Sig says the "BATFE REAFFIRMS PISTOL BRACE LEGAL TO OWN, INSTALL AND USE"

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Darker Loaf

New member
I just got this letter from Sig, so some folks may have not read about this yet. I hope it's helpful. It looks to me like that the ATF still has some wiggle room on how the brace is used, but sounds like that buying and installing one is about as free and clear as you can get. Here is the text from Sig's email. Please excuse the fact that I copy pasted it and did not snag a screen shot. It was just easier for me:


"BATFE REAFFIRMS PISTOL BRACE LEGAL TO OWN, INSTALL AND USE
Newington, N. H. (February 20, 2015) – SIG SAUER, Inc. has issued the following statement relative to the January 2015 open opinion letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding the SB15 and SBX Pistol Stabilizing Braces.

BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER®. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product “which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol.” SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter’s experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed."
 
There's nothing in that letter that calls into question anything in the BATF's recent releases.

The key portion of the letter from SIG is the last line.

In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed.​

The BATF releases were specifically targeted at people who bought the brace and then used it as a shoulder stock instead. There was nothing in any of the BATF releases that said the brace was illegal to own or that it was illegal to install it on a pistol for use as a brace.
 
Here is the original source from Sig's website:

http://www.sigsauer.com/AboutUs/News.aspx

It is buried under the "Others" tab.

Re JohnKSa: Yeah, it sure doesn't say that it's OK to shoulder one and could be kind of scary to own one down the road if somebody's prosecution sticks, but in terms of illegalizing it out right, the letter is comforting. It gives me hope that Sig can eventually squeeze the BATFE into allowing people to shoulder the brace. A guy can hope, can't he? I'll be glad to sign a petition to the BATFE when one eventually comes circling around.
 
The ATF letter never said the braces were illegal outright...

There are a lot of bad implications if the ATF adopts the opinion letter as rule...

MAC points a couple big ones out in a recent video, but they are points brought up by a few since the whole thing got started.
 
ATF's "when used as designed" opens a relm never before addressed, a pistol normally is designed to be fired one handed, some have squared trigger guards "designed" for fingers on the weak or second hand. If one is to fire all pistols two handed as I was trained by the FBI, is he using some pistols outside their design features? If so has he become an instant violator?
This may be far fetched but the point is we are deep in an area where common sense should be applied but that is often beyond the relm of a Gov entity. I think ATF quickly found that the brace became so popular that they (ATF) were loosing their $200 tax by the thousands and took steps to remedy it. I for one submitted my paperwork because it is obvious this old guy cannot hold a big heavy pistol up with one hand even with a brace.
 
In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed."
Click to expand...

It's designed to be an arm brace and not a shoulder stock
It's very clear and really quite simple, as they have said before.

Using both hands is normal use for most any handgun, but using your shoulder isn't

It gives me hope that Sig can eventually squeeze the BATFE into allowing people to shoulder the brace
Click to expand...

They allow it now IF you register the gun as a Short Barreled Rifle, and pay the taxes
 
The other point of distinction, is adding a second hand to your hold isn't adding anything to the design of the pistol.

Adding a "brace" is... it's not about what the handgun was designed for, it IS all about what the "brace" was designed for and why ATF approved it's use.

If you want a historical comparison, take a look at the wooden holsters that could be attached to the rear of the pistol and used as a stock. You'll find ATF ruled those subject to NFA rules as well.... and did so a long time ago.

Precedent exists, good luck with a court case.
 
The other point of distinction, is adding a second hand to your hold isn't adding anything to the design of the pistol.

Adding a "brace" is... it's not about what the handgun was designed for, it IS all about what the "brace" was designed for and why ATF approved it's use.
Click to expand...

This is technically incorrect. Simply adding the brace does NOT according to ATF change the definition of it being a handgun. Only bringing it to your shoulder is then changing the use of the firearm. However, shooting the same firearm with the brace up against your cheek instead of the shoulder is still legal and has been determined to be by ATF with past devices.
 
Using both hands is normal use for most any handgun, but using your shoulder isn't
Click to expand...

Not per the legal definition of a "handgun" under US law.

By the legal rationale of the ATF Technical Branch, it has now been illegal to shoot your Glock with two hands, since your intent is to "redesign" a handgun into something else.
 
Don't worry, as soon as SIG pivots away from the brace and has no more stake, the ATF will declare them stocks and forbid their affixment to pistols. We're still in the middle of a larger process, hence the uncertainty.

TCB
 
And if you lean against a tree and use it to brace your pistol?

Or set the muzzle against a barricade?

Or with a Tompsen Contender long barrel pistol you set the grip on your shoulder and move the sights forward?

Or with a flash light attached to a Glock's frame you grasp the flashlight for a better hold?

Deaf
 
The other point of distinction, is adding a second hand to your hold isn't adding anything to the design of the pistol.

Adding a "brace" is... it's not about what the handgun was designed for, it IS all about what the "brace" was designed for and why ATF approved it's use.
Click to expand...

This is technically incorrect. Simply adding the brace does NOT according to ATF change the definition of it being a handgun. Only bringing it to your shoulder is then changing the use of the firearm. However, shooting the same firearm with the brace up against your cheek instead of the shoulder is still legal and has been determined to be by ATF with past devices.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about the brace changing the classification of the pistol, just that adding a "brace" is just that "adding". Putting a handgun in a holster doesn't change the classification either, adding the holster to the rear of the handgun as a stock does.

ATF allowed the "brace" because it was pitched as a forearm brace, they did not, and apparently will not, approve it's use as a stock.

Likewise, ATF doesn't have rules about holsters unless they are wallet style and allow the pistol to be fired from the holster, or can be attached to the rear of a pistol, creating a stock... both of those are subject to NFA.

Holding a handgun with two hands doesn't change the classification either, adding a second vertical grip to make that easier, makes it subject to NFA.

All of those things have been ATF rules for along time, where was all the angst about those rules, or the court cases that forced ATF to change them?

Like I said, precedence exists, so good luck with your legal challenges but I suspect ATF will prevail... whether we like it or not.
 
Last edited:
From the ATF (Emphasis added):

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” ...

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. 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.

The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….”.

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, inRevenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

"The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously "muscle" this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.
In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.”

When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. 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.

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.
 
A handgun with a holster which can be used as a stock, and is therefore subject to NFA:

From: http://www.museumoftechnology.org.uk/expand.php?key=457

A0777_ex.jpg
 
The real question is... Is simply holding something differently enough to change what something is.

Those pistols with holsters that work as buttstocks are designed as such. There is no claim that it is "only a holster, I can just so happen to be able to attach it to my pistol and use it like a stock"... Buttstock is part of its designed intention.


The claim can be made that the arm brace was never designed or intended to be used as a stock... And therefore, holding it to your shoulder is just using the product in a manner in which it was not designed... You have not created a buttstock, you have simply held it wrong.

AR pistols have a buffer tube... This is a requirement of their design, without which it could not function. Does holding that buffer tube to your shoulder change its designed function from "receiver extension" to buttstock? If not, why does it do so with the arm brace?

Pistols by definition are one handed weapons... Does using two hands turn it into an AOW, simply by using it in a manner it was not designed?

That is the real issue at hand... The definition of "manufactured". Does simply holding/using something wrong change what that thing is?

Adding a vertical grip to a pistol turns it into an AOW... Ok , I added a part to the pistol with an intended design to add a second seperate hand hold position...

The holster/stock combo added to the pistol makes it a SBR... OK, I have added a part designed to be used as a stock.


So... Does holding or using something wrong change what it is?

If I use a ratched to drive a nail, does that change it into a hammer?

If I hold a hammer backwards, does that make it not a hammer?


So no... Whether or not you can shoulder a SIG brace...while important to some... Is not the actual issue...

The REAL issue is HOW they are trying to justify forbiding such use...
 
Last edited:
If it wasn't for the ADA, the BATF would have either banned the sig stock or made it a class 3 item.

If someone passes the background checks when purchasing a pistol, there should be nothing to worry about.
What's the point of the check if they still consider everyone a potential criminal?

I do feel safer though, keeping these pistols with the sig stock out of criminal's hands.
Imagine if they were able to shoulder fire this thing......;)
 
What's the point of the check if they still consider everyone a potential criminal?
Click to expand...

The NFA predates the mandatory background checks right?

Seems that the NFA has been made obsolete... Good luck convincing the government that.

Give this man a raise
Click to expand...

If only. :cool:

I do think the line of thinking used to justify the opinion letter, is dangerous to other aspects of firearm use.

I made a small edit in my above post, to emphasis properly that it isn't the fact that they are trying to prevent shouldering of the arm brace... But rather the reasoning and wording used... The wording is such that it raises serious issues with many aspects of gun use... The most common example being the use of two hands to shoot a pistol.

It could lead to some common sense defying senarios , where real people are getting in legal troubles, due to using a "trap" gun for bird hunting, or some other such foolishness of "using a firearm in a manner it was not designed"...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top