Didn't California basically decriminalize crime though recently? Probably will get a 150 dollar ticket plus court costs. IIRC I think it's better now to claim you stole a gun than to be the owner of an illegally configured weapon.

Just wait until a school or mall shooter uses one.

We categorize them into a specific category called FUDDS.

Would have thought that this being illegal, that fellow would not have used it in the commission of a felony.

Yes, something bad did happen. The ATF made an arbitrary, and capricious opinion letter ruling regarding not only the Sig brace, but firearms in general

I have been a lurker here for the better part of 10 years, mostly the tech side, but recently discovered GD, and just had to weigh in on this subject...

To preface my post, I am an attorney for the SEC. I own 2 sig braced pistols. Both sold from the factory with the brace. 1 Sig 516 10.5" barrel with brace, and an Arsenal Sam7K-03 10.5" barrel with brace.


I would like to say it has been very interesting reading the 1500 threads on this subject. Mostly perpetuation of false or highly convoluted information, twisted to fit the posters view points.

One thing is certain. The ATF has made two rulings in the form of opinion regarding law enforcement of regulated firearms.

1.) Firearms are classified by their use, as opposed to their appearance(intent within)
2.) All previous letters on the subject are null and void.

continued...
In regards to 1.) The ATF has brilliantly altered the definition of the word "redesign". Without going into too much detail, this was done purposefully, and quite brilliantly and foolishly all at the same time. Brilliant in that all definitions of firearms require the word "remake" within them as to define boundaries in which something can now be regulated by them. Hence, their use of "remake" to regulate the sig brace.  Foolishly, in that now they have opened up a can of worms in regards to literally every regulated firearm definition. (Im not quite sure yet if they have fully thought this out). Most foolish however is their blatant shopping for a definition via the 2005 webster college dictionary volume two. This is what will lose this battle for them should it be brought to court.

In regards to 2.) Any previous ruling  opinion on the brace is null and void. Meaning this is a shoestring like situation all over again. To put this letter in context however we must dissect how and where the ATF both derives its power and how they implement it. First and foremost, the ATF does not make law, they simply enforce it. Laws passed by congress under the ATF charter, are enforced by the ATF. Their opinions are just that. Opinions. They carry Zero legal merit until they are brought to court and a ruling is made, thus making precedence. Another thing to note, ATF letters only apply to the correspondent in which the ATF, and letter itself itself are addressing. Saying its an "Open letter" has no legal bearing on the situation.

continued...

The main focus should be on the ATF's purpose in this case. They want to stop people from skirting their tax policy for registered and regulated weapons. They have aimed to do so via changing the definition "redesign" to align with their interpretation of a regulated weapon, in this case an SBR.

The main thing to note, none of this has any precedence at all until it is tried in court. The ATF have played these cards exactly before(shoe string machine-gun). They lost then, and they will lose now should this be tried. This is simply being used in its simplest form as a scare tactic from a law enforcement agency. I'm sad to say it appears to be working pretty well so far.

Many have brought up the Atkins Accelerator case, although it does not play into this situation at all as that device was modified before it was sold. and sold in a different fashion than what ATF approved at the time. The sig brace was approved, and was sold unmodified to its approval configuration. It was, and is held up in court, that an objects classification does not change, excluding its use in a crime(IE burglarious tools). Thus, the redesign of the word "Redesign".

You see, in order for your brace to magically turn into a stock once shouldered, you must be committing a crime, when shouldering it. So, They have changed to word "redesign" to jive with their definition of manufacturing a rifle from a pistol with a barrel shorter than 16". This is the brilliant part.

continued...

The foolish part, is that they have been entirely consistent before this letter. In my circumstance, for instance. I bought 2 pistols from the factory with a brace. I bought them knowing they were pistols, and intended to be fired with the use of one hand. Although, I also knew that using it not as directed, was not illegal, as I was committing no crime. I know many here have built their pistols, and although the same applies, intent can be more vigorously questioned within these circumstances.

The foolishness peaks at where the ATF blatantly sought to redefine a word in order to make a crime out of using an approved item not as directed. This is where it will crumble for them, as it has before. But a trial will be required for it to be ruled upon.

Back to the brilliance... The scare tactic. SO who will be the first case? No one wants to come under the full weight and power of an arm of the federal government. Its sad that tis is happening. But it must! In order to prove once and again the ATF cannot enforce arbitrary and capricious rulings on the public based on their own opinions and rulings. The extent of their power ends at the enforcement. They can arrest you, and have you tried for the crime, but can their opinions hold it court. The answer is NO! Legal bills and efforts are very expensive, no doubt, in both time and money, but are they more expensive than the loss of freedom?  That is the question I leave you with.

This is a blatant scare tactic. Be wise. Use your approved non shoulder stock however you wish on your pistol. If The ATF wishes to prosecute, I imagine many will donate to the cause. I now i personally would donate not only money but any legal efforts I can as well. I hope this post has helped. What must be done, must be done. And just like anything involving the Fed Gov, it will be a PITA, but freedom is at stake once again. It may be a small piece of the pie, but its still  a piece of the pie!

-George

Justice Roberts did bring up with train of thought.

I think the whole $200 stamp to put a stock on my pistol is a joke in the first place.   For two, in cases like this, where a robbery is committed, the guy could of easily put an adjustable stock on it, made it lighter, and have that thing that goes up. Having the sig brace on it is almost a crutch, to what it could be. You could look at the fact that he used a legal firearm to commit a crime in terms of being charged, but really?

I am not thinking about all firearms, so my point can be watered down a bit, but again, I am just not a fan of the law in general....Now off to fill out my trust papers.

Thank you for these posts.

It's nice to hear from the law side rather than the rumor side.

And your post provides hope!

You seem to be focused on that 'segment.'  Who cares that some people got butt-hurt?  I paid $200 for a real stock because I wanted a real stock, not some plasticky, gimmicky thing that may or may not have been developed as a way for poor people to enjoy shooting short-barreled rifles.  I don't give a rat's ass whether brace owners buy them and attache them to a pistol, or use them to beat their dogs.



 

And I ask you this:  Which lawyers (who are capable of arguing before the US Supreme Court) are willing to work pro bono on any case involving the use of the brace to shoulder-mount a 'pistol'?



Attorneys do not suffer great financial hardship when they represent a client in an important test case - at least relative to the financial ruin that can befall a common man who chooses to make a stand against the mighty DOJ.



(Nothing personal - and thanks for your spin on the issue...)



 

I'm sure there's more than one" SIG brace I told you so" type thread that you can read where there are some SBR owners celebrating the decision and posting pics of their SBRs to try to rub it I.

Thank you for these posts.

It's nice to hear from the law side rather than the rumor side.

And your post provides hope!


That was my intent. Forget about the people who are dog piling on misinformation. The fact is, the ATF is not only wrong, but has way over stepped their bounds. This WILL be an issue in a court soon. Its too big of a decision not to be.

Everyone who is deathly scared the ATF will descend upon you for using your brace however you want, why don't you hold the phone, and change your diapers for a minute.


.

Several I know in Virginia are gun owners and would gladly take this case up. Maybe not entirely free, but they will donate their time for free. Putting the case together and experts are the true cost in trials.

If a criminal wants an SBR, he will make or get one somehow. criminals don't care about gun laws. Which is why gun control laws don't stop crime, they disarm law abiding citizens.

I doubt they even care about $200. Gun laws are all about the government controlling the people.

So, why doesn't Ted Cruz and/or Rand Paul say "this is proof this law absolutely doesn't do anything other than frustrate law abiding citizens" and work to repeal it?

Seems like any reasonable people at this point would say "look this law doesn't make a hill of beans difference regarding crime and the tax revenue isn't enough to fund the man power currently devoted to enforcing/regulating it so why not just call it a day and repeal this useless thing."