User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:50:57 AM EDT
[#1]
They sell it as an arm brace, and it is legal as an arm brace. Why would Sig need to do anything?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:51:17 AM EDT
[#2]
Their design hasn't changed. The fact that ATF saying you use it in a different way == redesign has no impact on Sig.
Sig is still doing right, ATF are a bunch of jack dick fuck sticks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 2:51:21 AM EDT
[#3]
I hope they comment at a minimum.
Sue them if possible for changing a ruling that has now financially harmed them. Yes it is sold as an arm brace, but the ATF has fucked up the entire 'way you hold it' thing. This itself could potentially have far reaching implications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:06:47 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope they comment at a minimum. Sue them if possible for changing a ruling that has now financially harmed them. Yes it is sold as an arm brace, but the ATF has fucked up the entire 'way you hold it' thing. This itself could potentially have far reaching implications. I would hope that the right to keep and bear arms would imply that if its legal to keep its legal to bear and therefore the way you use it is irrelevant;however, judges and the federal continue to fuck us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:19:53 AM EDT
[#5]
they will have do do something since that fucking letter they send out w/ the units has been invalidated or whatever, or they will be liable to getting sued by someone who getss arrested for shouldering ther product.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:22:38 AM EDT
[#6]
The ATF can collectively go choke themselves. Yes, that means you- Mr. ATF Men. You are bad and you should feel bad.
Oh, and NFA needs to be repealed. The Bill of Rights, what's that about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:26:11 AM EDT
[#7]
They might. Unfortunately I can see the ATF ruling that it's a stock eventually.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:34:01 AM EDT
[#8]
They will say nothing. If they do, it will be to affirm its use only as an arm brace.
They presented it as an arm brace. They sell it as an arm brace. If they comment in a way that in any way defends it as being an end-run around the NFA, the implication is that they were disingenuous from the start. There is no upside to doing anything other than affirming the BATFE's opinion, if they comment at all. If you think Sig is going to openly oppose the BATFE's opinion, you're high. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:35:55 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will say nothing. If they do, it will be to affirm its use only as an arm brace. They presented it as an arm brace. They sell it as an arm brace. If they comment in a way that in any way defends it as being an end-run around the NFA, the implication is that they were disingenuous from the start. There is no upside to doing anything other than affirming the BATFE's opinion, if they comment at all. If you think Sig is going to openly oppose the BATFE's opinion, you're high. Except the letter Sig has from the ATF is no longer valid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:40:02 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except the letter Sig has from the ATF is no longer valid. Exactly. They know that if they want to continue to sell the arm brace, they're not going to go poking the BATFE bear. They're just one opinion letter away from not being able to sell it as a pistol accessory and nobody with a rifle has a use for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:42:25 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They might. Unfortunately I can see the ATF ruling that it's a stock eventually. The BATFE has opined that if the arm brace is shouldered, the very act itself redesigns the arm brace into a stock. We're pretty much there already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:44:14 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They sell it as an arm brace, and it is legal as an arm brace. Why would Sig need to do anything? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile FPNI |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:46:29 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will say nothing. If they do, it will be to affirm its use only as an arm brace. They presented it as an arm brace. They sell it as an arm brace. If they comment in a way that in any way defends it as being an end-run around the NFA, the implication is that they were disingenuous from the start. There is no upside to doing anything other than affirming the BATFE's opinion, if they comment at all. If you think Sig is going to openly oppose the BATFE's opinion, you're high. Sig probably won't say a damn thing. They definitely won't be suing anybody over this specific issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:47:12 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except the letter Sig has from the ATF is no longer valid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They will say nothing. If they do, it will be to affirm its use only as an arm brace. They presented it as an arm brace. They sell it as an arm brace. If they comment in a way that in any way defends it as being an end-run around the NFA, the implication is that they were disingenuous from the start. There is no upside to doing anything other than affirming the BATFE's opinion, if they comment at all. If you think Sig is going to openly oppose the BATFE's opinion, you're high. Except the letter Sig has from the ATF is no longer valid. After reading both, I don't see how anything has changed from Sig's perspective (other than follow-on sales volume) It was approved as a legal one-handed forearm support, and continues to be after the most recent letter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:50:31 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they will have do do something since that fucking letter they send out w/ the units has been invalidated or whatever, or they will be liable to getting sued by someone who getss arrested for shouldering ther product. Last I checked, the original letter they included talks about using the brace as designed, a brace that straps to your forearm to aid your ability to shoot an akward "pistol" one handed. Nothing in that letter said anything about it being OK to shoulder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 3:53:13 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Last I checked, the original letter they included talks about using the brace as designed, a brace that straps to your forearm to aid your ability to shoot an akward "pistol" one handed. Nothing in that letter said anything about it being OK to shoulder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
they will have do do something since that fucking letter they send out w/ the units has been invalidated or whatever, or they will be liable to getting sued by someone who getss arrested for shouldering ther product. Last I checked, the original letter they included talks about using the brace as designed, a brace that straps to your forearm to aid your ability to shoot an akward "pistol" one handed. Nothing in that letter said anything about it being OK to shoulder. This. Reading is faggots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 4:00:33 AM EDT
[#17]
Sig will probably discontinue the product since no one is going to buy it now.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 4:03:58 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sig will probably discontinue the product since no one is going to buy it now. Peak Sig Brace? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 4:57:53 AM EDT
[#19]
I'm guessing sales will decline and the product will soon no longer be offered, due to limited demand.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 5:14:53 AM EDT
[#20]
It's still cool to shoulder-up a receiver extension tube? For right now this week?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:21:25 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's still cool to shoulder-up a receiver extension tube? For right now this week?  untill there's 25+ threads on it. It g2g
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:26:09 AM EDT
[#22]
why do we have a new thread on this everyday?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:33:40 AM EDT
[#23]
Not the BATF's fault gun owners and their stupid letters pushed them and pushed them until they had to change the rules!
Well done dick heads 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:36:44 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sig will probably discontinue the product since no one is going to buy it now. AIM surplus sold out last night. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:38:25 AM EDT
[#25]
There is absolutely no reason for SIG to comment. I would be astonished if they did.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:39:47 AM EDT
[#26]
I suspect they'll comment, sig has never been shy about taking on the ATF, hell sometimes I feel like sig trolls the ATF just for laughs
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:42:59 AM EDT
[#27]
That letter from the ATF to FFL dealers did not have my name on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:49:08 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The BATFE has opined that if the arm brace is shouldered, the very act itself redesigns the arm brace into a stock. We're pretty much there already. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They might. Unfortunately I can see the ATF ruling that it's a stock eventually. The BATFE has opined that if the arm brace is shouldered, the very act itself redesigns the arm brace into a stock. We're pretty much there already. So if you then go back to wrapping it around your forearm, it redesigns it back then right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:51:21 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope they comment at a minimum. Sue them if possible for changing a ruling that has now financially harmed them. Yes it is sold as an arm brace, but the ATF has fucked up the entire 'way you hold it' thing. This itself could potentially have far reaching implications. Are you serious, or just trolling? ETA: And, as with the bump fire stock, I see it has been linked to disabilities again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:54:35 AM EDT
[#30]
There is no reason for SIG to comment because their original contention regarding the proper and legal use for their product remains unchanged.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:58:05 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is absolutely no reason for SIG to comment. I would be astonished if they did. There's plenty of reason for them to comment, this is going to severely impact their sales. The ATF being able to throw their customers in jail with an arbitrary determination is generally bad for business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:58:24 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Very curious will they stop selling them? Will they sue ? Will they change them somehow? Will they release the chin or chest brace? Why in the heck would SIG do any of those? The ATF clarification has absolutely no bearing on SIG production or sales of the brace. Quoted:
They sell it as an arm brace, and it is legal as an arm brace. Why would Sig need to do anything? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 11:09:22 AM EDT
[#33]
Sig can take out the letter they include and substitute with the new ruling.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 11:13:09 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's plenty of reason for them to comment, this is going to severely impact their sales. The ATF being able to throw their customers in jail with an arbitrary determination is generally bad for business. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There is absolutely no reason for SIG to comment. I would be astonished if they did. There's plenty of reason for them to comment, this is going to severely impact their sales. The ATF being able to throw their customers in jail with an arbitrary determination is generally bad for business. There is no possible benefit for SIG to comment on this, with the possible exception of encouraging their customers to follow all laws and ATF regulations. What do you want them to say? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 11:17:15 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sig can take out the letter they include and substitute with the new ruling. Why? The original letter is still valid. It says that merely installing the brace DOES NOT re-classify the firearm into an NFA weapon. If they wanted to, they might include the additional letter as well, so that people understand they should not be shouldering the pistol while the SIG brace is attached. But the original letter is not invalidated by the new ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 11:31:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Depends on what the definition of "shoulder" is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 11:37:27 AM EDT
[#37]
This supposed letter opens a whole new can of worms.
I'm no lawyer, but legally it sounds 
A wrench is a wrench when used to turn nuts and bolts. A hammer is a hammer when used to hammer nails. A wrench is now a hammer if you whack a nail with it. It turns back into a wrench if you go back to turning nuts and bolts with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 11:44:51 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This supposed letter opens a whole new can of worms. I'm no lawyer, but legally it sounds
A wrench is a wrench when used to turn nuts and bolts. A hammer is a hammer when used to hammer nails. A wrench is now a hammer if you whack a nail with it. It turns back into a wrench if you go back to turning nuts and bolts with it. A more apt analogy would be a motor vehicle, since none of the tools you mentioned are regulated differently. You can drive a 4-wheel ATV all you like on your personal property, but if you want to commute on public roads to work in it, then you are using it for a different function, and will then suddenly have to meet all kinds of legal requirements, including safety, emissions, etc - and you will have to pay various licensing fees and taxes that you didn't before. The ATV hasn't changed, and is still a four-wheeled motor vehicles. But HOW YOU USE IT will determine what regulations, taxes, licenses, etc it is subject to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 11:51:30 AM EDT
[#39]
I'd say they will make no comment because they cant control how other people use their product.
So long as you can strap the sig brace onto your arm and pull the trigger using a finger of the hand of the arm the brace is attached to, it is legal to shoulder a sig brace on a pistol. What the ATF is saying is, if you use the sig brace as a stock, it becomes a stock. You had better be able to use the sig brace as intended when you mount it to a pistol, or you will get raped. That is what they are saying. You could mount a stuffed monkey to a pistol for use as a stock and it would become a stock. Alot of people are misreading what the ATF is saying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 11:52:32 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A more apt analogy would be a motor vehicle, since none of the tools you mentioned are regulated differently. You can drive a 4-wheel ATV all you like on your personal property, but if you want to commute on public roads to work in it, then you are using it for a different function, and will then suddenly have to meet all kinds of legal requirements, including safety, emissions, etc - and you will have to pay various licensing fees and taxes that you didn't before. The ATV hasn't changed, and is still a four-wheeled motor vehicles. But HOW YOU USE IT will determine what regulations, taxes, licenses, etc it is subject to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This supposed letter opens a whole new can of worms. I'm no lawyer, but legally it sounds
A wrench is a wrench when used to turn nuts and bolts. A hammer is a hammer when used to hammer nails. A wrench is now a hammer if you whack a nail with it. It turns back into a wrench if you go back to turning nuts and bolts with it. A more apt analogy would be a motor vehicle, since none of the tools you mentioned are regulated differently. You can drive a 4-wheel ATV all you like on your personal property, but if you want to commute on public roads to work in it, then you are using it for a different function, and will then suddenly have to meet all kinds of legal requirements, including safety, emissions, etc - and you will have to pay various licensing fees and taxes that you didn't before. The ATV hasn't changed, and is still a four-wheeled motor vehicles. But HOW YOU USE IT will determine what regulations, taxes, licenses, etc it is subject to. Not really. There are no regulations to shoot a gun on private property. Operating any motor vehicle on a public road is where the licensing comes in. Very similar analogy, if you own thousands of acres of land, you can drive around an unlicensed car, truck, or SUV to your hearts content on it. Once you go on a public road, your licensing & registration better be current. ETA: You also didn't change the design or function of it. You're still using it to putter you ass about, only difference is where. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 11:58:35 AM EDT
[#41]
Lulz
Chin brace
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:01:00 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sig probably won't say a damn thing. They definitely won't be suing anybody over this specific issue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They will say nothing. If they do, it will be to affirm its use only as an arm brace. They presented it as an arm brace. They sell it as an arm brace. If they comment in a way that in any way defends it as being an end-run around the NFA, the implication is that they were disingenuous from the start. There is no upside to doing anything other than affirming the BATFE's opinion, if they comment at all. If you think Sig is going to openly oppose the BATFE's opinion, you're high. Sig probably won't say a damn thing. They definitely won't be suing anybody over this specific issue. Why not? Beretta sued the US Government for lost sales due to the government's own actions, and won. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:01:08 PM EDT
[#43]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:07:11 PM EDT
[#44]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:17:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Mag light is a silencer if missed used.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:18:51 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope they comment at a minimum. Sue them if possible for changing a ruling that has now financially harmed them. Yes it is sold as an arm brace, but the ATF has fucked up the entire 'way you hold it' thing. This itself could potentially have far reaching implications. If you fire your rifle with one hand you just "redesigned" it to be a pistol. Since "once a rifle always a rifle" you now have to register it as an SBR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:20:39 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you fire your rifle with one hand you just "redesigned" it to be a pistol. Since "once a rifle always a rifle" you now have to register it as an SBR. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hope they comment at a minimum. Sue them if possible for changing a ruling that has now financially harmed them. Yes it is sold as an arm brace, but the ATF has fucked up the entire 'way you hold it' thing. This itself could potentially have far reaching implications. If you fire your rifle with one hand you just "redesigned" it to be a pistol. Since "once a rifle always a rifle" you now have to register it as an SBR. That is not what these letters state. the ATF said if you put a sig brace on a pistol, and can't use it as intended, it becomes a stock. you can shoulder a sig brace on a pistol if the it can be used as intended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:20:59 PM EDT
[#48]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:21:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
untill there's 25+ threads on it. It g2gQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's still cool to shoulder-up a receiver extension tube? For right now this week? untill there's 25+ threads on it. It g2gDid you read any of the stuff ATF has been sending out? Shouldering the buffer tube redesigns your pistol into an SBR by means of "intent." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 12:25:51 PM EDT
[#50]
oops.
|
|
|
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.
