in a way it is not intended to be used in order to circumvent the law and the Sig Brace users are using the brace in a way it was not intended to be used in order to circumvent the law.


Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:03:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigtex84:


What if I read the first letter that the ATF published saying it was ok to shoulder or had someone show it to me, but now have no way to know that they reversed their ruling.

Example my grandfather has one of these stocks and I showed him the ATF letter saying it was ok to shoulder. But he has no internet as has no way to know that what he is doing is now illegal.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


So everyone that has one of these braces has heard the new ruling? I doubt it.


You're not required to hear about the ruling before being convicted of a crime. Courts do not generally entertain an argument based upon ignorance of the law or a federal agency's interpretation of the law. It doesn't work that way.


What if I read the first letter that the ATF published saying it was ok to shoulder or had someone show it to me, but now have no way to know that they reversed their ruling.

Example my grandfather has one of these stocks and I showed him the ATF letter saying it was ok to shoulder. But he has no internet as has no way to know that what he is doing is now illegal.


That original letter wasn't written to you. You cannot argue reliance on it in a criminal proceeding and the Court won't likely even allow you to admit it at a trial in your defense.

Do whatever you like. Nothing may come of it. But if the BATFE wants to make an example of you please understand that some of the defenses you think you have are not going to be defenses.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:06:33 PM EST
Neva ben dun befo?
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:10:59 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
That original letter wasn't written to you. You cannot argue reliance on it in a criminal proceeding and the Court won't likely even allow you to admit it at a trial in your defense.

Do whatever you like. Nothing may come of it. But if the BATFE wants to make an example of you please understand that some of the defenses you think you have are not going to be defenses.
View Quote


This new letter wasn't written to me either. I sure a shit didn't get a copy in my mail box.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:11:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NinerMaine:
They are different in the eyes of the law. One was designed as a pistol and one was designed as a rifle. The law used the word, "design" so that is what the jury and the judge need to follow. According to the words in the law, it is the design that is illegal, not the use. But, now, thanks to the new invention of the word "design" there is no difference, yet the law was not changed.

But that was not my point. My point was that in order to outlaw the shouldered use of the Sig Brace, the ATF had to do exactly what they are accusing the users of the Sig Brace of doing. The ATF is using the word "design" in a way it is not intended to be used in order to circumvent the law and the Sig Brace users are using the brace in a way it was not intended to be used in order to circumvent the law.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NinerMaine:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg
They are different in the eyes of the law. One was designed as a pistol and one was designed as a rifle. The law used the word, "design" so that is what the jury and the judge need to follow. According to the words in the law, it is the design that is illegal, not the use. But, now, thanks to the new invention of the word "design" there is no difference, yet the law was not changed.

But that was not my point. My point was that in order to outlaw the shouldered use of the Sig Brace, the ATF had to do exactly what they are accusing the users of the Sig Brace of doing. The ATF is using the word "design" in a way it is not intended to be used in order to circumvent the law and the Sig Brace users are using the brace in a way it was not intended to be used in order to circumvent the law.




And you are missing my point. You are never going to convince a jury that the Sig Brace was intended to really do anything other than be shouldered. The prosecutor need only ask you to demonstrate it's use as an arm brace and then sit back and watch you awkwardly try to strap it around your forearm and pretend to look natural with it.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:12:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigtex84:


This new letter wasn't written to me either. I sure a shit didn't get a copy in my mail box.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
That original letter wasn't written to you. You cannot argue reliance on it in a criminal proceeding and the Court won't likely even allow you to admit it at a trial in your defense.

Do whatever you like. Nothing may come of it. But if the BATFE wants to make an example of you please understand that some of the defenses you think you have are not going to be defenses.


This new letter wasn't written to me either. I sure a shit didn't get a copy in my mail box.


I guess you just aren't in the listening mood. So enjoy your Sig Brace and I hope nothing comes of it.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:14:22 PM EST
Did that letter have your name on it, are they illegal to own or buy?

Then quit worrying about it.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:16:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 2:16:45 PM EST by GAZ32]
If you thought the sig brace was a "work around loophole" to registering an SBR and paying the tax, you're an idiot.


Not saying that it's right, but you should have seen this one coming a mile away.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:16:17 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


Can't we just start with dressing up as Indians and throwing some tea in the water?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By Blake:
Years ago, there was this thing called taxation without representation. As a result, we said enough was enough, freed ourselves from dependence on those people, then we killed them.


Can't we just start with dressing up as Indians and throwing some tea in the water?



Well, OK, but demin jackets, jeans, and AC/DC t-shirts are sooooo1970s.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:16:23 PM EST
If use is now synonymous with design, then can I not build a select-fire weapon and just tell them I only use it in semi?
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:19:00 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GAZ32:
If you thought the sig brace was a "work around loophole" to registering an SBR and paying the tax, you're an idiot.


Not saying that it's right, but you should have seen this one coming a mile away.
View Quote


I agree. To me the real head scratcher was when the BATFE issued the original letter.

All of that is to say fuck the BATFE and fuck the NFA, but it was pretty obvious the BATFE was going to figure some way of undoing that.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:20:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


I agree. To me the real head scratcher was when the BATFE issued the original letter.

All of that is to say fuck the BATFE and fuck the NFA, but it was pretty obvious the BATFE was going to figure some way of undoing that.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By GAZ32:
If you thought the sig brace was a "work around loophole" to registering an SBR and paying the tax, you're an idiot.


Not saying that it's right, but you should have seen this one coming a mile away.


I agree. To me the real head scratcher was when the BATFE issued the original letter.

All of that is to say fuck the BATFE and fuck the NFA, but it was pretty obvious the BATFE was going to figure some way of undoing that.



Fess up frank how many letters did you write to the ATF asking for clarification?
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:21:22 PM EST
Has anyone ever submitted a FOIA request to figure out how much money the ATF makes off of tax stamps?

Should this Sig brace debacle go to court, and as part of a typical discovery phase, those money numbers for SBR's are revealed to the jurors, a lot of them are going to be thinking, "Well, yeah, NO SHIT! I'd go with a Sig brace too, to avoid the $200 tax stamp, the wait, getting the local CLEO to sign off on it, and all the bullshit SBR paperwork!"

And then of course, a lot of jurors will be able to connect the dots "A-ha! The Sig brace was cutting into the ATF's SBR revenue stream!"



Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:21:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:



Fess up frank how many letters did you write to the ATF asking for clarification?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hotbiggun42:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By GAZ32:
If you thought the sig brace was a "work around loophole" to registering an SBR and paying the tax, you're an idiot.


Not saying that it's right, but you should have seen this one coming a mile away.


I agree. To me the real head scratcher was when the BATFE issued the original letter.

All of that is to say fuck the BATFE and fuck the NFA, but it was pretty obvious the BATFE was going to figure some way of undoing that.



Fess up frank how many letters did you write to the ATF asking for clarification?


Zero. I'm not a dumbass (despite what you might think from the majority of my posts ).
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:24:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 2:28:10 PM EST by Daps]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


And you are missing my point. You are never going to convince a jury that the Sig Brace was intended to really do anything other than be shouldered. The prosecutor need only ask you to demonstrate it's use as an arm brace and then sit back and watch you awkwardly try to strap it around your forearm and pretend to look natural with it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By NinerMaine:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg
They are different in the eyes of the law. One was designed as a pistol and one was designed as a rifle. The law used the word, "design" so that is what the jury and the judge need to follow. According to the words in the law, it is the design that is illegal, not the use. But, now, thanks to the new invention of the word "design" there is no difference, yet the law was not changed.

But that was not my point. My point was that in order to outlaw the shouldered use of the Sig Brace, the ATF had to do exactly what they are accusing the users of the Sig Brace of doing. The ATF is using the word "design" in a way it is not intended to be used in order to circumvent the law and the Sig Brace users are using the brace in a way it was not intended to be used in order to circumvent the law.




And you are missing my point. You are never going to convince a jury that the Sig Brace was intended to really do anything other than be shouldered. The prosecutor need only ask you to demonstrate it's use as an arm brace and then sit back and watch you awkwardly try to strap it around your forearm and pretend to look natural with it.


I know why the Sig Brace was originally made but IMO it became popular because it looks like a mutated M4 stock and skirted the SBR tax. Agreed if you showed the two pictures to a jury you'll have a hard time making them believe that it wasn't being used as a stock.
Honestly unless you're at a busy body range or doing something to bring LE down on you. I doubt you'd have much problem.
I bet during the panic a lot of SBR's were put together buy a lot of people who didn't know any better.
Registering an SBR needs to go away
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:28:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 2:29:14 PM EST by NinerMaine]
The point of my OP has been lost. It was not my "intent" to start another Sig Brace thread. I designed this post to discuss the irony of the ATF's action.

So, according to the logic of the ATF, I cannot be accused of dupping despite the fact that this thread has been used as just another Sig Brace thread. ;)
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:31:56 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NinerMaine:
The point of my OP has been lost. It was not my "intent" to start another Sig Brace thread. I designed this post to discuss the irony of the ATF's action.

So, according to the logic of the ATF, I cannot be accused of dupping despite the fact that this thread has been used as just another Sig Brace thread. ;)
View Quote
The irony wasn't lost on me. They used something in a way it wasn't intended, to outlaw use of something in the way it was not intended. It would be pretty funny if it didn't have the potential to ruin peoples' lives.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:38:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SnoopisTDI:
The irony wasn't lost on me. They used something in a way it wasn't intended, to outlaw use of something in the way it was not intended. It would be pretty funny if it didn't have the potential to ruin peoples' lives.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SnoopisTDI:
Originally Posted By NinerMaine:
The point of my OP has been lost. It was not my "intent" to start another Sig Brace thread. I designed this post to discuss the irony of the ATF's action.

So, according to the logic of the ATF, I cannot be accused of dupping despite the fact that this thread has been used as just another Sig Brace thread. ;)
The irony wasn't lost on me. They used something in a way it wasn't intended, to outlaw use of something in the way it was not intended. It would be pretty funny if it didn't have the potential to ruin peoples' lives.



What if a a shotgun designed for hunting birds or a bolt action rifle designed for hunting deer were used in a self defense situation? Seems to me the ATFs ruling on intended use is just goofy.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:43:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 2:45:36 PM EST by Bohr_Adam]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigtex84:


So everyone that has one of these braces has heard the new ruling? I doubt it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


So everyone that has one of these braces has heard the new ruling? I doubt it.


You can't on one hand claim ignorance that the thing is not just an "arm brace" while on the other hand use it as anything but an arm brace.

People are trying to piss down the ATF's back and convince them it's rain, then getting all Eddie Haskel about it. It's pretty funny, really. The ATF didn't pass the stupid laws, but they are tasked with enforcing them. If people weren't filming and photographing themselves showing that people are using these as stocks, the ATF probably could have continued to play ignorant. This is just one more example of people being stupid, and then playing stupid.

And, I don't see the irony in the OP, all I see is the same sentence written three times, and never explained.

Irony is someone claiming you'd have to be an idiot to think a Sig brace is a shoulder stock, then using it as one.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:44:14 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.
View Quote


I haven't got a letter either.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:44:55 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


Seems that he is already making an AOW NFA violation with the VFG on a "pistol".


Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:49:08 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


And you are missing my point. You are never going to convince a jury that the Sig Brace was intended to really do anything other than be shouldered. The prosecutor need only ask you to demonstrate it's use as an arm brace and then sit back and watch you awkwardly try to strap it around your forearm and pretend to look natural with it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By NinerMaine:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg
They are different in the eyes of the law. One was designed as a pistol and one was designed as a rifle. The law used the word, "design" so that is what the jury and the judge need to follow. According to the words in the law, it is the design that is illegal, not the use. But, now, thanks to the new invention of the word "design" there is no difference, yet the law was not changed.

But that was not my point. My point was that in order to outlaw the shouldered use of the Sig Brace, the ATF had to do exactly what they are accusing the users of the Sig Brace of doing. The ATF is using the word "design" in a way it is not intended to be used in order to circumvent the law and the Sig Brace users are using the brace in a way it was not intended to be used in order to circumvent the law.




And you are missing my point. You are never going to convince a jury that the Sig Brace was intended to really do anything other than be shouldered. The prosecutor need only ask you to demonstrate it's use as an arm brace and then sit back and watch you awkwardly try to strap it around your forearm and pretend to look natural with it.

It is not that awkward... Just takes a little practice.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:49:16 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stickfigure:


Seems that he is already making an AOW NFA violation with the VFG on a "pistol".


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


Seems that he is already making an AOW NFA violation with the VFG on a "pistol".




Ha. I missed that, but you are correct.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:49:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 2:49:58 PM EST by Bohr_Adam]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stickfigure:


Seems that he is already making an AOW NFA violation with the VFG on a "pistol".


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


Seems that he is already making an AOW NFA violation with the VFG on a "pistol".




ATF has been ridiculously generous with their interpretations of "pistols," and we have all seen the abuses mount as people behave like children, pushing the limit to see how far they can go. Alas, like the Open Carry crowd, certain people won't rest until they ruin it for everyone and force a ruling one way or the other. And, it will probably go the others, because we all know that thing is not built as a "pistol." You can hate the law and think it's stupid all you want, but you can't let a very generous former legal interpretation by a government agency be the sum of your argument, while simultaneously rejecting the authority of that same agency to make legal interpretations.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:52:25 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

ATF has been ridiculously generous with their interpretations of "pistols," and we have all seen the abuses mount as people behave like children, pushing the limit to see how far they can go. Alas, like the Open Carry crowd, certain people won't rest until they ruin it for everyone and force a ruling one way or the other. And, it will probably go the others, because we all know that thing is not built as a "pistol." You can hate the law and think it's stupid all you want, but you can't let a very generous former legal interpretation by a government agency be the sum of your argument, while simultaneously rejecting the authority of that same agency to make legal interpretations.
View Quote


But, but, but... Muh rights!
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:54:02 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


ATF has been ridiculously generous with their interpretations of "pistols," and we have all seen the abuses mount as people behave like children, pushing the limit to see how far they can go. Alas, like the Open Carry crowd, certain people won't rest until they ruin it for everyone and force a ruling one way or the other. And, it will probably go the others, because we all know that thing is not built as a "pistol." You can hate the law and think it's stupid all you want, but you can't let a very generous former legal interpretation by a government agency be the sum of your argument, while simultaneously rejecting the authority of that same agency to make legal interpretations.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


Seems that he is already making an AOW NFA violation with the VFG on a "pistol".




ATF has been ridiculously generous with their interpretations of "pistols," and we have all seen the abuses mount as people behave like children, pushing the limit to see how far they can go. Alas, like the Open Carry crowd, certain people won't rest until they ruin it for everyone and force a ruling one way or the other. And, it will probably go the others, because we all know that thing is not built as a "pistol." You can hate the law and think it's stupid all you want, but you can't let a very generous former legal interpretation by a government agency be the sum of your argument, while simultaneously rejecting the authority of that same agency to make legal interpretations.


After looking at the cost of a SB ($125) an Odin Works tube ($75+) and still not being able to put on a VFG legally...

I decided I'm going to SBR all my sub 16" projects.

Why bother with the BS grey areas?
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 2:55:42 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
Between the brace and the MPX-C, I think Sig's trolling the ATF.

I'd be really surprised and extremely disappointed if Sig wasn't waiting for this ruling with a pack of salivating lawyers.
View Quote



I sure hope so!!
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 3:01:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Devilman13xx:



have they ever, in plain english defined what a "short stock" is?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Devilman13xx:
"Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand… Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29).



have they ever, in plain english defined what a "short stock" is?
Comes from the days of revolvers.... grips weren't called "grips" but "stocks".
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 3:02:03 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stickfigure:


After looking at the cost of a SB ($125) an Odin Works tube ($75+) and still not being able to put on a VFG legally...

I decided I'm going to SBR all my sub 16" projects.

Why bother with the BS grey areas?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


Seems that he is already making an AOW NFA violation with the VFG on a "pistol".




ATF has been ridiculously generous with their interpretations of "pistols," and we have all seen the abuses mount as people behave like children, pushing the limit to see how far they can go. Alas, like the Open Carry crowd, certain people won't rest until they ruin it for everyone and force a ruling one way or the other. And, it will probably go the others, because we all know that thing is not built as a "pistol." You can hate the law and think it's stupid all you want, but you can't let a very generous former legal interpretation by a government agency be the sum of your argument, while simultaneously rejecting the authority of that same agency to make legal interpretations.


After looking at the cost of a SB ($125) an Odin Works tube ($75+) and still not being able to put on a VFG legally...

I decided I'm going to SBR all my sub 16" projects.

Why bother with the BS grey areas?


If anything good could come out of this, it should be a simplification of the SBR rules and process. The people who will get fucked are those in the states that will fuck them with state laws. But, as usual, most of the frustration will be leveled at the feds.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 3:03:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 3:04:43 PM EST by BURN]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

ATF has been ridiculously generous with their interpretations of "pistols," and we have all seen the abuses mount as people behave like children, pushing the limit to see how far they can go. Alas, like the Open Carry crowd, certain people won't rest until they ruin it for everyone and force a ruling one way or the other. And, it will probably go the others, because we all know that thing is not built as a "pistol." You can hate the law and think it's stupid all you want, but you can't let a very generous former legal interpretation by a government agency be the sum of your argument, while simultaneously rejecting the authority of that same agency to make legal interpretations.
View Quote


So if I drive 44.98 mph in a 45mph am I pushing the limit and flaunting against the law... Or am I in the right?

If it is not illegal than it is legal and not some mysterious loophole....

But so many people want to convict people on "flaunting loopholes"
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 3:05:39 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:You're not required to hear about the ruling before being convicted of a crime. Courts do not generally entertain an argument based upon ignorance of the law or a federal agency's interpretation of the law. It doesn't work that way.
View Quote



It does if I'm on the jury.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 3:05:50 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stickfigure:


After looking at the cost of a SB ($125) an Odin Works tube ($75+) and still not being able to put on a VFG legally...

I decided I'm going to SBR all my sub 16" projects.

Why bother with the BS grey areas?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By stickfigure:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By bigtex84:
ATF never sent me a letter so ill keep using the braces as I see fit.


That defense will go far in Court.

Beyond that you are never going to be able to convince a judge or a jury that

This

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IMG_1505.jpg

Is different than this.

http://<a href=http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s524/moddedcarbine/SBRNFATrustMain.jpeg


Seems that he is already making an AOW NFA violation with the VFG on a "pistol".




ATF has been ridiculously generous with their interpretations of "pistols," and we have all seen the abuses mount as people behave like children, pushing the limit to see how far they can go. Alas, like the Open Carry crowd, certain people won't rest until they ruin it for everyone and force a ruling one way or the other. And, it will probably go the others, because we all know that thing is not built as a "pistol." You can hate the law and think it's stupid all you want, but you can't let a very generous former legal interpretation by a government agency be the sum of your argument, while simultaneously rejecting the authority of that same agency to make legal interpretations.


After looking at the cost of a SB ($125) an Odin Works tube ($75+) and still not being able to put on a VFG legally...

I decided I'm going to SBR all my sub 16" projects.

Why bother with the BS grey areas?

Because I like taking out of state when I want to without permission and carry it under my ccw
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 3:08:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 3:15:58 PM EST by Bohr_Adam]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BURN:


So if I drive 44.98 mph in a 45mph am I pushing the limit and flaunting against the law... Or am I in the right?

If it is not illegal than it is legal and not some mysterious loophole....

But so many people want to convict people on "flaunting loopholes"
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BURN:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

ATF has been ridiculously generous with their interpretations of "pistols," and we have all seen the abuses mount as people behave like children, pushing the limit to see how far they can go. Alas, like the Open Carry crowd, certain people won't rest until they ruin it for everyone and force a ruling one way or the other. And, it will probably go the others, because we all know that thing is not built as a "pistol." You can hate the law and think it's stupid all you want, but you can't let a very generous former legal interpretation by a government agency be the sum of your argument, while simultaneously rejecting the authority of that same agency to make legal interpretations.


So if I drive 44.98 mph in a 45mph am I pushing the limit and flaunting against the law... Or am I in the right?

If it is not illegal than it is legal and not some mysterious loophole....

But so many people want to convict people on "flaunting loopholes"


Speed limit is cut and dry, federal gun laws are an absurd mess of irrationality and inconsistency.

If you insist on a speed limit comparison, this would be more like a "reasonable and prudent" speed law, where people for years pretty much kept at around 80 mph max - but now people have taken to constantly buzzing by the hwy patrol station at 120 mph+, making videos about it, and posting it on youtube.
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 3:09:42 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BURN:


So if I drive 44.98 mph in a 45mph am I pushing the limit and flaunting against the law... Or am I in the right?

If it is not illegal than it is legal and not some mysterious loophole....

But so many people want to convict people on "flaunting loopholes"
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BURN:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:

ATF has been ridiculously generous with their interpretations of "pistols," and we have all seen the abuses mount as people behave like children, pushing the limit to see how far they can go. Alas, like the Open Carry crowd, certain people won't rest until they ruin it for everyone and force a ruling one way or the other. And, it will probably go the others, because we all know that thing is not built as a "pistol." You can hate the law and think it's stupid all you want, but you can't let a very generous former legal interpretation by a government agency be the sum of your argument, while simultaneously rejecting the authority of that same agency to make legal interpretations.


So if I drive 44.98 mph in a 45mph am I pushing the limit and flaunting against the law... Or am I in the right?

If it is not illegal than it is legal and not some mysterious loophole....

But so many people want to convict people on "flaunting loopholes"


I get what you are saying but in order to really take a stand everyone has to really put their neck out and either go to court or commit mass civil disobedience.

But who's going to be the canary in the coal mine?
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 3:20:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/18/2015 3:20:56 PM EST by raider00]
Before the Sig brace came along, I have witnessed people shooting AR pistols shouldered, does that mean they were breaking the law as well? Or is OK to shoulder a bare buffer tube?
Link Posted: 1/18/2015 3:29:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Miami_JBT:
Comes from the days of revolvers.... grips weren't called "grips" but "stocks".
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Miami_JBT:
Originally Posted By Devilman13xx:
"Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand… Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(29).



have they ever, in plain english defined what a "short stock" is?
Comes from the days of revolvers.... grips weren't called "grips" but "stocks".

Hell, before that even - back to the days of flintlock pistols.

Now this will piss of a bunch of people here ... I can't for the life of me see the difference between an AR Pistol and a SBR, except the lack of a decent and effective stock. You could still shoulder the buffer tube. It may not be pleasant to shoot, but could be done.

ATF's dysfunctional thinking that somehow an AR rifle lower is different than a SBR lower or pistol lower just defies logic. They are the exact same part.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top