The letter is actually bad news for anyone into the arm braces thing. ATF has clearly backtracked, you can have a arm brace but you can only use it as a arm brace and not a shoulder stock at this point.

 

You can still shoulder a sig brace. This letter only applies to the new blade brace. So they haven't really backtracked on anything.

 

This is why I spent the whole $200 on the SBR stamp.

 

Don't think they can change their mind on that too if so inclined?

FWIW, I didn't spend $200 on a stamp because I was trying to save money. My pistol allows me much more freedom than your SBR.

 

This, actual use vs the design's intent, is a backtrack, in addition to the previous shotgun denial on the sig brace. If you are using a Sig brace from the shoulder you are likely doing something unlawful from the ATF's current point of view. If you have a opinion letter addressed to yourself it is unlikely you would be prosecuted or convicted. How this will likely play out is someone with a Sig brace that is concerned now will seek their own opinion letter and it will come back similar to this one a couple months from now.

 

If someone writes the ATF asking for individual permission, they're stupid.

This isn't a backtrack on the Sig brace, it's a whole new opinion on a new product

And the shotgun brace was a no-brainer because shotguns don't require a buffer tube nor can they be considered a pistol. Totally different

 

I would guess that with the number of these being introduced they will publish a general ruling that covers all arm braces and what is legal and what is not legal to do with them so that they do not have to have any more letters floating around,

 

ATF doesn't "rule" anything. Those letters are opinion pieces just like this interweb post you're reading right now. Have there been any court cases involving an arm brace yet?

 

Did not say they ruled anything but they do publish rulings

ATF Rulings
ATF publishes rulings to promote uniform application of the laws and regulations it administers. Rulings interpret the requirements of laws and regulations and apply retroactively unless otherwise indicated. Rulings do not have the force and effect of Department of Justice regulations, but they may be used as precedents. In applying published rulings, the effect of subsequent legislation, regulations, court decisions, and rulings must be considered. Concerned parties are cautioned against reaching the same conclusions in other cases unless the facts and circumstances are substantially the same.

 

I don't see any backtrack here. That Shotgun was illegal regardless of the brace. It's a non-factor in the discussion. This new "brace" is one hell of a stretch IMO. I'm surprised it was ok'd to begin with. That's not a brace anymore than a stock is, hence the intent clarification. Friction? Really? ATF letters are specific to the exact product mentioned in the letter. I doubt anything will change with the Sig braces. Now they may become more strict on future products, but that's another issue.

 

Nothing to worry about. As mentioned already all decision letters apply to specific products and their uses and the decisions are based on the design.

 

I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Until the ATF releases a letter saying we can't shoulder fire the Sig brace specifically, I'll be just fine. I had my doubts about the sig brace until I shot one. I'll run it until the nanny-staters at the ATF decree I am required to get a stamp. Honestly the phase5 tube I bought doesn't seem too bad with just the foam on it. I'm going to try and run it like that at least once for kicks and giggles.

 

I'm just playing semantics - I object to their choice of words. I get riled up over the word "submit" when it's used by a government agency... just me being picky I guess.

 

I'd feel better if they had to send out a representative to officially kiss my *** once my stamp was approved.

 

Sorry, I must have misread. I only sleep a few hours a night which I'm good with, but my 7 month old is teething with an ear infection so I got a broken up 90 minutes of sleep last night so I'm a little Derp today

 

My 11 month old is doing the same thing. It sucks not sleeping for solid blocks of time.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear. I didn't intend to imply anything about backtracking on the SB15.

What I said was they ruled the SB15 was legal because of how it was designed, not how it was actually used. With this product, the actual use instead of the intended use comes into play...which is different than how they responded to the specific question about shouldering a SB15 equipped AR pistol.

I'll keep my two pistol lowers around to use if needed, but I've already bought another lower and will file another F1 this week with the upper currently on one of the pistols. I just don't enjoy the pistols near as much.

It does make one wonder how they rule the next iteration if sig redesigns it again.

 

It would not really change anything. All the braces were determined to be OK for pistols, just having the brace installed it stays a pistol. Individuals that submitted letters about shouldering the pistol brace were initially told it was OK. The ATF has obviously changed stances since then. That is the problem, the letters only apply to the person to whom they were written to, so unless you have a individual letter addressed to yourself you are really in a gray area now.

 

The problem is law enforcement is not supposed to make laws nor rulings on what is or isn't legal. The ATF trys to exercises a bit too much power. There is no ruling until it comes from a court. That said, unfortunately many judges will hold the ATF's ever changing opinion on these infringements in high regard, so be careful.

 

And now they've gone back and actually reversed their opinion of the SB15.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...14/12/robert-farago/atf-dont-use-sig-brace-as-shoulder-stock-without-nfa-stamp/

 

Of course they did I just bought one. [emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36][emoji36]

 

Saw that one coming. Not sure how they would ever prove it but I bet ranges start outlawing them or at least shoulder them.

 

Meh, unless the ATF made a hard rule that shouldering is illegal I don't see ranges outlawing shouldering a arm brace equipped pistol. Even if they did I would think it would be very limited on what ranges said anything at all.

 

There's also a decent amount of duscussion going around that the second letter is a fake/hoax.

 

Someone raised a good question on arfcom:

So if someone walked into a gun store and asked to see a SIG pistol with the brace and then shouldered it the way people do to see if a gun fits them (not even knowing the law or anything) that person just manufactured an unregistered class 3 weapon and if they hand it back to the gun shop owner he is then in possession of said weapon....

I imagine Sig is going to litigate this if they can't persuade the ATF.

I don't see how this interpretation can stand. If I shoulder a bare pistol buffer tube, does that turn my pistol into a rifle?

Does a two-handed grip turn a pistol into a rifle?

Does butt stroking something with my AR turn the AR into a hammer?

Edit: Check out the typos: "used as a should stock", "this assemble would constitute"

Possible fake? Some guy on Facebook gave this to The Truth About Guns.

 

Check out the typos: "used as a should stock", "this assemble would constitute"

Possible fake? Some guy on Facebook gave this to The Truth About Guns.

Good points.

Also, the letterhead looks different. It refers to a lower receiver as a "frame". And since when does the ATF recommend checking local ordinances? lol

 

Good as time as any to start dismantling the NFA, if we have to do it one step at a time. A stock on a short rifle / pistol is no more or less dangerous than any other rifle / pistol. A non NFA item that could now be NFA depending on how one holds it, has proven to be no more dangerous since it has been legal.

Good time to start dismantling the NFA infringements! I like many of our NFA dealers, they help us navigate government infringement, but I hope they eventually have to find a new line of work that is not making money on the infringement of our rights.

 

hmm I guess it's time for folks to stop posting pics etc.

 

Pics of the pistol are fine. But probably not a good idea to post pics of you shouldering it, at least not until this gets settled one way or the other.

This letter will have unintended consequences (hopefully one of which is a movement to repeal the NFA or at least the SBR provision).

 

I'd like to see silencers sold with ever firearm. The NFA branch its a joke at best. Hopefully one day we well all have our rights back.

 

I think I've seen that before. Remember, even a SBR (approved by the ATF) is not legal in some states.

We need to take note of the lgbt community using equal protection. States having to honor gay marriages from other states. Why have we not pushed hard enough for this for out of state concealed carry permits? Bearing arms is a specific constitutional right, yet marriage is not.

 

Sold out.

 

You're a little late to the party.

http://www.carolinashootersclub.com...m/forum/threads/seems-that-the-atf-is-reversing-course-on-the-sig-brace.186118/

 

sold out

 

OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF "STABILIZING BRACES"

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as "stabilizing braces." These devices are described as "a shooter's aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols." The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator's forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.

The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines "firearm," in relevant part, as "a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length" and "a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length." That section defines both "rifle" and "shotgun" as "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder…." (Emphasis added).

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA "firearm." For example, inRevenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols "having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed" were each classified as a "short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act."

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.

In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a "shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand." When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, "the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder." In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed-to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand-the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any "weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder," any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term "redesign" and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. "Redesign" is defined as "to alter the appearance or function of." See e.g. Webster's II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an "any other weapon."

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither "designed" nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a "redesign" of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at fire_tech@atf.gov or by phone at (304) 616-4300.

Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division

 

Looks like they want there $200 tax. Boo thanks Anthony dhead.