Sig pistol stabilizing brace

Status
Not open for further replies.
Frankly, the ATF is on very shaky legal ground here. I expect this one to be challenged pretty soon.

By this line of reasoning, it is illegal to shoot a pistol (say a Glock 19 or 1911) with two hands, since that would be "redesigning" a pistol into a short-barreled rifle.
 
Nothing new, the BATFE has always stated that if you use the brace as intended it was OK, but the second you put it to your shoulder it becomes a short barrel rifle.
 
the BATFE has always stated that if you use the brace as intended it was OK, but the second you put it to your shoulder it becomes a short barrel rifle.
Click to expand...

You are 100% incorrect. Their initial letter stated that shouldering the gun did not change the intent of the design and therefore did not create an SBR. This is a new decision.
 
From what I read... This was an open letter and not an official decision with legal weight...

Yet.


I never bothered with the brace due to this possibility.


Their misuse of the word redesigned... Puts this on shake ground though.

If I put gloves on my feet have I redesigned them into socks? Or am I just a jack hole who is acting a fool?
 
Last edited:
Frankly, the ATF is on very shaky legal ground here. I expect this one to be challenged pretty soon.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath waiting for BATFE to make a federal case out of how someone uses the brace just so someone can get their shot at making BATFE look stupid.
 
Don't hold your breath waiting for BATFE to make a federal case out of how someone uses the brace just so someone can get their shot at making BATFE look stupid.
Click to expand...

...which is exactly why this "open letter" carries no legal weight.
 
Frankly, the ATF is on very shaky legal ground here. I expect this one to be challenged pretty soon.

By this line of reasoning, it is illegal to shoot a pistol (say a Glock 19 or 1911) with two hands, since that would be "redesigning" a pistol into a short-barreled rifle.
Click to expand...

Holding a pistol with two hands doesn't change the design... adding a second vertical grip does, and that is already subject to NFA.

Why has that not been overturned via a challenge in court?

Holding an AK pistol against your shoulder doesn't change the design... adding a Sig Brace does, so that may now become subject to NFA.

I'm afraid it's wishful thinking that it will be overturned via a challenge in court. ATFE is given rule-making authority under the law and all they have to do is hold a Sig-brace equipped AK pistol to their shoulder to show why they are taking this action. How many non-gun (on a jury) people do you think would disagree?

To the ATFE, it appears what the brace was designed for has become less important than how it is being used.

How that would surprise anyone is a mystery. I wouldn't be shocked to see a new rule issued (given the downward direction of these recent opinions), especially as a result of a court case. Something along the lines of "adding any device to a pistol which aids firing from a shouldered position is subject to NFA..."

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...s-prior-position-on-pistol-stabilizing-braces
 
Last edited:
Does this mean that I have to cut the stock completely off of this thing???
 

Attachments

  • Mares leg Wanted dead or alive.jpg
    Mares leg Wanted dead or alive.jpg
    223.1 KB · Views: 32
Holding an AK pistol against your shoulder doesn't change the design... adding a Sig Brace does, so that may now become subject to NFA.
Click to expand...

Not according to their own letter...

Just adding the Sig brace does not change the intended function of the pistol. Using the brace as it was demonstrated/intentioned when given approval is ok still.


What they are saying now... Is that simply holding the pistol wrong "redesigns" the weapon into a rifle.

By their logic, If you hold a Glock 17 grip against your shoulder (in a manner the slide will be free to move of course) and then fire the pistol... You have redesigned the Glock into a SBR type rifle.

A bit of an extreme example, but it does follow the logic of their statements, even if it is absurd.
 
But that letter was in regards to a pistol that had a device added... not about a Glock with no additions.

Again, firing your Glock with both hands while held.against your shoulder... no problem... add a second vertical grip to the rail, or a stock-shaped "brace" to the rear... and do the same...ATFE NOW sees either addition as subject to NFA regulation.
 
I am about to order one because of this new controversy, is their any difference between the gen1 and gen2 besides looks?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top