Sig Brace illegal to shoulder

[jurassic]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but if you're interested in building a pistol with thoughts of shouldering it with a Sig Brace on it, this is a good read.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?...By-The-ATF

[KentuckyBuddha]

Looks like the ATF covered all their bases with that one.


Here is the question I am curious about. Can you shoulder an AR pistol with just the recoil tube on it and not commit a crime? You have not redesigned anything. : shrug :



That would not be enjoyable with 458 SOCOM or Beowulf but with 5.56 it is hard to imagine why you would need a stock anyway.

[jurassic]

I think that question has been asked and debated to no avail. Going toe to toe with the ATF over anything is just not worth it, the law sucks and is stupid, but it is what it is. I've ditched all plans to build a pistol with the Sig Brace. I guarantee the ATF will arrest you first and ask question later if you are caught shouldering a pistol with a Sig Brace.

[Sgt45]

As I understand this, this is an OPINION from a mid-level bureaucrat, it is not law BUT I am not an attorney, nor do I care to take on ATF. NRA should be all over this but they probably won't.

[LRRPF52]

I was thinking about intending to use my shoe laces as machineguns. I'm guilty, I admit it. I understand the ATF classified shoelaces as machinegun components, and I can see why.

I have these kinds of very disturbing thoughts all the time, with a lot of deviant intent. For example, I frequently think about using military-style rifles for sporting purposes, and sporting style rifles for military purposes.

I even had a very naughty idea to shoulder a thing that goes up one time. I think I need a lawyer.




So much intent, so much shouldering, so much crime.

[achristian8]

I do not see anything that says the ATF regulates the way you fire a gun. You can hold a rifle like a pistol so why not a pistol like a rifle?

[Drift]

Well, I had the ATF come by my house once to check on something. The visit itself was not a big deal. Making my wife cry was enough to make a man shift even further tword individual liberties. But, clearly after the visit I saw the futility of "going toe to toe" with the ATF; it did make me want to obey the law and exercise my rights to the limit of the law. That's why I'm going to build a pistol.

[MrDraco]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but if you're interested in building a pistol with thoughts of shouldering it with a Sig Brace on it, this is a good read.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?...By-The-ATF

Looks like the ATF covered all their bases with that one.

Here is the question I am curious about. Can you shoulder an AR pistol with just the recoil tube on it and not commit a crime? You have not redesigned anything. : shrug :

That would not be enjoyable with 458 SOCOM or Beowulf but with 5.56 it is hard to imagine why you would need a stock anyway.

But page 4 has this letter.

[rabiddawg]

.

Is that Donald Trump on the right?

[Variable]

I was thinking about intending to use my shoe laces as machineguns. I'm guilty, I admit it. I understand the ATF classified shoelaces as machinegun components, and I can see why.

I have these kinds of very disturbing thoughts all the time, with a lot of deviant intent. For example, I frequently think about using military-style rifles for sporting purposes, and sporting style rifles for military purposes.

I even had a very naughty idea to shoulder a thing that goes up one time. I think I need a lawyer.




So much intent, so much shouldering, so much crime.

Stop right where you are Citizen! Do not attempt to resist! The Thought Police will be along to pick you up shortly.

Only through our valiant effort at re-education can you be saved from yourself.

[jurassic]

But page 4 has this letter.

This letter supersedes all. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/...o-per-atf/

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

- See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/...ghnM2.dpuf

[MrDraco]

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).

So as long as you don't alter the appearance or function and keep it in it's manufactured state, it is legal to shoulder the brace.

[jurassic]

NO.

" 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."

[Mountain Man]

"If a shooter shoulders a Sig Brace in the woods and there is no ATF agent to witness it, is he firing a pistol?"

My next question would be whether mounting a Sig-Brace equipped AR in a lead sled would constitute use as a NFA rifle.

It's hard for me to understand how all of the contractors in the US are driving around with unregistered NFA Nailguns in their trucks. Go ahead and try to find a carpenter that hasn't jokingly sprayed a few nails by holding back the safety and pulling the trigger. They all have, it's fun and should not constitute a crime you could potentially spend 10 years in prison for.

On the same token, if I buy a big heavy Desert Eagle and only use it to drive nails, it has effectively been "redesigned" into a hammer. It only becomes a firearm when the operator inserts ammunition and fires it. (I doubt ATF would admit this, but they are also using a dictionary to define laws that they will not define.)

The real answer here is to build a pistol with brace, then send off a Form 1 on the same lower. You can enjoy your "pistol" legally (as long as you don't piss off the wrong ATF agent at the range) and in 6-12 months when your form comes back, your 100% no-doubt in the clear.

You only need one "Multi Barrel length/Caliber" Form 1 Lower receiver to run all the different short uppers your heart desires. You can only really shoot one at a time anyway. So just submit the form, pay the $200. get your lower engraved, and stop worrying.

[bwaites]

The ATF is going to get slapped down by a judge on this, who will say essentially what Mountain Man said, which is...."You don't effect a redesign simply by how it is used". His example is a perfect illustration of how the judge will rule. Its not now a hammer simply because you use it as one!

The ATF got slapped recently over an issue with Sig, and they will again on this one. Sigs lawyers have been salivating over this case to demonstrate how the ATF has run amuck, and judges are starting to figure it out as well. If we get some Congressmen with guts, the ATF might be taken back to what it really is, a taxation agency, nothing more.

[Adam Lilja]

Ya, I don't remember electing any ATF officials to create and interpret US laws.

[Buster]

On the same token, if I buy a big heavy Desert Eagle and only use it to drive nails, it has effectively been "redesigned" into a hammer.

One time I used a Craftsman crescent wrench as a hammer, (it was all I had at the time and needed to hammer), and broke it. I took it back to Sears and they gave me a new crescent wrench,,,,,although the associate did try to sell me a hammer.

[MrDraco]

NO.

" 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."

And by using this same logic, if you shoot a rifle one handed (as I've seen other people do with smaller calibers) I have thus "redesigned" the gun and legally made it into pistol. In order to redesign something, you have to physically alter it so it is made to perform differently, not simply use the item in a way the manufacture didn't intend. A wrench used as a hammer does not immediately become a hammer, it is still a wrench.

[bwaites]

And by using this same logic, if you shoot a rifle one handed (as I've seen other people do with smaller calibers) I have thus "redesigned" the gun and legally made it into pistol. In order to redesign something, you have to physically alter it so it is made to perform differently, not simply use the item in a way the manufacture didn't intend. A wrench used as a hammer does not immediately become a hammer, it is still a wrench.

Which is exactly what we can expect a judge to tell them!

[biodsl]

And what if you were to unintentionally shoulder a Thordsen buffer tube cover? It's not an arm brace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE-JYbgigVw