SB15 Brace, new ruling? Executive Action?

K

Kimio

New member
I'm a little late to the party, but I believe this "letter" that is being "discussed" was already distributed a while back.

If I'm not mistaken, this was already discussed in an older thread, that I cannot seem to find.

Reading through the linked letter, if I recall the last interpretation of it was that if you were to install the brace onto a purchased pistol or are building an SBR with the expressed intent of shouldering it with the SB-15 brace, it would then be classified as "altering" or "re-designing" the firearms initial manufacturers purpose/design.

Thus making it illegal. However, if you were to should a "pistol" with the brace already installed by the manufacturer, shouldering it would not be illegal, because that was not its intended design, and there is not an unlawful way to fire a handgun.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I ask this, since it sure seems like the NRA-ILA is stirring up the pot if I'm correct.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...s-prior-position-on-pistol-stabilizing-braces
 
The non-sensical part to me is per that letter an AR-pistol with a Sig brace is BOTH a pistol and an NFA SBR, but which it is depends on how the user intends to hold it.
This seems ripe for a lawsuit on this "arbitrary" policy of a firearm that simultaneously is and is not subject to the NFA.
 
The short version is this:

The ATF sent out a private letter stating that attaching the brace to a pistol did not constitute a short-barrel rifle, period.

They followed up with another private letter clarifying that shouldering a pistol with the brace didn't affect anything because that wasn't the design intent.

Now they've published a public letter rescinding the two prior ones, in which they state that shouldering a pistol with the brace constitutes "redesign" of the firearm into a short-barrel rifle and requiring a Form 1.

Yep. Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania. There's a discussion thread here on the matter. If we're to have a concurrent thread in L&CR, let's stick to the legal ramifications of the matter.
 
So...

If the ATF now considers simply 'shouldering' a stabilizing brace to be an act of 'redesigning' the part into a shoulder stock (and the entire firearm into an SBR), then how long will it be before they decide that simply shouldering a pistol buffer tube (receiver extension) falls into the same category?

It is exactly the same act, with the same result. The only difference is the lack of a stabilizing brace.



I have an AR pistol that was built and used as a pistol -- sometimes, but rarely, shouldering the receiver extension.
Then, down the road, I picked up an SB-15 arm brace. In all honestly, I actually prefer the bare receiver extension, which is why I don't care tremendously about this new letter; but with the arm brace, the rig was the perfect size for some of my nieces and nephews (who shouldered the brace, of course).

With this new letter, I own both a completely legal pistol AND a completely illegal SBR, in exactly the same firearm.

That is completely illogical and ridiculous.
 
So, now that NFA violation is a matter of intent rather than equipment...is having a pistol with a brace that you intend to shoulder now an official "Thought Crime?" :rolleyes:
 
Tom Servo said:
....There's a discussion thread here on the matter. If we're to have a concurrent thread in L&CR, let's stick to the legal ramifications of the matter.
Click to expand...
And all these sorts of letters are is a statement of how an agency plans to interpret and apply the law if the occasion arises. They aren't a regulation, nor do they have the force of law.

How ATF plans to act on the letter remains something of a mystery. However, we are all on notice that if an ATF agent sees someone shouldering a handgun with a SIG Brace, the agent is likely to arrest him for possession of a SBR.

But that still leaves a bunch of question unanswered, including:

  • Is a federal prosecutor going to bother seeking an indictment?

  • What is a judge going to say?

  • How is a trial, if it goes that far, going to turn out?

  • What about a handgun with a SIG Brace sitting on the bench?
 
Last edited:
raimius said:
So, now that NFA violation is a matter of intent rather than equipment...is having a pistol with a brace that you intend to shoulder now an official "Thought Crime?"
Click to expand...
No more than any other "intent crime" is. Folks are convicted of things like Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver on a regular basis.
 
Folks are convicted of things like Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
There's also the whole doctrine of Constructive Possession that the ATF so loves. Intent factors into that as well.
 
Lets turn the debate around . If intent is what matters in terms of design . What does it mean if I'm firing my rifle from the hip and not from the shoulder . I'm sure some anti judge will find that is not using the firearm as intended . Therefore under the new rule be illegal .

I guess what's needed is the complete definition of a rifle ? Does a rifle have to be shoulder to be a rifle ?? Does it just have to have a stock like device that can be shouldered .

What about a shotgun with pistol grip only . They are a long gun / rifle but have no stock ???

Seems to me there is to many thing that are debatable for this to have any real teeth .
 
Except that you're arguing against something that BATFE hasn't claimed. I understand the logic of it, but that's not quite how it works. BATFE said [paraphrasing]If you use an arm brace as a stock, then you have an SBR.[/paraphrasing] They didn't argue anything about rifles over 26" in length, or shotguns. They haven't claimed that shooting a rifle from the hip is illegal.
 
I agree , how ever to claim something is being used as something it was not designed for ie a pistol as a rifle . Don't you need to define what a rifle is and how it's different then a pistol first ?
 
That has already been done:
Congress said:
For purposes of this chapter -- . . . .

(c) The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

26 U.S.C.A. § 5845 (West)
Click to expand...

ETA: Just going from a logic standpoint, your argument makes some sense: If A, then B. Therefore, if not A, then not B. However, that's not really how the law works. The BATFE has claimed: If A, then B. The converse (or is it the inverse?) "If not A, then not B," doesn't necessarily hold true. It's more like: If A, then B. However, If not A, then maybe C.
 
The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder
Click to expand...

sounds like congress would need to rewrite the meaning . The arm brace was never designed or redesigned, made or remade to be used from the shoulder . sounds to me it can not be considered a rifle regardless as to how it's used .
 
Last edited:
Metal god said:
The arm brace was never designed or redesigned, made or remade to be used from the shoulder . sounds to me it can not be considered a rifle regardless as to how it's used .
Click to expand...
This, I believe, is precisely where the BATFE disagrees with you.
 
sounds like congress would need to rewrite the meaning
Click to expand...
I'll acknowledge that the law was written in 1934, before we had modular guns like the M16. The ATF has struggled with shoehorning some modern firearms into the law.

That said, how would we redefine it? What wording would suffice?
 
IMHO Congress isn't going to rewrite the NFA, and furthermore, we really don't want them to even try. HUGE HUGE risk that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater. :mad:

In the past, I've characterized the NFA as the proverbial third rail of American gun politics, and I stand by this statement.
 
IMHO Congress isn't going to rewrite the NFA, and furthermore, we really don't want them to even try. HUGE HUGE risk that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater.
Click to expand...

Agreed

That said, how would we redefine it? What wording would suffice?
Click to expand...

I've been putting some thought to that and there really should be no need . I'm thinking about another definition and why was there a need for one and all the laws and rules surrounding it . That is the SBR . I'm not going to act like I know all about the SBR laws but would assume one of the big reasons for the law was to regulate a concealable high powered rifle .

If that's the case and we are still talking about intent . Why would shouldering a handgun/pistol be a big deal . The handgun/pistol is one of the most concealable firearms you can own . The firearms in question are already designated as a pistol and one of the most concealable firearms . Why would shouldering it be a crime .

on a side note I watched a SB15 review video earlier today . The guy talked about the ATF saying it was legal only if it is strapped to your forearm . Not sure if thats true or how there text reads
 
Last edited:
That said, how would we redefine it? What wording would suffice?
Click to expand...
"The National Firearms Act of 1934 and all attendant law is hearby repealed."
There, that should do nicely. *sigh*, I know, just a pipe dream...
 
Spats and Tom, correct me if I'm wrong here, but with most Constructive Possession and Intent cases, the physical properties of the thing(s) in question generally determine how the law is applied. (AR-rifle lower + pistol upper = SBR or X quantity of drugs = presumed dealer) With this letter, that is not the case. The SB-15 equipped pistol is not an SBR if the person intends to shoot it like a pistol, but IS an SBR if they intend to shoulder it. The physical properties of the thing being regulated do not change, but the legalities of owning that object do change, based upon nothing more than how a person INTENDS to hold it. That, to my non-lawyer mind, is a very different approach to the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top