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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's the point of the check if they still consider everyone a potential criminal?
Click to expand...
The point of the check in the first place is the presumption that everyone is a criminal.

Seems that the NFA has been made obsolete... Good luck convincing the government that.
Click to expand...
From their standpoint, it's anything but obsolete. It generates tax revenue, and (in their minds) it keeps dangerous weapons off the streets.
 
Yeah... If you pass one check... Why a second...

I'm just thinking about this in a sensible way, not a governmental way. So to me it seems silly, to them guess it works.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous.

Putting a second hand on the grip isn't adding a "device"

It's never been illegal to use two hands for a revolver or pistol, regardless of how a definition is worded

This is about attaching a device to a handgun that can be used as a shoulder stock
 
Yes imagunnut, in the United States, that would indeed turn your Glock into a SBR. A very ugly unwieldy SBR. So No paperwork, no tax stamp, one would be in the possession of something illegal. I don't agree with this particular law but it is what it is.
 
If I understand the law correctly, the pistol (in this case a Glock) must first be registered as an SBR and cannot be converted back (simply removed) from the carbine device, never to live again as a pistol?

WTH! A full auto glock?!!! Now I'm really confused... Glock is Class 3 (FA pistol), you still need to register as SBR with this stock?
Don't need to know the answer, I'm just dumbfounded that there are FA Glocks lol!

Now I see why they came up with this product.........
 
That's ridiculous.

Putting a second hand on the grip isn't adding a "device"

It's never been illegal to use two hands for a revolver or pistol, regardless of how a definition is worded

This is about attaching a device to a handgun that can be used as a shoulder stock
Click to expand...

But is it a redesign that changes the function of the grip? See the grip was made for one handed use and not actually designed for two handed use. Now you are changing the function of the grip.

Yes imagunnut, in the United States, that would indeed turn your Glock into a SBR. A very ugly unwieldy SBR. So No paperwork, no tax stamp, one would be in the possession of something illegal. I don't agree with this particular law but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

More like a regulation. A regulation not passed by Congress, and thus we have no representation, but made by a bureaucracy without a vote.

Deaf
 
This is about attaching a device to a handgun that can be used as a shoulder stock
Click to expand...

This is where people are making their mistake in logic...

Focusing on the "attaching" of a device.

But it is not the "attaching" of the device in where the problem lies. The ATF even says that you can buy and "attach" the device all day long... they don't care. Its legal to own... its legal to install... its legal to use.


The device can be "attached" and it is perfectly legal, but if you hold it wrong... or "use it in a manner other than it was designed"...

THAT is illegal... Simply holding it wrong is illegal... holding it in a manner that it was not designed to be held.


It would be one thing for them to decide that the brace is no longer allowed... but no... That is not what they are doing... Now they claim...


HOLDING SOMETHING WRONG is now illegal. Not the attaching of a part... changing how you hold it, "redesigns/remanufactures" the part/gun.

So holding a pistol with two hands... "redesigns" the function, and it is no longer a one handed "pistol" you simply by the nature of using two hands to hold it, have "manufactured" an illegal weapon.


That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Hence the problem... That kind of logic is now permitted if the opinion that holding/using something wrong changes what that thing is.
 
Last edited:
It would be one thing for them to decide that the brace is no longer allowed... but no... That is not what they are doing... Now they claim...


HOLDING SOMETHING WRONG is now illegal. Not the attaching of a part... changing how you hold it, "redesigns/remanufactures" the part/gun.
Click to expand...

Yup, this is exactly why I looked at the guy at the gun show with a dazed look on my face when he told me I could buy the pistol, no form 1, just pass the BG check. It's not an SBR, so if I fire it from the shoulder, I'd go to prison. I said "-CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED-!?". This liberal bureaucracy never ceases to amaze me.

All those gangsters holding pistols sideways need to be apprehended and brought to justice!!!!
 
That conversion kit does require you to register as a SBR... It has a buttstock.

There are versions that do not have the buttstock... I have no clue why someone would want to make their pistol heavier and unwieldy... as without a stock to counter the size and weight, then why do it.


The Sig brace is something else entirely.
 
But is it a redesign that changes the function of the grip? See the grip was made for one handed use and not actually designed for two handed use. Now you are changing the function of the grip.
Click to expand...
Putting your hand on something doesn't change the design when there are no laws regulating two handed grips on a pistol

Putting a "brace" on a handgun then using it as a shoulder stock breaks current regulations against short barreled rifles
 
Last edited:
Putting your hand on something doesn't change the design when there are no laws regulating two handed grips on a pistol
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. If attaching the SIG brace to an AR pistol does not in itself change it from being a pistol (which according to the ATF it doesn't) and only putting it against your shoulder does, how is that different than using two hands with a normal pistol when pistols are only mentioned as being capable of being used by one hand?
 
Riddle me this..

Adding a Magpul Angled foregrip to an AR pistol is legal (according to BATF). This is obviously DESIGNED as someplace to put a second hand. One hand on the pistol grip..one hand on the AFG/forend.

How does THAT not change the design of a pistol, since a pistol is designed to be fired with ONE hand.
 
Riddle me this..
Click to expand...

No riddle there... ATF speaks with many forked tongues.

Like the IRS and DOJ, they are political and take orders from their masters. Only right now they are not sure just how to untangle all the conflicting orders.

Deaf
 
Darker Loaf said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly how do you suppose SIG Arms (or any firearms manufacturer) might be able to "squeeze" the BATFE into anything the BATFE doesn't want to do?
 
Putting your hand on something doesn't change the design when there are no laws regulating two handed grips on a pistol

Putting a "brace" on a handgun then using it as a shoulder stock breaks current regulations against short barreled rifles
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point.
Click to expand...

^That

The Sig brace... by definition IS NOT A BUTTSTOCK.

If you shoulder it... you are simply using it incorrectly.

What if the brace was not there? Just the buffer tube... if you shoulder the buffer tube... (people do that)

Does that also manufacture a SBR? Because you held it wrong and turned the buffer tube into a buttstock...


Its not the fact that the ATF does not like the Arm brace due to the rampant misuse as a makeshift buttstock... If they simply declared that they consider the arm brace a buttstock, and left it at that... I would just chock it up to the ATF flip flopping again. It would suck for those who own them and use them... But the true dangerous nature of the current situation would not exist.

They have literally declared that holding/using something wrong changes what that object is and is not... Drive a nail with a pipe wrench, and by their line of reasoning, you have changed the wrench into a hammer... not figuratively... literally... it is by their definition no longer a wrench... And if hammers were illegal to own without a permit... buddy, you are in trouble.

An arm brace on a pistol is an arm brace... unless you hold it wrong or use it in a different method... then it isn't simply an arm brace being used incorrectly to its designed function... It has been altered... changed... remanufactured into a different object... a buttstock... simply by holding/using it in a manner in which it was not designed or as originally defined by their say so...


Since their official stance on a handgun is any weapon designed to be fired with one hand... if you grip a handgun with two hands, you have changed that pistol into an AOW... Simply because you are holding it incorrectly according to their definition.
 
Last edited:
ny weapon designed to be fired with one hand... if you grip a handgun with two hands, you have changed that pistol into an AOW... Simply because you are holding it incorrectly according to their definition.
Click to expand...

THAT is the slippery slope they are pushing us down!!!
 
So holding a pistol with two hands... "redesigns" the function, and it is no longer a one handed "pistol" you simply by the nature of using two hands to hold it, have "manufactured" an illegal weapon.
Click to expand...
The BATF is being stupid about the way they're trying to straddle this issue, but it's not nearly as complicated as people want to make it.

If you put something on your pistol that looks and functions like a shoulder stock you MIGHT be able to get away with it if you have a really good cover story and can demonstrate that the device is actually intended to be something completely legal and that it functions properly as something other than a shoulder stock.

That's what SIG has managed to do. They've got a very good cover story and it's working for them.

BUT, if you then use that item as a shoulder stock, you've blown your cover story and you're in trouble because you've added an item to your handgun that looks like a shoulder stock, works like a shoulder stock and that you're using as a shoulder stock.
What if the brace was not there? Just the buffer tube... if you shoulder the buffer tube... (people do that)
Click to expand...
The buffer tube isn't something that's been added to the pistol. It has to be there for the gun to function. Shouldering the buffer tube isn't any different, from a legal standpoint than shouldering the grip of a normal handgun--just a little less awkward.
Since their official stance on a handgun is any weapon designed to be fired with one hand... if you grip a handgun with two hands, you have changed that pistol into an AOW... Simply because you are holding it incorrectly according to their definition.
Click to expand...
No, this is simply not true.

There's a HUGE difference between simply holding a handgun with two hands versus adding a part to the gun and then using that part as a shoulder stock.

Saying it over and over won't change anything. Anyone who isn't trying to be intentionally obtuse isn't going to be confused about the difference between adding a part and using that part improperly versus simply holding a handgun with two hands.
 
While I can agree with the whole "blow your cover" thing...

And as asinine and improbable at it seems that using the wording and logic in the letter, it can be misconstrued into "can't hold a pistol with two hands"...

The problem still exists that they are claiming that misuse of an item can be seen as converting that item.

What about the cheek pads you can get for the buffer tubes... not the neoprene/foam covers, but the pad designed for resting your cheek on it? That is a device added to the buffer tube not needed for the firearm to function... Would shouldering the buffer tube with one of those installed now classify as a buttstock?


Yes its asinine, and not the intent of the ATF letter to declare that holding a pistol with two hands is altering the firearm...

But the fact remains, that the letter's logic can be twisted in a fashion to make simply holding/using something in a manner outside of the ATF's definition for that item... changes that item into something else.

Yes asinine...

But as the ATF and other government bodies have demonstrated, that if they can twist the wording of an established law/rule, into meaning more than intended, and in a manner that serves their desires... then they WILL do it...

Maybe not now, or soon... maybe 10 years from now, who knows... Someone will drag up this letter, and use it as precedent to make further restrictive changes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top