Open Letter on the Redesign of "Stabilizing Braces"

[jkeys]

Might I suggest updating your avatar.

We lost.

On the contrary, we haven't lost. The Sig brace is either a stock or it isn't. Imaginary "redesign" will not hold up in courts. Otherwise if I shoot my rifle without the stock touching my shoulder I have just created a AOW. If I shoot a pistol with two hands I have created a AOW. If I shoot a Sig arm brace as intended with a second hand on the gun I have created an AOW. The ATF cannot pick and choose how to apply the law based on the convenience as to how it fits their agenda, that is called arbitrary and capriciousa and won't hold up in court. Their only legal recourse is to classify the brace as a stock, anything else would require a new law to be passed.

 

[Pmbspyder]

Agree with jkeys. At this point, the only way to put the genie back in the bottle is to reclassify it as a stock outright.

Everyone will deal with this new "opinion" how they see fit. Remember, we're all on the same side here. Seeing gun owners infight is the ****ing worst.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Ummmm...

I meant we lost the 2012 election.

Update avatar to 2017.

 

[jkeys]

Ummmm...

I meant we lost the 2012 election.

Update avatar to 2017.

Ah, that makes more sense now...

 

[lilgibby]

I don't remember how to change it and to be honest I don't care enough to look into how to change it either.

 

[Independence]

The ATF has two problems as I see it, both will result in lawsuits.

1. The ATF cannot label the Sig Brace a stock. Why? They would run afoul of the ADA by limiting access to disabled people a right because of administrative fiat. That means the ATF will be sued in court and have to show how they came to the conclusion that a brace used to fire a firearm is a stock. They would either have to make AR pistols illegal (I'm not sure how that turd will float) or allow the brace. Which brings up the second problem.

2. The ATF fell into a trap as their definition of shouldering a stock falls outside of the law from what I can find.
18 U.S.C. § 921
(29) The term "handgun" means -
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be
held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in
subparagraph (A) can be assembled

Adding a stock to a pistol doesn't make it a SBR according to the law since it was made as a pistol per the law.

The term “short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.

Nothing in the law states about using the gun in any manner that I can see.

There is a place for someone with deep pockets to sue the ATF on grounds that their ruling is arbitrary and they can get the entire "pistols become sbrs with a stock" ******** thrown out just by making the ATF show up on the stand and explain themselves.

"I know it when I see it" shouldn't be the law.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

I don't remember how to change it and to be honest I don't care enough to look into how to change it either.

I understand and I was joking.

Just a reminder of a loss that should have been a win.

Fingers crossed for '16.

 

[Evojoeix]

so i understand that the ruling from the letter probably wont hold up in court and all that, so where does leave us today or until a law is made?

can we shoot from the shoulder or is it illegal?

 

[erwos]

The ATF has two problems as I see it, both will result in lawsuits.

You really need to read the letter. They did not ban the brace when being used as a brace, and they specifically address why they have the ability to define "design" as they please.

so i understand that the ruling from the letter probably wont hold up in court and all that, so where does leave us today or until a law is made?

It will absolutely hold up in court. Your average gun owner doesn't know a damn thing about federal firearms law, and most of the people opining on this are under seriously misguided impressions of how judges make rulings. It's not even clear to me that most of these people even read the letter, as per the quote above. Whining that a regulation is "arbitrary" is evidence that most people are missing the point - the ATF can essentially make all the arbitrary rulings they want within their own regulatory sphere, and are only constrained by explictly-written law.

can we shoot from the shoulder or is it illegal?

As per this ATF advisory, the ATF would charge you with possession of an SBR if you did so. You want to call them on whether they could make that stick, it's going to take a court case.

 

[lilgibby]

I understand and I was joking.

Just a reminder of a loss that should have been a win.

Fingers crossed for '16.

I think were all praying for the republican messiah to appear, so to speak.

 

[Evojoeix]

so let me ask you this, is it legal to shoulder an AR pistol with nothing but the buffer tube?

 

[Independence]

You really need to read the letter, rather than assume you know what it says. They did not ban the brace when being used as a brace, and they specifically address why they have the ability to define "design" as they please.

I did read the letter. I see that they didn't ban it as a brace and explained my thoughts on why they won't change their ruling on the Sig brace.

If the ATF go after someone for shouldering a sig brace without the person altering the Sig brace IN ANY WAY, they are opening themselves to be sued and having to explain themselves in court why shouldering a pistol, any pistol, is a federal crime. I don't believe they want to bring that to court.

The ATF wins because they think their word is unchallengeable. Gun owners bitch and moan at people sending letters asking about this and that because they don't have a lot of money to fight this in court if they get the book thrown at them by the feds. People should be pissed at the ATF for not allowing pistols to have stocks attached. It's not in the law.

 

[erwos]

so let me ask you this, is it legal to shoulder an AR pistol with nothing but the buffer tube?

I have not seen an ATF letter on that either way. I've always found the practice of putting a padded cover on pistol tubes to be suspect, personally.

 

[erwos]

If the ATF go after someone for shouldering a sig brace without the person altering the Sig brace IN ANY WAY, they are opening themselves to be sued and having to explain themselves in court why shouldering a pistol, any pistol, is a federal crime. I don't believe they want to bring that to court.

How much of your own money are you willing to bet on that belief? I sure as heck wouldn't put much down on it, and I'm one of the guys who thinks 922r and constructive possession are essentially unenforceable paper tigers. Personally, I think the BATFE is super-pissed at Sig for misrepresenting what their "brace" was really going to be used for. Making an example out of someone would sure seem to be a way of showing that displeasure. They wouldn't even need to take it all the way - just charging and then settling would do it.

The ATF wins because they think their word is unchallengeable.

No, the ATF wins because no one cares to spend a million bucks fighting a lawsuit that the end user is unlikely to win. The federal judiciary is extremely deferential to the powers of federal agencies to regulate, so long as they stay within the bounds of the law's scope giving them that ability. Unless the ATF has stepped outside that scope, they are very very likely to win.

 

[fred333]

You really need to read the letter. They did not ban the brace when being used as a brace, and they specifically address why they have the ability to define "design" as they please.
It will absolutely hold up in court. Your average gun owner doesn't know a damn thing about federal firearms law, and most of the people opining on this are under seriously misguided impressions of how judges make rulings. It's not even clear to me that most of these people even read the letter, as per the quote above. Whining that a regulation is "arbitrary" is evidence that most people are missing the point - the ATF can essentially make all the arbitrary rulings they want within their own regulatory sphere, and are only constrained by explictly-written law.
As per this ATF advisory, the ATF would charge you with possession of an SBR if you did so. You want to call them on whether they could make that stick, it's going to take a court case.

This is my understanding as well.

The difference between us and criminals is that, like it or not, we do out best to follow the law. Questioning the law is one thing, but to disobey the law on the [theoretical] grounds that some future court ruling will change the law seems, to me at least, misguided.

The day I received the letter, I sent the author a polite missive thanking him for taking the time to consider this issue, but requesting that he reconsider his decision on the basis that it'll affect only the law-abiding and not the criminal culture, whose activities the NFA was intended to restrict.

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

This is my understanding as well.

The difference between us and criminals is that, like it or not, we do out best to follow the law. Questioning the law is one thing, but to disobey the law on the [theoretical] grounds that some future court ruling will change the law seems, to me at least, misguided.

The day I received the letter, I sent the author a polite missive thanking him for taking the time to consider this issue, but requesting that he reconsider his decision on the basis that it'll affect only the law-abiding and not the criminal culture, whose activities the NFA was intended to restrict.

Greatest lie ever told. Laws aren't meant to restrict criminals. Especially not NFA laws.

 

[fred333]

Every "do good" law has two backers--a do-gooder and a special interest group.
Once the law becomes a law, the do-gooder moves on to the next "do-good" issue and the special interest group starts raking in the cash.

That said, I doubt the ATF views themselves as the latter. Therefore, there's nothing to be gained by poking the bear. Instead, as Mao correctly stated, "You can catch more flies with honey than with a fly swatter." Think about it..

 

[Irish64]

so let me ask you this, is it legal to shoulder an AR pistol with nothing but the buffer tube?

This was going to be my question too... I never have fired one with just a tube

 

[Pmbspyder]

As per this ATF advisory, the ATF would charge you with possession of an SBR if you did so. You want to call them on whether they could make that stick, it's going to take a court case.

I don't agree with you that it's this cut and dry. I believe it's still more about intent than a piece of rubber touching your shoulder.

Everyone reading these posts needs to remember that this is the Internet. You need to do what you're comfortable with, not what gun forum posters advise. Interpret the letter how you see fit.

 

[ironpony]

Erwos, no offense meant but you seem to take great joy in being correct on something of which most knew of the outcome and Sig has stated since the first one shipped, that said may I ask what you will be predicting next?
Wow, that sounds rude, sorry I'm not always like that but would prefer gloating when the news is pro firearms rights. I don't want to piss you off but it's just the Internet and I have not earned any respect here to lose (13'er) soo ... what might we lose next so I don't buy one