Shouldering SB15 = SBR. New ATF ruling

[IronMonster]

http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fi...ter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces.pdf

 

[Member 5605]

Sure glad I decided to shroud and pin the barrel vs wasting $140 on that thing. I'd rather have a full on stock anyway.

 

[nehalemguy]

Oh well. They sucked anyway.

E

 

[Nwcid]

Then you better not hold a pistol in 2 hands either then........

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.11

Pistol. A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).

 

[locobob]

http://zero7one.com/atf-reverses-sig-brace-decision/


In no uncertain terms, The SIG brace CAN NOT be shouldered or you have created a SBR according to the ATF

This is insane, asinine and simply dumb, But at least its clear.

I don't see this opinion surviving a court case...

 

[IronMonster]

But do you want to be that court case? Charged with a federal crime and your live ruined even if you are later vindicated?

 

[locobob]

No not really, the best court case is going to involve someone who bought a complete Sig pistol with the brace factory installed. All the paper work is going to say it is in fact a pistol and I'd really like to see ATF try to argue it's not. A good lawyer would have a field day with that.

 

[Norm0931]

All the prosecution will do is show a person shouldering the exact same firearm with a stock and then show them with the SIG brace. When they look identical they're going to win. What is the defense gonna say in rebuttal? That the defendant was just too stupid to strap it to their arm?

 

[locobob]

I can put a Glock up to my shoulder too, does that make it an SBR? The ATF's logic is flawed and without precedent, I don't see them winning this one.

 

[locobob]

The defense will present the legal paper trail as evidence, advertised as pistol, sold as pistol, ATF approval letter to Sig etc. etc.

 

[jbett98]

Take a look at the new MPX rifle Sig has designed.
Sure looks like a suppressor's mono core to me and the ATBF thinks so too.
Here's a write up by The Truth about Guns.



When SIG SAUER introduced the MPX (their 9mm MP5 replacement), the plan was to have a long "muzzle brake" permanently attached to the end of the barrel to produce a "rifle" variant for civilian sales. The gun doesn't run with long barrels, so it was the only viable solution to allow people to use a stock on their MPX. But there was also a trick: the muzzle brake could be turned into the baffle stack for a silencer by purchasing a proprietary shroud that only SIG can produce, which is legally registered as a silencer, and then affixing it to the gun. The ATF didn't like that and classified the whole thing as a silencer, even the bare muzzle brake. SIG called bullbubblegum and sued the ATF. Now it looks like that lawsuit is on hold, pending a re-examination . . .


While I'd love nothing more than to see the ATF taken to the judicial woodshed, second place is still good enough. In this case second place is that the ATF rescinds their classification and the MPX with a gigantic muzzle brake goes on sale as planned. According to SeaCoastOnline.com, it looks like SIG SAUER has agreed to put its lawsuit on hold while the ATF gets a chance to re-consider their position and decide if they would rather back down or be beaten in court.

By agreement, approved by the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire, Sig will "stay" it's lawsuit against the ATF until Sept. 17. In the meantime, both sides agree, Sig will send the ATF a sample of its muzzle brake for review and the ATF will issue a ruling, its third, by Aug. 6.

Faced with the federal lawsuit, which also names U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as a defendant, the U.S. Attorney's office notified Sig that it would reconsider its two prior decisions that call Sig's muzzle brake an item "intended only for use" when making a silencer. The ATF asked the federal court to give it time to "review the matter and issue a new decision," according to court records.

Terms of an agreement, filed with the federal court, say that if the ATF's decision is agreeable to Sig, the Newington firearms manufacturer "will have obtained the relive sought without further litigation," If the ATF again rules that Sig's product is a silencer component, the federal civil suit will proceed, according to the agreement approved by federal Judge Paul Barbadaro.

SIG will win this legal battle one way or another, its just a matter of time and money. Some of my sources are telling me that in the wake of the Abramski Supreme Court case, the ATF is feeling a bit more froggy and might be going after other technically legal business practices in the near future under the guise of "public safety," but I'm betting they will try to avoid picking fights with better funded legal teams in the future.

 

[Norm0931]

The defense will present the legal paper trail as evidence, advertised as pistol, sold as pistol, ATF approval letter to Sig etc. etc.

Then they say you redesigned it as an sbr utilizing the brace as a stock. You seriously can't be so blind to not see people were abusing the shady legality of the brace.

It does continually prove that the industry and owners will always find a way to skirt laws. They really need to remove SBR's, SBS's, and suppressors from the NFA list. There is just no reason to have them on their anymore.

 

[jluck]

If the brace was only 50 bucks like it should be I see going with it but if your paying 140 for one (and another 50 for a extended tube) why not just go with a legal SBR? Sixty more dollars to have a real stock and adjustable or folder if desired... I'll spend the extra 60.

 

[IronMonster]

Well it has only been recently that SBR's where allowed at all in Washington. And still it is a major hassle to buy and sell NFA items.

 

[jluck]

Well it has only been recently that SBR's where allowed at all in Washington. And still it is a major hassle to buy and sell NFA items.

True dat. I forget about you guys.

 

[locobob]

Then they say you redesigned it as an sbr utilizing the brace as a stock. You seriously can't be so blind to not see people were abusing the shady legality of the brace.

It does continually prove that the industry and owners will always find a way to skirt laws. They really need to remove SBR's, SBS's, and suppressors from the NFA list. There is just no reason to have them on their anymore.

I'm not blind at all, the ATF was dumb enough to approve it and now they are trying to reel it back in with ridiculous arguments. If the ATF is able to get away with gun handling as a method of "redesign" then we are all in a world of hurt. Does shooting a rifle with one hand magically transform it into a pistol? Parts make the gun, period, that's how it has to be. And yes I fully agree on your last statement, the NFA needs some serious amending.

 

[SCARed]

With all the YouTube vids and pics flooding the internet of people shouldering them, combined with dealers and forums selling them as "stocks", it was only time before it came to the ATFs attention that 90%+ of people bought them as "stocks" and NOT arm braces.
Even gun magazines had articles with pics of them being shouldered.

 

[IronMonster]

With all the YouTube vids and pics flooding the internet of people shouldering them, combined with dealers and forums selling them as "stocks", it was only time before it came to the ATFs attention that 90%+ of people bought them as "stocks" and NOT arm braces.
Even gun magazines had articles with pics of them being shouldered.

Well, yeah. Partly because the ATF had issued a letter stating that it was ok to shoulder one.

Max, the ATF guy who wrote the latest letter, is the same guy who hung David Olofson on the malfunctioning AR being a full auto. He sounds like he is in charge of seeing how ridiculous of rulings he can get to stand.

 

[slimmer13]

I just "redesigned" my AR pistol into a back scratcher. Ha atf

 

[Norm0931]

I'm not blind at all, the ATF was dumb enough to approve it and now they are trying to reel it back in with ridiculous arguments. If the ATF is able to get away with gun handling as a method of "redesign" then we are all in a world of hurt. Does shooting a rifle with one hand magically transform it into a pistol? Parts make the gun, period, that's how it has to be. And yes I fully agree on your last statement, the NFA needs some serious amending.

The approval was based upon intent. IO don't know if gun owners have had their heads in the sand, but ATF does this all the time. They literally went and knocked on doors when they up and decided you couldn't own a street sweeper anymore with registering it as a DD. They said you could shoulder it if the INTENT was to create a pistol with an arm brace. When you INTEND to shoulder it, it's not an arm brace anymore, it's a stock. Our justice system is based not only on what is written, but also what the average citizen believes to be true and accurate. Even the average gun owner knows people were circumventing the NFA.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...arged-owning-sbr-pistol-brace-equipped-ar-15/

Less than a day and charges are already filed on one guy.

Update: Seems the lower receiver in the above incident in Cali was previously designated as a rifle and therefore was illegally converted (once a rifle, always a rifle). So that charge was unrelated to the SIG brace.