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

[JohnKSa]

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

Not the misuse alone. The combination of modifying the pistol and then misusing the modified pistol.

Nothing you can do to your pistol without physically modifying it will make it into an unregistered SBR.

If you add a shoulder stock to your pistol then it is now an unregistered SBR.

If you add something that looks and functions like a shoulder stock to your pistol but that isn't actually a shoulder stock (you'll have to get the BATF to agree that it's not really a shoulder stock) then your pistol is still a pistol. BUT, if you start using that item like a shoulder stock then the BATF says your pistol is now an unregistered SBR because you added an item and used it as a shoulder stock..

Note that in both cases that result in an SBR, something MUST be added before there can be a problem. In the second case, it takes adding something AND misusing it but the addition/modification is still a necessary condition.

The key is that making an SBR out of a pistol requires "redesigning" the pistol. "Redesigning" requires a physical modification and therefore without a physical modification there can be no redesigning. If there is a physical modification then there are three options. The physical modification (redesign) may:

1. Create an unregistered SBR.
2. Create a modified pistol that is absolutely not an SBR.
3. Create a modified pistol that will be considered to be an unregistered SBR if used in a certain manner.

Stupid? Yes.

Confusing? Not really.

Open to abuse? Maybe, but it would be a really tough sell, in my opinion.

 

[marine6680]

What about the pistols that come with the arm brace from the factory?

Those you are not adding anything... They came from the manufacturer assembled... as is... So now the arm brace is part of the design and function of the pistol.

You can no long be said to have added or redesigned the pistol... it is in the same configuration as it was when it left the factory floor.


Does shouldering the brace re-manufacturer the pistol in that instance?

Redesigning" requires a physical modification and therefore without a physical modification there can be no redesigning.

By your statement... it would seem that buying a pistol with the brace installed from the factory is exempt from this rule.


And does the ATF agree with that logic?

If not, there in lies the crux of the problem. As the possibility for abuse exists, and not a small one either.

 

[9x19]

I suspect ATF is smart enough to conclude the brace was added to the pistol by the manufacturer... does it really matter who added it?

 

[marine6680]

Yes... It does matter.

Because an individual adding an arm brace after the fact... Can be said to have intent to use it as a stock and not a brace.

The manufacturer can not be said to have such intent.

If the brace comes installed from the manufacturer, then the brace is not an "addition/modification/redesign" on the part of the user. It leaves the factory in a configuration approved by the ATF as a pistol...

So now the manufacturer's intent is clear... It is a pistol.


That means an end user is not physically altering/adding/taking away from the firearm as it came from the factory.

If redesigning requires the user to make a physical change to the firearm, and then use it in a certain manner... Meaning two things must be in place... End user modifications/change to the firearm from factory configuration... And willfull use.


So the question is.... Is "use" enough, or does both conditions need be in place?

We are back to the argument I was making before... Is "use" enough to change the definition of the firearm.

The wording of the letter does not differentiate between factory and user configuration, nor even mention the need for a physical change be made at all to the weapon in question. It doesn't even mention original intent...

If a one armed man builds a pistol and uses an arm brace, then let's his friend shoot it... That friend shoulders the brace... Did the friend remanufacture that pistol? It can't be said the owner put the brace on with the intention of using it as a stock, as his physical condition excludes such a situation... And it can't be said the friend had anything to do with the intent, as he is not the owner... So he could not have intended for the pistol to be built with the brace for use as a stock... He simply held it to his shoulder. So does that count as remanufacture into an SBR?



MAC also brought up the fact that holding the pistol to your cheek is fine... But from many angles, an observer can not easily tell if the pistol buffer tube is held only to the cheek or if it is touching the shoulder. In that situation, a police officer may see it and make an arrest based on incorrect perceptions, and the person will now need to go to court to argue their innocence.

 

[JohnKSa]

By your statement... it would seem that buying a pistol with the brace installed from the factory is exempt from this rule.

Not at all. No more than buying an SBR that you didn't make yourself would exempt you from having to register it because you didn't make the SBR yourself.

It doesn't matter who does the adding/modification or who does the shouldering/improper use. The combination of the two makes an unregistered SBR. Doing one without the other does not.

If the brace comes installed from the manufacturer, then the brace is not an "addition/modification/redesign" on the part of the user.

There's nothing anywhere in the law that says the modification/redesign has to be done by the current owner for the pistol to become an SBR.

Is "use" enough to change the definition of the firearm.

No.

...nor even mention the need for a physical change be made at all to the weapon in question.

Not true. The pistol has to have had a brace installed/added before the infraction can occur.

It's really not that complicated.

The combination of modifying the pistol (regardless of who does that modification/addition/installation) by adding/installing a brace and then misusing the modified pistol by shouldering the brace (regardless of who actually performs the improper use/shouldering) creates an SBR.

Nothing you can do with an unmodified pistol (one that doesn't have a brace or shoulder stock installed) will create an SBR.

 

[marine6680]

You are confusing two distinct things as the same...

An SBR is manufactured as an SBR... Even from the factory... Its designed and intended by the manufacturer as a SBR. You are not exempt from the tax stamp simply because you bought it from the factory in that configuration... The firearm was registered as an SBR by the manufacturer... It also fits the definition of SBR.


A pistol with a brace is designed and manufactured AS A PISTOL... It does not fit the definition of SBR when it leaves the factory.

A pistol with a built in/integrated laser is not a laser pointer, just because lasers are not needed or part of the original design.

A factory applied finish is not a modification... Its simply a different model/option. So long as that finish was applied as part of the original manufacturing process...

So brace or not... The firearm left the factory as a pistol.

So as the pistol comes from the factory... There is no "modification" the brace is now part of the design... Its not a modification.

If you sent in a pistol without a brace to the factory, and asked that they instal the brace, yes, that is an addition/modification to the design as it originally left the factory.

(I beat on about this "as it left the factory" thing... As precedent already exists for similar but different circumstances... Things like imported AKs and SKSs... They can be used as configured from the factory without running afoul of the r922... So long as they remain in the "approved import configuration"... Any changes require conforming to the import laws surrounding certain " non sport " features)


The whole point is intent... The firearm left the factory in a certain configuration... And is registered and intended to be a pistol. When you do the background check, the serial number is recorded and listed as "pistol"... If it was an SBR, they would have to record it as such.


So no, you have not made a physical modification at any point in time...

Its not liken you are taking a pistol and adding parts to it to make it an SBR... In make, out make no alterations to the pistol at all.

Seeing that we established that the firearm left the factory as a pistol in its present configuration... And not an SBR in waiting or any such nonsense...

Then the only remaining factor that changes the classification of the firearm, is how you use/hold it.


By pure technical definition, shouldering the brace is no different than if you held the grip of a standard style pistol (glock, Beretta 92, etc) to your shoulder and fired it. (As uncomfortable and unwieldy that would be)

Its not that complicated...

 

[marine6680]

BTW... I understood the intent and wording of the ATF letter when I first read it.

But I did immediately notice the areas of clumsy and vauge wording and the room for interpretation that leads to.

The meer fact that so many people misinterpreted the letter is proof enough that room exists within it to cause problems in the future, should someone use it as a building point for more silly rules.

 

[IdahoG36]

BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed."

This type of ambiguous wording does absolutely nothing to clear up the intentions of the BATFE on the issue of proper use of a stabilizing brace.


First, by calling it a stabilizing brace, and not an arm mounted stabilizing brace, you muddy the waters. Technically speaking, by using this brace on a pistol, and placing it up to your shoulder, you are using it as a brace.

Furthermore, by using it to stabilize a pistol while firing, you are in fact using it as designed, even though it is up to your shoulder. Bottom line, it was designed to stabilize a pistol. You are using it for that very purpose.

Lastly, by the term used as designed, if you are not physically altering the construction or factory design of the brace itself, you are technically using the product as designed.

Bottom line, the BATFE is notorious for being ambiguous. I believe they prefer it that way so that they have a wider web in which to catch you in, and stack up the charges on people based on poorly worded B.S. regulations.

 

[Snyper]

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?

Because there are no laws against two hands on a pistol, but shoulder fired weapons under 26", or with barrels less than 16" have been illegal since 1934.

So as the pistol comes from the factory... There is no "modification" the brace is now part of the design... Its not a modification.

It's still not a shoulder stock.

It's not that complicated unless you make it that way

 

[Deaf Smith]

Because there are no laws against two hands on a pistol, but shoulder fired weapons under 26", or with barrels less than 16" have been illegal since 1934

.

But ATF does not make 'laws'. They make regulations that have the force of law. And they can reinterpret their regulations anytime and decide henceforth handguns are designed to be used with one hand (but police and military will be exempt from these regs.)

And that is the kind of logic we need to stop them from using.

Deaf

 

[Snyper]

But ATF does not make 'laws'. They make regulations that have the force of law.

The NFA is law.
The regulations are how you comply with that law

And that is the kind of logic we need to stop them from using

Good luck with that

Until then, don't use an arm brace as if it were a shoulder stock

If people keep doing it, they will outlaw the "brace" altogether since some can't (won't) comprehend the difference.

 

[TunnelRat]

If people keep doing it, they will outlaw the "brace" altogether since some can't (won't) comprehend the difference.

I would rather see them do that than the current situation. As this thread points out, there are obvious disagreements as to if the current wording from the ATF could be applied to other uses of existing firearms. Beyond that, there is a product being sold whose use could lend the user in federal prison from moving it to the wrong part of the body when surrounded by certain company and there are some users who could legitimately be unaware of that fact (though good luck proving that in court).

 

[marine6680]

It's still not a shoulder stock

You just made my point...

Its NOT a stock... It is an arm brace... Holding it wrong does not change what it is.


I get the whole regulation against shoulder fired firearms... I do.

The problem here lies in a small but distinct separation of the terms.

It all revolves around whether or not holding a pistol against your shoulder turns it into a rifle or not.

If you can not say that about a glock 17... Why can you say it about an AR pistol? And why only one with an arm brace and not simply the buffer tube? Does a mare's leg pistol count as a rifle if you stick it you your shoulder? How about a ruger charger pistol?

Where is the line? Can you point to it? And can you trust that the line will not be moved?

The line gets blurred in a dangerous way.

Not to mention again... the problem that holding the thing to your cheek is perfectly fine... And the fact that doing so looks like shouldering the weapon from a small distance and most angles... Meaning you can get aressted and never actually shouldered the thing in the first place.

I'm not saying it's right... I'm not saying it is logical... I'm not saying it falls in the realm of common sense... I'm saying it can and will be used to errode definitions and distinctions in an effort to limit firearm use.

You only have to look at the proposed banning of 855 ammo, to see that they are willing to ignore obvious wording and exemptions put in place within a law... And you don't think they will use vauge and clumsy wording to further errode the rights of gun owners?

If people keep doing it, they will outlaw the "brace" altogether since some can't (won't) comprehend the difference.

If they had simply done that... Then the ambiguity would not exist, and the problem we are describing would not exist.

It just seems some people are content with this choice... Like it doesn't affect them so why bother. Let's just bend over and take it... Surely we can handle yet another one...

I personally find the arm braces silly, but I still do not like the ATF's position, or rather the manner they are going about it. An outright ban on the item is easier to swallow than the current muddy mess.

 

[Snyper]

You just made my point...

Its NOT a stock... It is an arm brace... Holding it wrong does not change what it is.

You can repeat that a million times, but it won't change the reality that ATF decides, not you.

If they had simply done that... Then the ambiguity would not exist, and the problem we are describing would not exist.

There is no "ambiguity".
There are just those who keep refusing to accept reality

 

[marine6680]

And you can say what you claim... and that won't make it true.

But... the ATF has declared it an arm brace. It is their call to make... But does that mean we have to sit back and just let them roll over us when we feel they overstep their purview?

I could not care any less about the arm brace itself... I do not own one nor want to own one... I have no desire for an SBR faux or not...


I see how it can be seen as straight forward... but it is not. The wording on the face of it seems fine, but there is room to misinterpret... Simply looking at the number of people who misinterpreted the letter, and even those with more than a little brains as well... they can see an avenue of twisting the words that can happen.

If you want to let this stand, even with the problems it puts forward, you are inviting further issues down the line.


I have heard plenty of "this is how it should work", but none of that removes the problem.

You can claim to see the fact clear as day... and I can agree with your interpretation of the letter, I even believe that is the intent of the author of the letter...

But I can also see holes... holes that exist when viewing the words at face value, with no preconceived notions of intent... that is when you can see ambiguity. If you get trapped into one way of thinking, then you will never see the possibilities.

Its the little things that will topple us... not the large ones... We rally to stop the major policy changes, but ignore the little ones, because they seem minor, or they don't affect our way of using firearms...

To use a colorful analogy...

The anti-gunners are crafting their masterpiece that is gun control... And you don't craft a masterpiece by striking the marble with a sledgehammer... You chip away with a chisel...

 

[Snyper]

The wording on the face of it seems fine, but there is room to misinterpret.

Actually there isn't.

It's very clear it's not to be used as a shoulder stock

The only "misinterpretation" is from those who won't accept that simple fact, and who try to make it more complicated than it really is

But does that mean we have to sit back and just let them roll over us when we feel they overstep their purview?

You don't have to do anything they say.
You just have to be willing to accept the consequences if you don't, and are caught

The only reason it's an issue now is due to fools on Youtube bragging about their "non registered SBR's"

 

[JohnKSa]

You are confusing two distinct things as the same...

No, you are trying really hard to make something simple complicated.

A pistol with a brace is designed and manufactured AS A PISTOL... It does not fit the definition of SBR when it leaves the factory.

Correct. But it does have a brace added to it and that is one of two KEY factors.

So as the pistol comes from the factory... There is no "modification" the brace is now part of the design... Its not a modification.

The fact is that without the brace being added to the pistol it won't ever be an SBR no matter how it is held or used. The addition of the brace (by the factory or the end user) MUST happen or there can't be an infraction.

You can say it maybe 100 more times and it still won't make it true. After 101 times, I can't be sure...

Then the only remaining factor that changes the classification of the firearm, is how you use/hold it.

Nope, it takes both factors. The brace has to be on the firearm AND it must be used in a certain manner.

It doesn't matter how you try to twist things around. Simply holding a pistol in a certain way won't make it an SBR. The second factor is absolutely necessary--the brace must be added to the basic pistol or how it's held is a complete non-issue.

By pure technical definition, shouldering the brace is no different than if you held the grip of a standard style pistol (glock, Beretta 92, etc) to your shoulder and fired it. (As uncomfortable and unwieldy that would be)

Except it clearly is VERY different because a pistol without the brace can never become an SBR by virtue of how it's held.

The only way you can make your argument work (besides saying it 101 times ) is to ignore that the addition of the brace to a basic pistol is one of two key factors in the redesigning of the pistol into an SBR.

Brace + shouldering the pistol equals SBR
Brace alone does not equal SBR
Shouldering a pistol (or holding it any other way) does not equal SBR

It takes BOTH.

Furthermore, by using it to stabilize a pistol while firing, you are in fact using it as designed, even though it is up to your shoulder. Bottom line, it was designed to stabilize a pistol. You are using it for that very purpose.

If it was really designed to stabilize a pistol by holding it to the shoulder then it would be a shoulder stock and would be illegal.

The only reason that BATF is allowing the brace is specifically because it's NOT designed to be shouldered. It's designed to be strapped to the arm to allow the handgun to be fired more effectively with one hand.

Its NOT a stock... It is an arm brace... Holding it wrong does not change what it is.

Well, here's where things get sticky.

If you add something that looks and functions like a shoulder stock to your pistol but that isn't actually a shoulder stock (you'll have to get the BATF to agree that it's not really a shoulder stock) then you're ok. BUT, if you start using that item like a shoulder stock then the BATF says the item is now a shoulder stock for all practical purposes.

If anything, they're being very generous. Not that I agree with the rule, but if I were given the task of enforcing it, I would have rejected SIG in the first place for the obvious reason that the device looks like a stock and works like a stock. The fact that it has another use is pretty much irrelevant in my opinion.

It all revolves around whether or not holding a pistol against your shoulder turns it into a rifle or not.

Still not up to 101 yet.

No, that's not what it revolves around. It revolves around the fact that if you add (or someone else adds) something that looks and functions like a shoulder stock to your pistol and then you use it like a shoulder stock then you're going to be in trouble with the BATF.

If you don't add anything to your pistol that looks like a shoulder stock then nothing you do with your pistol will make it an SBR.

Simple.

VERY simple.

 

[peggysue]

There is also an arm brace for a AK Pistol. Made by CAI.

 

[Ibmikey]

Yo, John, by your anology what if you shoulder the receiver extension, would it then become a SBR ? No modifications just two hands on a pistol held in a different manner.

 

[barnbwt]

You can repeat that a million times, but it won't change the reality that ATF decides, not you.

This kind of assumed helplessness, just...I'd better not say. We certainly can force these idiots to do their jobs properly within the bounds they've given by way of courts, laws, and executive direction. We can work with two of those three at present, and have been having much success --with regards to the ATF no less-- with the courts in particular.

TCB