theblakester
Got a black belt in keeping it real.
LSB TURKEY BUZZARD PRESERVATION SOCIETY
SUS VENATOR CLUB
LoneStarBoars Supporter
ATF new ruling on sig pistol brace
- Thread starter theblakester
- Start date
Saw that, now there are 2 letters from the ATF, one saying it is OK and the other not...sounds to me like I really don't care when they cannot give the same answer twice on the same question. Fact is the NFA on SBR and suppressors is all outdated and needs to be done away with!
I would guess that the latest letter negates the former letter.
Since the letter hold no enforcement role, I would say they would have to revise a current ruling or make a determination to make it now against the rules since it was OK before...anyway, never have had ATF on my lease but other ABC agencies folks really like shooting my new SBX Brace at the range.
I would say that this letter has as much enforcement role as the first letter to Sgt. Bradley that everyone took to say that Sig Saur arm brace SBRs were 100% okay. Sounds like the ATF reversed their position. Given the current letter, I would not bet my legal position on the Sgt. Bradley letter.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...atf-confirms-firing-ar-15-pistol-shoulder-ok/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...atf-confirms-firing-ar-15-pistol-shoulder-ok/
is this a law or a letter to an individual to answer his question. actually,same as the first letter. does the guy that signed the letters make the laws or does he even have to power to officially define the laws ?? I'm with frank in his above. i will continue to hold and shoot my ar/pistols in the manner that i desire to. this,without any changes made to the frame which i bought stripped,that had never been a rifle,or the sig brace which i legally installed.
over and out !! ---- pruhdlr
over and out !! ---- pruhdlr
Well let's just out in the open and see what happens. Make a nice video and post it to Vimeo or Youtube documenting the current behavior currently viewed by the ATF as not being legal without proper paperwork. I will even help set up the crowdfunding for your defense if you are charged. Crowdfunding seems to be all the rage these days. No doubt we can get you well funded.
That would probably be a very bad idea. Better to let some schmuck elsewhere be the test case and just lay low in the mean time and not draw attention to yourselves by thumbing your noses at the ATF.
That would probably be a very bad idea. Better to let some schmuck elsewhere be the test case and just lay low in the mean time and not draw attention to yourselves by thumbing your noses at the ATF.
Brian, it was just a letter, one guys thoughts on the subject and was not even the same thoughts by another staff member. Who knows who wrote the letter, probably the secretary. It was nothing official, making new rules or laws...It was just a letter in response to a question.
I don't mind people spending their $ for a SBR but to me it is pretty silly unless you are a LEO or Military using it for a duty weapon. The glee and happiness I see people delighting in the Sig Brace question is really unbecoming to fellow gun owners.
I don't mind people spending their $ for a SBR but to me it is pretty silly unless you are a LEO or Military using it for a duty weapon. The glee and happiness I see people delighting in the Sig Brace question is really unbecoming to fellow gun owners.
Brian, it was just a letter, one guys thoughts on the subject and was not even the same thoughts by another staff member. Who knows who wrote the letter, probably the secretary. It was nothing official, making new rules or laws...It was just a letter in response to a question.
I don't mind people spending their $ for a SBR but to me it is pretty silly unless you are a LEO or Military using it for a duty weapon. The glee and happiness I see people delighting in the Sig Brace question is really unbecoming to fellow gun owners.
I don't mind people spending their $ for a SBR but to me it is pretty silly unless you are a LEO or Military using it for a duty weapon. The glee and happiness I see people delighting in the Sig Brace question is really unbecoming to fellow gun owners.
Here you go a clear answer and you brace owners are OK, you intended to build a pistol right?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...hasnt-changed/
The National Firearms Act is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the world ever. And I don’t just mean that in terms of infringing on our Second Amendment rights, I mean that grammatically as well. The law is as clear as mud, sometimes when it comes to relatively straightforward questions. Once again we seem to have run headlong into an issue that the NFA doesn’t clearly spell out. In this case, the ATF appears to have told someone that using the pistol brace “improperly” makes it an SBR. And while that is 100 percent true for that person, the ATF isn’t “reversing their decision.” The letter makes perfect sense, and it’s fully consistent with past communications. Here’s why . . .
I have had the benefit of spending some time with legal counsel, experts in this matter, as well as a Cuban Missile Crisis style conversation that…didn’t…happen with an ATF agent in the last few hours. As a result, things have been clearing up for me. The difference here, and why Alex Bosco’s letter doesn’t jibe with this latest one, is intent.
When Alex originally submitted his letter asking for approval of the pistol brace, he intended it to be used as just that: a brace for attaching AR-style pistols to an arm. The device is intended to allow someone to fire an AR pistol with one hand, a definition that is just peachy keen and in no way falls under the National Firearms Act. The important thing to remember here is that intent matters — Alex intended to make a brace specifically designed to allow people to fire a pistol with one hand.
Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, “pistol” is defined as:
… 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).
Intent plays a huge part in that definition, too, which is the problem — both for us and the ATF. The NFA talks about design details in this definition, but the biggest part of that statement is about intent. Since there is no way to factually determine intent in most cases, they default to a generally permissive status. If you say you intend to make a pistol, we believe you. Which is what they said in their next letter.
A little later, a letter came out from a police officer asking what they should do if they see someone using the pistol brace in a manner other than the way it was intended — if a firearm that is designed and intended to be used with one hand changes classification when used improperly. The answer was from the ATF was no, since the firearm was intended to be used as a pistol it is indeed a pistol no matter how the end user actually uses it. The same goes for individual manufacturers (those building an AR in their basement from parts). If they intend to build a pistol then a pistol they have built.
The issue apparently with this most recent letter is that the person writing it didn’t understand this nuanced point of law and basically outed himself to the ATF. It appears that he tipped his hand, telling them what he really wanted was a short barreled rifle, and was intending to build the firearm for that purpose.
Since he would be the manufacturer of that firearm, it would be what he intended it to be. In this case, a short barreled rifle. The issue is that the ATF’s tech branch aren’t exactly wordsmiths, and they produced a letter that contained all of the relevant facts and responses, but wasn’t exactly reader friendly. The following is a paraphrased version of the letter that might make a little more sense to the lay person, and including the previous letters’ rulings:
You asked if building an AR pistol with a SB-15 brace required a Form 1 as a Short Barreled Rifle. If you build the pistol as described and intend to use it as a pistol, then it does not require a From 1 and is just a pistol. If you intend to build a pistol and it is improperly used from time to time, that’s OK. If you intend to build the firearm to be a Short Barreled Rifle and use the pistol brace as a stock, then you intend to build an SBR and that requires a Form 1 and a tax stamp. If you intend to build a small gun designed to be fired from the shoulder, that is an SBR no matter what parts you use.
Robert’s article said that the ATF has “reversed” itself, and that’s not really true. This latest ruling is 100% consistent and in-line with everything else that has come before it. The entire reason we have the pistol brace and can use it in the manner to which we are accustomed is this idea of intent, and so long as the intent is to build a pistol when installing the brace there is no problem.
The moral of the story, once again, is that intent matters when “manufacturing” your firearm (which, in NFA speak, means assembling or altering the gun ). If you intend to make a SB-15-based pistol as a pistol, you are in the clear. But if you telegraph your intention to make an SBR by informing the ATF in writing that you plan to build it and not file any paperwork, expect the ATF to object no matter what parts you use.
In short, this guy basically sent a love note to the ATF letting them know that he was about to build an unregistered SBR. As long as you intend to make a pistol and don’t go sending superfluous letters, you should be just fine.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...hasnt-changed/
The National Firearms Act is one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of the world ever. And I don’t just mean that in terms of infringing on our Second Amendment rights, I mean that grammatically as well. The law is as clear as mud, sometimes when it comes to relatively straightforward questions. Once again we seem to have run headlong into an issue that the NFA doesn’t clearly spell out. In this case, the ATF appears to have told someone that using the pistol brace “improperly” makes it an SBR. And while that is 100 percent true for that person, the ATF isn’t “reversing their decision.” The letter makes perfect sense, and it’s fully consistent with past communications. Here’s why . . .
I have had the benefit of spending some time with legal counsel, experts in this matter, as well as a Cuban Missile Crisis style conversation that…didn’t…happen with an ATF agent in the last few hours. As a result, things have been clearing up for me. The difference here, and why Alex Bosco’s letter doesn’t jibe with this latest one, is intent.
When Alex originally submitted his letter asking for approval of the pistol brace, he intended it to be used as just that: a brace for attaching AR-style pistols to an arm. The device is intended to allow someone to fire an AR pistol with one hand, a definition that is just peachy keen and in no way falls under the National Firearms Act. The important thing to remember here is that intent matters — Alex intended to make a brace specifically designed to allow people to fire a pistol with one hand.
Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), 27 C.F.R. § 479.11, “pistol” is defined as:
… 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).
Intent plays a huge part in that definition, too, which is the problem — both for us and the ATF. The NFA talks about design details in this definition, but the biggest part of that statement is about intent. Since there is no way to factually determine intent in most cases, they default to a generally permissive status. If you say you intend to make a pistol, we believe you. Which is what they said in their next letter.
A little later, a letter came out from a police officer asking what they should do if they see someone using the pistol brace in a manner other than the way it was intended — if a firearm that is designed and intended to be used with one hand changes classification when used improperly. The answer was from the ATF was no, since the firearm was intended to be used as a pistol it is indeed a pistol no matter how the end user actually uses it. The same goes for individual manufacturers (those building an AR in their basement from parts). If they intend to build a pistol then a pistol they have built.
The issue apparently with this most recent letter is that the person writing it didn’t understand this nuanced point of law and basically outed himself to the ATF. It appears that he tipped his hand, telling them what he really wanted was a short barreled rifle, and was intending to build the firearm for that purpose.
Since he would be the manufacturer of that firearm, it would be what he intended it to be. In this case, a short barreled rifle. The issue is that the ATF’s tech branch aren’t exactly wordsmiths, and they produced a letter that contained all of the relevant facts and responses, but wasn’t exactly reader friendly. The following is a paraphrased version of the letter that might make a little more sense to the lay person, and including the previous letters’ rulings:
You asked if building an AR pistol with a SB-15 brace required a Form 1 as a Short Barreled Rifle. If you build the pistol as described and intend to use it as a pistol, then it does not require a From 1 and is just a pistol. If you intend to build a pistol and it is improperly used from time to time, that’s OK. If you intend to build the firearm to be a Short Barreled Rifle and use the pistol brace as a stock, then you intend to build an SBR and that requires a Form 1 and a tax stamp. If you intend to build a small gun designed to be fired from the shoulder, that is an SBR no matter what parts you use.
Robert’s article said that the ATF has “reversed” itself, and that’s not really true. This latest ruling is 100% consistent and in-line with everything else that has come before it. The entire reason we have the pistol brace and can use it in the manner to which we are accustomed is this idea of intent, and so long as the intent is to build a pistol when installing the brace there is no problem.
The moral of the story, once again, is that intent matters when “manufacturing” your firearm (which, in NFA speak, means assembling or altering the gun ). If you intend to make a SB-15-based pistol as a pistol, you are in the clear. But if you telegraph your intention to make an SBR by informing the ATF in writing that you plan to build it and not file any paperwork, expect the ATF to object no matter what parts you use.
In short, this guy basically sent a love note to the ATF letting them know that he was about to build an unregistered SBR. As long as you intend to make a pistol and don’t go sending superfluous letters, you should be just fine.
theblakester
Got a black belt in keeping it real.
LSB TURKEY BUZZARD PRESERVATION SOCIETY
SUS VENATOR CLUB
LoneStarBoars Supporter
This is freakin hilarious. http://m.imgur.com/a/gLBU5
https://www.facebook.com/thetruthaboutguns/posts/801022403298522
https://www.facebook.com/thetruthaboutguns/posts/801022403298522
DaveABQ
Albuquerque, NM
the ruling hasn't really changed, it has always been intent
of course I have a leg (or arm) up on others, having MS and motor function problems in my right arm as well as loss of feeling, I have shot my arm brace with just my left arm, not the most comfortable or accurate, but an option when it no longer works...
realistically, if you want an SBR, just do the paperwork and spend the $200...
of course I have a leg (or arm) up on others, having MS and motor function problems in my right arm as well as loss of feeling, I have shot my arm brace with just my left arm, not the most comfortable or accurate, but an option when it no longer works...
realistically, if you want an SBR, just do the paperwork and spend the $200...
realistically,do the paperwork,one or more times,spend the $200+,wait the 6+ months,sign a big part of your rights away,plan to never hunt with friends out of state(i live within 9 miles of the Ala. border),and fly waaaaaaay above the radar.
this isn't for me. not now,not ever. --- pruhdlr
this isn't for me. not now,not ever. --- pruhdlr
theblakester
Got a black belt in keeping it real.
LSB TURKEY BUZZARD PRESERVATION SOCIETY
SUS VENATOR CLUB
LoneStarBoars Supporter
If this bill passes, it will mean no more dealing with ATF and tax stamps for suppressors. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HB00176I.htm
RattlesnakeDan
San Antonio Texas
LSB TURKEY BUZZARD PRESERVATION SOCIETY
SUS VENATOR CLUB
LoneStarBoars Supporter
After reading that proposal the first thing that comes to mind is that Texas is a great place to be free. That being said, the fact that we need bills like this to protect our 2nd amend. rights against (from) the Federal Govt is a jacked up mess our country is in.