User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:42:54 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:47:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Nothing says professionalism like flip-flopping again and again
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:47:04 PM EDT
[#2]
Breaking in this thread.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1987861_ATF-reverses-stance-on-shouldering-sig-brace.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:47:49 PM EDT
[#3]
Tim Yan has an article up on it
http://www.gunsandtech.com/news/tyan/sb-tactical-announces-reversal-atf-open-letter-use-sb-tactical-pistol-stabilizing-braces/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:48:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Shouldn't it be "shouldering sb tactical braces"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 10:50:04 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:07:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Nowhere in the letter does it say ANYTHING about them reversing their decision or saying you can legally shoulder the thing. It literally just says if you modify the brace, it is also ILLEGAL just to have on the pistol, not to mention shouldering it. This is going to bite SB tactical in the ass, bigtime, if they start telling people they can legally shoulder them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:17:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nowhere in the letter does it say ANYTHING about them reversing their decision or saying you can legally shoulder the thing. It literally just says if you modify the brace, it is also ILLEGAL just to have on the pistol, not to mention shouldering it. This is going to bite SB tactical in the ass, bigtime, if they start telling people they can legally shoulder them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:20:36 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nowhere in the letter does it say ANYTHING about them reversing their decision or saying you can legally shoulder the thing. It literally just says if you modify the brace, it is also ILLEGAL just to have on the pistol, not to mention shouldering it. This is going to bite SB tactical in the ass, bigtime, if they start telling people they can legally shoulder them. I don't believe the part about sb tactical getting bitten in the ass over this. They'll do ALOT of business in the coming weeks because of this. The last thing is, they just created more confusion due to singling out sb tactical. Hope they are ready for the flood of idiotic letters leaving the post office tomorrow headed to the ATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:23:24 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nowhere in the letter does it say ANYTHING about them reversing their decision or saying you can legally shoulder the thing. It literally just says if you modify the brace, it is also ILLEGAL just to have on the pistol, not to mention shouldering it. This is going to bite SB tactical in the ass, bigtime, if they start telling people they can legally shoulder them. i'll let someone else take up that battle. i already SBR'd all my short barrel firearms so i no longer have a dog in the fight. hood luck to those who continue to skirt around the law "because they can" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:26:56 PM EDT
[#10]
I read the reversal 4x and still don't know what it means
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:36:39 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I read the reversal 4x and still don't know what it means |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:50:26 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I read the reversal 4x and still don't know what it means It is the same ole' shit that has been going on since day one of the agency being in existence. You have no say in the matter, it will come down to an agent and a US attorney to determine what your intent was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:54:45 PM EDT
[#13]
This is the actual letter: Barnes - Stabilizing Brace Letter
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2017 11:56:05 PM EDT
[#14]
This says nothing about the November 2014 letter that the ATF wrote and as far as you should all be concerned, nothing has changed. You will still be in possession of an illegal SBR if you purposefully stick the pistol's brace up to your shoulder and shoot it that way. This letter merely addresses an "incidental use" (noted in page 3 first paragraph) may not turn a pistol into an illegal SBR. Who the hell knows what the bounds of "incidental" are the the ATF....
Either way, I have forwarded the letter to a firearms attorney for review. I'm not doing anything different with my pistol until either the ATF clarifies this in crystal clear terms, or someone who has an adept understanding of legalese says that this does indeed reverse their prior decision(s). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 12:50:58 AM EDT
[#15]
What I gleamed from the real BATFE letter, not SB Tactical's official-looking press release interpretation, was that you won't be in trouble unless you mod the brace.
What worries me is it sounds like the Shockwave brace is now illegal. It is decently fixed to the tube in a way that is meant to add length... But at least we PROBABLY won't be in trouble if someone snaps a pic and we happen to have it shouldered that day? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 1:09:32 AM EDT
[#16]
I'm just waiting...
for the Reversal of the Reversal... of the Reversal. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 1:42:02 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What I gleamed from the real BATFE letter, not SB Tactical's official-looking press release interpretation, was that you won't be in trouble unless you mod the brace. What worries me is it sounds like the Shockwave brace is now illegal. It is decently fixed to the tube in a way that is meant to add length... But at least we PROBABLY won't be in trouble if someone snaps a pic and we happen to have it shouldered that day? I'll sit back and wait for my attorney's response, I don't buy the hype SBT is selling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 2:03:53 AM EDT
[#18]
Also you know what the biggest red flag from SBT's blog post is? It appears that they somehow interpreted that this only applies to THEIR braces and no other manufacturer's braces. Are you fucking kidding me?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:50:06 AM EDT
[#19]
Knew this was coming at some point.......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:43:35 AM EDT
[#20]
Basically don't alter your brace and don't boast you made your pistol to be a rifle or to always shoulder it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 7:52:30 AM EDT
[#21]
Thanks Trump
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:10:33 AM EDT
[#22]
Many of us do not care anyway.
LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:16:46 AM EDT
[#23]
How do you guys think this affects other models of pistol braces?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:09:57 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you guys think this affects other models of pistol braces? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:20:11 AM EDT
[#25]
I don't see it as a reversal but more of a clarification.
You guys read too much into things. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:32:20 AM EDT
[#26]
I did find it interesting that they specifically mention removal of the velcro arm strap when talking about modification.
I always thought it was OK to remove the velcro from my SB47 brace, but this letter makes me think it's not. But shockwaves don't come with straps either. But also sounds like they're saying if you install the brace as designed & approved then contact with the shoulder while firing doesn't automatically make it an NFA item. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:53:52 AM EDT
[#27]
I don't think it makes them a "legal" shoulder stock. What it does is clarify what they originally said: It's a brace but if it touches your shoulder it's not automatically a shoulder stock and not a violation of the NFA. Don't alter, strip, or clamp it in place, leave it alone.
Let's not forget that the ATF DID allow stocks on pistols at one time - but they had to be pinned at the shortest length of pull. Then they reversed that and said no stocks allowed. The Brace got around that by not being a shoulder stock - that's the intent of it's design. Those who have tried to jump thru hoops of internet logic attempting to end run the ATF now have this as their answer. Mess with a Brace or "intend" from the beginning to use it as a stock and the ATF will try to prosecute. However - here's the flip side of the coin. This is basically saying "Get off our back" to all the anti gunners and Range Nazis who are STILL sending in letters complaining about it. Now they can say they answered it in another blanket letter and dump their emails. "We're tired of your nitpicking, we decide if and when, go away." So, you pays your money and takes your chances. Frankly, if you have two good arms and decent eyesight, you don't need to fake up a stock on the pistol and pretend it's an SBR, which is 99% of who are buying them. Shoot it bare buffer and it works just fine, recoil is mild enough with a forward tensioned sling you can sight in nose to the charging handle. Learn to shoot it AS A PISTOL and it's just as deadly as any SBR, a brace or stock does not make it suddenly $35 or $100 more lethal. All it does is dress up somebody's Barbie Doll in antiATF dreadlocks so they can thumb their nose. If you spent as much money and time to rescind the NFA in the first place we'd never have gotten into this mess. Now people are just making money on the ignorance and arrogance of shooters who won't even try to learn how. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 10:56:24 AM EDT
[#28]
I posted this in GD:
First of all that letter says nothing about the braces produced by SB Tactical, the only time the company is mentioned at all is acknowledging that the man writing is a lawyer employed by them. When speaking about braces they were using the generalized term repeatedly. They had ample opportunity to say this applies to SB tac etc only and did not. So to me this 100% reads as their opinion on stabilizing braces as a whole. Next, they say that permanently affixing a brace to the end of a buffer tube thereby creating a length that has no other purpose than to facilitate use as a stock or otherwise undermining it's ability to be used as a brace is illegal. In no way is a Shockwave on a KAK tube screwed in to the closest 2-3 positions attached to the end of a buffer tube in a way that has no other purpose than facilitating shouldering nor does it undermine it's ability to be used as a forearm brace. Because it has not been altered from its final commercial product as sold to the consumer it cannot be argued that it has been modified in a way that undermines it's ability to be used as a forearm brace. At the end of the last paragraph on page 2 they say "Therefore, an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device has not been reconfigured for use as a shoulder stock - even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder." This means your stabilizing brace of any kind is not illegal provided it has not been modified in a way that undermines it's ability to be used as a brace, even if it happens to be fired from the shoulder. If you have modified your brace in such a way that it can no longer be used as a brace and then also fire it from the shoulder you are now in violation of NFA. My .02c |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 12:40:27 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 12:50:39 PM EDT
[#30]
well with all the flip flops I think the ATF will just leave you alone unless you are doing something stupid.
hopefully this will all go away and we can pet kittens with our braces....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 1:35:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577faf5d46c3c459382239f0/t/582b788946c3c44fc1e4e2df/1479673233772/?format=1000w https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577faf5d46c3c459382239f0/t/582b79229de4bbae081fc638/1479673241276/?format=1000w https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577faf5d46c3c459382239f0/t/58335ce31b631b0eb8a09728/1479761140629/?format=1000w https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577faf5d46c3c459382239f0/577fe91b15d5dbbc19bd3b36/5832093c3e00be4fe4c6ac5d/1479674173603/SBP.jpg?format=1000w I quote: "If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the devices for use as a shoulder-stock--for example... removing the arm-strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace - AND THEN shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock, that person has redesigned the firearm for purposes of the NFA." BUT, they go onto say: "An NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock - even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder. My conclusion: You can shoulder your brace! You cannot modify it to be a stock. It must be marketed as a brace, sold as a brace, and installed with the primary purpose of being used as a brace. This is good news, guys 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 1:53:17 PM EDT
[#32]
I don't understand why everyone thinks this only applies to SB Tactical. Equal protection would apply this universally. Did no one learn about Bills of Attainder?
And please, don't ask ATF anything unless you hire an attorney to do it. You are not qualified to ask the right questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 2:17:46 PM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 2:20:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577faf5d46c3c459382239f0/t/582b788946c3c44fc1e4e2df/1479673233772/?format=1000w https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577faf5d46c3c459382239f0/t/582b79229de4bbae081fc638/1479673241276/?format=1000w https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577faf5d46c3c459382239f0/t/58335ce31b631b0eb8a09728/1479761140629/?format=1000w https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577faf5d46c3c459382239f0/577fe91b15d5dbbc19bd3b36/5832093c3e00be4fe4c6ac5d/1479674173603/SBP.jpg?format=1000w |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 2:31:12 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That right there is exactly what the new opinion is referring to. That is altering the brace to make it a stock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 2:40:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't understand why everyone thinks this only applies to SB Tactical. Equal protection would apply this universally. Did no one learn about Bills of Attainder? And please, don't ask ATF anything unless you hire an attorney to do it. You are not qualified to ask the right questions. I haven't read the Shockwave letter, but the Tailhook letter specifically prohibits shouldering of that brace. So Gear Head Works needs to get a clarification on that. Which sucks, because I have a Tailhook on order. William |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 3:28:05 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does it UNDERMINE its use as a brace? If people keep pushing this, blurring the line between brace and stock, and writing letters, then we're all gonna get screwed over. Take this as a win, and use your basic arm brace in peace. Don't anger the beast! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 3:48:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does it UNDERMINE its use as a brace? Every single agent in the BATF has the flexibility to define what they believe what you intended to do and even if you win your case, you will have to fight for your property what ever it costs to defend your actions. I just don't understand why so many have to keep pushing up against the wall so hard? Just do what you are going to do and be quiet. Christ. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 3:52:53 PM EDT
[#39]
Is the shockwave still not kosher?
Seemed like MAC was pushing this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 4:11:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What people don't seem to understand, it does not matter what you think your intent is or was, it will be up to the BATF to determine and define what your intent was, that could be ignored by a dozen different agents and then the lucking number 13 gets a wild hair up his/her ass and says, this was your intent and we are going to arrest and prosecute you for your intent. Every single agent in the BATF has the flexibility to define what they believe what you intended to do and even if you win your case, you will have to fight for your property what ever it costs to defend your actions. I just don't understand why so many have to keep pushing up against the wall so hard? Just do what you are going to do and be quiet. Christ. You can pick up that can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 4:21:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck that. Stupid laws need to go. There should be no ambiguity. There should be no thin grey line between perfectly legal and something that literally carries a 10 year prison sentence. You can pick up that can. The BATF makes determinations based on the laws that were wrote a long time ago, by people they don't even know and never will, so saying fuck that, changes nothing. That is why the BATF needs a complete overhaul, they are a rule determination agency, they don't make laws, they interpret law, any god damn way they want to. Don't take that as I am disagreeing with you, I just happen to know the facts of life as they currently exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 5:08:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does it UNDERMINE its use as a brace? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 5:38:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because you're adding a pad to the back of the brace that only has one purpose; to cushion anything putting pressure behind it. If it had cushions on the side one could argue it is for the arm, but directly on the back has an obvious use beyond what the ATF cares about, how the device was intended to be used. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How does it UNDERMINE its use as a brace? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 5:58:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is the shockwave still not kosher? http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_1057.jpg Seemed like MAC was pushing this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 6:50:16 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe it is intended to stop the plastic from sliding on a floor... Isn't a cane tip legal?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:01:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Just got off the phone with a 2A attorney, he runs a somewhat prolific blog on the side and says he's gonna write about this very soon. He says the language used doesn't clearly state that it is legal to intentionally use a brace as a shoulder stock. He said it looks like by their use of "incidental" on the 3rd page that under ATF opinion if you accidentally were to shoulder it unintentionally, you wouldn't be in possession of an illegal SBR, but there's nothing in the letter to suggest that an intentional use of a brace for no other purpose than as a shoulder stock is legal.
He did find it very interesting that SB tactical and several other gun blogs called this a "reversal" and he noted that the ATF is not a legislative body and they can't change the law under any circumstance. In conclusion, he said all he would draw from the letter are these two things: It's illegal just to modify a brace and stick it on your pistol, as it turns it into an illegal SBR. And secondly, if you "incidentally" shoulder the pistol brace unintentionally, that doesn't count as a "redesign" according to the letter. He told me I probably shouldn't shoulder my brace until ATF at least clarifies what they mean by all this, because it would be a tough defense to bring up that letter in court. Ambiguity of the law is the last thing you want in a legal defense, apparently. If/when he writes about this I'll link it here. It didn't sound like I was the first one to call him today about this lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:39:35 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MAC is FOS. Shockwave is GTG: http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?p=3524 They have phone confirmation and are waiting on a letter Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is the shockwave still not kosher? http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMG_1057.jpg Seemed like MAC was pushing this. Ironically after he made a statement about the Shockwave brace. He showed off a folding/fixed/and adjustable sig brace... Im not saying he was advertising based on misinformation but... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 8:48:51 PM EDT
[#48]
Can we bring our Shockwave blades to USPSA PCC now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:16:34 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can say fuck that all you want, it is not going to change the current state of affairs, you get a agent with a wild hair up their ass, they are going to make life painful for you. The BATF makes determinations based on the laws that were wrote a long time ago, by people they don't even know and never will, so saying fuck that, changes nothing. That is why the BATF needs a complete overhaul, they are a rule determination agency, they don't make laws, they interpret law, any god damn way they want to. Don't take that as I am disagreeing with you, I just happen to know the facts of life as they currently exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2017 9:20:25 PM EDT
[#50]
I was under the impression that he keeps pointing out SB Tactical because they were mentioned by name in the letter??
|
|
|
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.
Attached File