PDA

View Full Version : ATF changed its mind on the sig brace again



camomike
26 December 2014, 11:34
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/robert-farago/atf-dont-use-sig-brace-as-shoulder-stock-without-nfa-stamp/

toolboxluis00200
26 December 2014, 11:42
we are our own worst enemy

voodoo_man
26 December 2014, 12:00
Posted a blog post on this.

They effectively contradicted themselves and in no way does that opinion have lower of law.

UWone77
26 December 2014, 12:04
Or... just don't buy a ridiculous Sig Brace... problem solved.

SINNER
26 December 2014, 12:07
Who honestly cares what they say at this point. The product is for sale to the public and that's it. According to those morons holding a pistol with 2 hands is improper use. This falls under the same BS as constructive possession IMO. If you wind up charged for "improper use" I would guess there are 10-15 much more severe charges before that one. Just crap charges piled on in an attempt to get something to stick.

camomike
26 December 2014, 12:08
For what $30-40 more you can file for a stamp? Never saw the point in buying the brace. Looks clumsy and uncomfortable.

UWone77
26 December 2014, 12:11
For what $30-40 more you can file for a stamp? Never saw the point in buying the brace. Looks clumsy and uncomfortable.

The Sig Brace is crap. Never liked using it when I've tried it out several times. When no one uses the product for the actual intended purpose, you'll keep seeing these opinion letters change.

Ride4frnt
26 December 2014, 12:11
...my brace is for sale y'all, buy it up. Form 1 submitted this morning.

UWone77
26 December 2014, 12:12
...my brace is for sale y'all, buy it up. Form 1 submitted this morning.

I know I just said it was crap, but how much? I've got a co-worker dying for one. [:D]

JHoward
26 December 2014, 12:12
Or just don't have stupid laws that require paying $200 and waiting 6 months for something as arbitrary as barrel length.

toolboxluis00200
26 December 2014, 12:12
For what $30-40 more you can file for a stamp? Never saw the point in buying the brace. Looks clumsy and uncomfortable.

if you need to cross state lines it comes in handy to have one

toolboxluis00200
26 December 2014, 12:13
Or just don't have stupid laws that require paying $200 and waiting 6 months for something as arbitrary as barrel length.

now is down to 45 to 50 days to get an SBR

UWone77
26 December 2014, 12:14
Or just don't have stupid laws that require paying $200 and waiting 6 months for something as arbitrary as barrel length.

Unfortunately, that's a law that's been around much longer than any of us have been. I don't see a repeal of the 1934 National Firearms Act in our lifetimes. What I can picture is a inflation adjusted tax stamp.

Ride4frnt
26 December 2014, 12:17
I know I just said it was crap, but how much? I've got a co-worker dying for one. [:D]

Will ship it for $150 with the phase 5 hex 2 tube, foam pad, castle nut, end plate, and end plug for the brace.

Ship the brace for $100

Both are brand new. Hand tightened for a pic then put back in the box.

JHoward
26 December 2014, 12:17
Yeah, it's not so much about that... How come if I want, I can have a bullpup, with terrible ergonomics and trigger, but I can't have a 10.5" AR15...

SINNER
26 December 2014, 12:32
I'm lost as to how someone can say the SigBrace does not work. Other than the adjustable LOP it works as well as any stock I own.

Guy must be soft and it hurts his shoulder....LMAO

camomike
26 December 2014, 12:43
Yup that's it alright... I'm Sen see tiv. Some would call me a delicate butterfly.

Ride4frnt
26 December 2014, 12:55
Well my brace sold locally after 5 mins...

oilspill
26 December 2014, 13:46
For what $30-40 more you can file for a stamp? Never saw the point in buying the brace. Looks clumsy and uncomfortable.

I'd rather give money to a firearms manufacturer than the government.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

DutyUse
26 December 2014, 16:08
I bought two full kits last night from Kak with adjustable LOP. Haven't tried one, but I doubt I could lose much if any $

Thompson
26 December 2014, 16:27
if you need to cross state lines it comes in handy to have one
That or laws barring SBRs.


What I can picture is a inflation adjusted tax stamp.
You know, I was thinking about this a while ago. And I was thinking to myself "at least we don't have to pay the price adjusted stamp value." This comes down to $3,524.64 in case anyone was wondering ... yeah, lets just throw that on top of a $1000+ AR ......

Ordnance
26 December 2014, 17:23
I have to say it... You ask several different people at the ATF the same question and you get several different answers and people are amazed/shocked by this why? Lol...

Thompson
26 December 2014, 17:25
I have to say it... You ask several different people at the ATF the same question and you get several different answers and people are amazed/shocked by this why? Lol...
I mean irregardless, lets be honest - we all knew this reclassification would happen at one point or another.

Former11B
26 December 2014, 18:40
I'm lost as to how someone can say the SigBrace does not work. Other than the adjustable LOP it works as well as any stock I own.

Guy must be soft and it hurts his shoulder....LMAO


I use a Sig Brace because I don't want to register a rifle with the ATF, the mere extra cost for short transfer time for an SBR has no bearing on my decision. I don't have to ask for permission to take the AR pistol out of state and they don't know how many I have.

Sure the Brace isn't adjustable but I have a buffer tube that sits it out at the same length of my adjustable stocked rifles that I set and never adjust.

Anyway, this isnt a ruling, this is one opinion for one scenario from the technology branch. And let's say they do make it "illegal" to shoulder....are ATF agents going to be popping out from behind trees waiting for people to shoulder these? If so, we have bigger issues

Dark1
26 December 2014, 19:08
http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/26/whoops-we-atf-did-it-again-arbitrary-determinations-over-the-sig-brace/

Gaspipeshooter
27 December 2014, 05:33
I've got a Sig brace on my AR pistol for the same basic reasons as Former11B, and frankly find it to be relatively comfortable to shoot. The Phase 5 Hex-2 buffer kit gives it decent LOP, and in .223/5.56 the recoil is not enough to make it uncomfortable to shoot. From a pure esthetics standpoint, it's not the most attractive accessory, but it is no uglier than some of the stocks on the market, in my opinion. While I have good intentions of doing some stamps for SBRs in the future, I don't think I'll ever be without the Sig brace equipped pistol as long as they are legal for "pistol" use.

Uffdaphil
27 December 2014, 07:08
If there is a betting pool, I'm putting $100 on the brace ending ruled legit regardless how used. Sig and others have too much invested in it and it is too popular. A new Congress and public sentiment against further abridging of gun rights may even result in some reigning in of these arbitrary bureaucrats.

But what I really don't get is all the animosity toward going the brace route over an SBR. People whose opinion I respect immensely refer to it as stupid and crap. One of my fave guys on another forum hates it for "many reasons." Yet when pressed for concrete issues, it comes down to aesthetics and no quick adjust LOP. I'm sick of listing over and over why I have not SBR'd yet, but what the hell.

Brace Con:
Too fugly. Not for me.
LOP adjust? Just set it where it's good for you and leave it. Plenty of ways to fix it in place. Is my A1 stock stupid cuz LOP is fixed?

SBR Con:
Rubs me wrong needing a colonoscopy for a gun for which I already was cleared sans stock.
Rubs me wrong informing Nanny when I want to take it where I please.
Rubs me wrong not being able to loan it out to my brother-in-law or anyone I judge to be responsible.
Getting on the priority confiscation list.
Paying for the restrictions.

And yet I will probably be getting a trust for an SBR just because they look so cool. But it won't defend me any better than the rubber contraption.

Gaspipeshooter
27 December 2014, 07:33
Well said Uffdaphil!

Ordnance
27 December 2014, 08:14
If there is a betting pool, I'm putting $100 on the brace ending ruled legit regardless how used. Sig and others have too much invested in it and it is too popular. A new Congress and public sentiment against further abridging of gun rights may even result in some reigning in of these arbitrary bureaucrats.

Unfortunately here's the flaw in that... The ATF is the one who gets the final say since the right for them to make the determination has already been legislated into their hands. Sig has already made back plus more what they put into it, and when they came up with the concept they never intended for it to be shouldered to begin with. "Intent"... that's were the law will look to if Sig were to battle it out which I doubt they will and if they do they'll lose. They're not newly abridging any gun rights because that was already done in the past by a Congress ergo why we have tax stamps.

Here's what I don't get. Anyone and everyone who ever purchased this brace KNEW it was never intended or designed to be shouldered. They got lucky and someone at the ATF decided to make a determination that it could be fired from the shoulder, so then everyone who mind us STILL KNEW it was never intended or designed to be shouldered then ran out and purchased one to try and circumvent the process and legalities of an SBR. Now, the ATF has changed their ruling probably after everyone and their brother went online saying "Look guys we can just do this and not pay a tax stamp, be able to carry it across state lines, and do 1/2 a dozen other things that we wouldn't be able to do if it was tax stamped SBR" and those same people want to act slighted and claim their rights are being infringed upon. I agree that the tax stamp and paperwork is BS and ridiculous. Hell, in Europe it's rude to shoot without a suppressor and you can pick them up at gas stations in some places, but that's not the world we live in. How about rather than people sitting around hoping they're ability to circumvent a law that was taken away will be regained by someone suing for something that had no intent to begin with... yeah how about instead there's as much effort put into trying to get that portion of law removed altogether.

Uffdaphil
27 December 2014, 08:54
I addressed your "flaw" with the new congress and public sentiment to hold their feet to the fire. What has been legislated can be re- legislated.

Ordnance
27 December 2014, 09:14
I addressed your "flaw" with the new congress and public sentiment to hold their feet to the fire. What has been legislated can be re- legislated.

Except for you're preface was with Sig taking the first step which won't likely happen for the exact reasons I outlined. And with everything that's wrong with this Country right now even if we did have a Congress that wanted to work for the people, the last thing I'm really concerned with is them trying to change an Act that has been around for 80+ years and through multiple Legislative bodies who at one time were very supportive of the 2A. I get your feelings and appreciate that you at least have hope for change. I just don't see it happening in our lifetime or for the better unfortunately.

MonkeyBomb
27 December 2014, 11:20
Off topic but I am going to push for at least a partial repeal. There is absolutely no reason for a suppressor or an SBR to be heavily regulated. Finding the right politician to bring it forward is the trick.

Ordnance
27 December 2014, 11:27
Off topic but I am going to push for at least a partial repeal. There is absolutely no reason for a suppressor or an SBR to be heavily regulated. Finding the right politician to bring it forward is the trick.

Politicians... you'll need a lot more than one to even get them to think about hearing it on the floor amidst the thousands of other Bills being pushed right now and fought ranging from Amnesty to Healthcare to other Anti-Gun Bills which believe me when I say we want them to fight those first and foremost.

Uffdaphil
27 December 2014, 12:16
[QUOTE=Ordnance;83021]Except for you're preface was with Sig taking the first step which won't likely happen for the exact reasons I outlined. And with everything that's wrong with this Country right now even if we did have a Congress that wanted to work for the people, the last thing I'm really concerned with is them trying to change an Act that has been around for 80+ years and through multiple Legislative bodies who at one time were very supportive of the 2A. I get your feelings and appreciate that you at least have hope for change. I just don't see it happening in our lifetime or for the better unfortunately.

Plenty of reasons not to be hopeful. My pessimism will take over if the Tea Party types fail to gain the conservative helm. I have zero faith in the Don't-Rock-the-Boat Repubs reining in 2A infingments much less Illegal immigration, gov healthcare, etc.

Dark1
28 December 2014, 19:15
More clarification of this last letter and it is all good news


http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/calm-pistol-brace-ruling-hasnt-changed/

Kopis
6 January 2015, 08:04
For what $30-40 more you can file for a stamp? Never saw the point in buying the brace. Looks clumsy and uncomfortable.




if you need to cross state lines it comes in handy to have one


I thought it was stupid for awhile till i actually used one. If coupled with an extended buffer tube, it's perfectly comfortable. Nothing clumsy about it to me at all. I live in AR just across from Memphis TN / southaven, MS and have family in FL so i cross a lot of state lines with great frequency. An SBR is completely useless to me. I would be writing letters weekly to the alphabet soup....

I would add that some common sense goes a long way. Get your sig brace if you like it, if you do get it, go shoot it anyway you want but don't go around posting pics of yourself shouldering it. All these gun magazine guys talking about shouldering it and people writing untold thousands of letters to the ATF when Sig already included a letter with the brace is pointless and is poking the bear so to speak.

gatordev
6 January 2015, 14:14
I thought it was stupid for awhile till i actually used one. If coupled with an extended buffer tube, it's perfectly comfortable. Nothing clumsy about it to me at all. I live in AR just across from Memphis TN / southaven, MS and have family in FL so i cross a lot of state lines with great frequency. An SBR is completely useless to me. I would be writing letters weekly to the alphabet soup....


I'm not pro or anti Brace, but in the interest of accuracy... You only have to fill out the forms once a year and you're good. A little overhead initially, but then you can just reprint the form each year and resubmit.

I understand there's many good reasons to not be into the NFA game, but just putting that out there.

Kopis
6 January 2015, 14:59
Sure, thanks for the correction. My only experience was a friend that came down from up north with his SBR. He had to get it in writing before the trip and list all the states he was traveling to he said. I didnt know the letter was valid for a year.

SBRs undoubtedly look much "cooler" but a sig brace with an Odin extended tube/octagon locking ring is close enough for me not to hassle with the paperwork. That may not be the case for others and that's ok too! Ill continue to be jealous of their much better looking SBRs lol!

gatordev
7 January 2015, 04:14
I totally understand. I just hate internet myths.

You can do it three ways: a one-time trip, a recurring trip (like if you travel to a second home), or a permanent change of address. Checking the recurring box on the form is what makes travel much easier if you're routinely going back to the same place.

Or just run what you have and not worry about it!

Kopis
19 January 2015, 09:19
i read the ATF released an open letter stating that it's illegal to shoulder the sig brace. Good thing i certainly never intend to shoulder one.

Pyzik
19 January 2015, 10:31
i read the ATF released an open letter stating that it's illegal to shoulder the sig brace. Good thing i certainly never intend to shoulder one.

Same here. I build a PISTOL not an SBR.

Kopis
19 January 2015, 11:08
All these people taking pics of themselves shouldering one are just inviting trouble. You know the law and it's certainly a grey area so why post public pictures of you dancing in the grey? i built a pistol, no more/less. Sig brace offers great stabilization!

Kopis
19 January 2015, 11:12
Here is a copy and paste of the letter:

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, in Revenue 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
-2-
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