Open Letter on the Redesign of "Stabilizing Braces"

[IMBLITZVT]

Great, a link to a thread we're already on, and still not using English. If you have another letter or updated info, we're ready to read it.

If you figured that out, you should be able to read the first post an understand. Its kind of hard to put complex law into common English without making a mistake. I will try.

Sig Brace on Pistol, ok.

Sig Brace on Shoulder... was ok, now jail.

Now the way you shoot your 100% legal gun with no physical change can get you arrested and locked up.

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.

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.

So basically, if you shoulder the pistol's brace, it "redesigns" the brace as a stock and becomes a SBR. So the improper (alternate) use of the brace as a stock redefines the pistol into a SBR which would then be unregistered and illegal. This from the latest and most up to date letter shown on the first post of this thread.

So first the first time the use of a firearm can define what type of firearm it is. Going alone that logic a rifle held without pressing the stock to the shoulder could redefine it as a handgun. A bumpfire stock could mean its a MG. A pistol used as a hammer to beat a nail in is now a hammer. Or if used to beat someone over the head is now a club rather than a pistol...

 

[Mike OTDP]

A pistol used as a hammer to beat a nail in is now a hammer.

There's our answer. Hammers are unregulated. The fact that they are shaped like firearms is irrelevant. ATF said so.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

There's our answer. Hammers are unregulated. The fact that they are shaped like firearms is irrelevant. ATF said so.

Yes but remember if you then use the hammer as a pistol its a pistol and if you touch the pistol to your shoulder its now a SBR...

What if the ATF agent picks up your pistol and touches the sig brace to his shoulder. Then he redesigned it as a SBR but its your unregistered SBR and now illegal!

Also is it a crime in the past? You figure once the gun is put down, its back to being a pistol. Its not like stealing something in the past... ie the items are still stolen. Once you unshoulder your pistol its now back to a pistol. Courts have already ruled that you can Un-SBR a gun. So then as soon as you remove it from your shoulder you are redesigning it as a pistol and so it goes back to being legal. Seems like the only way to make it stick is to permanently attached the brace to your shoulder.

 

[protegeV]

Seems like the only way to make it stick is to permanently attached the brace to your shoulder.

There you have it

 

[Merlin593]

Still wondering what the actual law is that the ATF could charge you with for shouldering the brace? Where is the definition of "redesigning" in the NFA act?
All we have is a letter from the atf to one individual that describes an opinion...
just asking....

 

[pablo]

If you figured that out, you should be able to read the first post an understand. Its kind of hard to put complex law into common English without making a mistake. I will try.

Sig Brace on Pistol, ok.

Sig Brace on Shoulder... was ok, now jail.

Now the way you shoot your 100% legal gun with no physical change can get you arrested and locked up.





So basically, if you shoulder the pistol's brace, it "redesigns" the brace as a stock and becomes a SBR. So the improper (alternate) use of the brace as a stock redefines the pistol into a SBR which would then be unregistered and illegal. This from the latest and most up to date letter shown on the first post of this thread.

So first the first time the use of a firearm can define what type of firearm it is. Going alone that logic a rifle held without pressing the stock to the shoulder could redefine it as a handgun. A bumpfire stock could mean its a MG. A pistol used as a hammer to beat a nail in is now a hammer. Or if used to beat someone over the head is now a club rather than a pistol...

Yep, as suspected. Nothing new.

 

[traveller]

I think I get it.
If I dig a hole with an AR, I've "remanufactured" it as a shovel.
If I paddle a canoe with an AR, I've "remanufactured" it as an oar.

And if you use a hammer to bash someones head in, you have 'redesigned' it into a deadly weapon.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Still wondering what the actual law is that the ATF could charge you with for shouldering the brace? Where is the definition of "redesigning" in the NFA act?
All we have is a letter from the atf to one individual that describes an opinion...
just asking....

The ATF references the section of the NFA in their letter. ATF defines the law unless overruled by the court. So they do define what redesigning is. Don't like what they say redesign means... sue... Some have won this kind of disagreement in the past.

 

[fred333]

And if you use a hammer to bash someones head in, you have 'redesigned' it into a deadly weapon.

Yeah, but that requires a tax stamp.

 

[TheGunnyRet]

ATF does not understand English.

Start here: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=168122

This is an on going saga... he got to the end of book 3 and assumed it was the end, not know book 4 was already out.

The website I referenced is the same, and the individual carefully went through the letter, which I believe the ATF made it a cut and paste job and as noted that if you declare that you are going to use the SIG Brace as shoulder device and by submitting the Tax payment, then that is the individuals choice (Though that's not to smart)...and also How in the Hell does a "Letter" change the Law? Just because the letter is referencing a Law doesn't make it a Law. The letter would have to written and then it has to go through legislation...to many inconsistencies and innuendo within the letter IMO...

 

[Mooseman]

Reading this thread makes me really want a Sig Brace.

 

[outrider58]

So, shouldering your hammer is a no-go?

 

[Independence]

The website I referenced is the same, and the individual carefully went through the letter, which I believe the ATF made it a cut and paste job and as noted that if you declare that you are going to use the SIG Brace as shoulder device and by submitting the Tax payment, then that is the individuals choice (Though that's not to smart)...and also How in the Hell does a "Letter" change the Law? Just because the letter is referencing a Law doesn't make it a Law. The letter would have to written and then it has to go through legislation...to many inconsistencies and innuendo within the letter IMO...

Unfortunately, until someone is charged, goes to trial for shouldering a brace, and a judge can review the ATF ruling, nothing will happen. No one has any standing to challenge the ruling.

 

[5.56blaster]

So, shouldering your hammer is a no-go?

Not without a tax stamp. Do a form 1 and wait a year but I think if you remove the handle first it would be ok.

 

[traveller]

...and also How in the Hell does a "Letter" change the Law? Just because the letter is referencing a Law doesn't make it a Law. The letter would have to written and then it has to go through legislation...

An agency interpretation doesn't make a new law, but it is given much deference by the federal courts. Sometimes a smart judge says 'this is ********' and strikes down an egregiously wrong agency interpretation, but most of the time their review is limited to whether the interpretation was applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner and whether the proper process was followed to put it in place. Some of these agency interpretations are contrary to what the language of the law or their own regulation says, but until someone manages to convince a federal court of their wrongness, they stand. The FAA for example holds that it is 'compensation' if I take time out of my day to fly someone elses plane from A to B or if I take my own plane to fly a business associate from A to B even if I dont get a single penny for it.

 

[pitpawten]

Unfortunately, until someone is charged, goes to trial for shouldering a brace, and a judge can review the ATF ruling, nothing will happen. No one has any standing to challenge the ruling.

That is the whole point of this!

Its really just to scare off as many people as possible knowing no-one will want to challenge.

 

[md_al]

On the issue of "re-design"... if I fire an MP5 pistol or the VZ-61 Skorpion while holding on to the magazine to stabilize the weapon... have I re-designed the magazine into a VFG which is not legal for pistols?

This re-design thing opens a can of worms as to how we can handle legally owned firearms. The second the sig brace leaves your shoulder, it magically re-designs the firearm back to a pistol.

 

[RoboRay]

Actually, any time you hold any pistol with a second, supporting hand, you've redesigned it into an AOW according to this ATF letter.

It's going to take them a while to round up everyone who's ever held a pistol with two hands since 1934, but I'm sure they'll get on it.

 

[swinokur]

Plenty of room at Gitmo now.

 

[giggity]

I'm going to put the Sig brace on the barrel of my AR pistol and bench rest it using the Sig brace as a "stabilizing brace" lol