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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see John's argument... I actually agree with it. The intended meaning of the ATF letter, and its implications surrounding the arm brace are not what I am arguing.

I simply feel there is enough to work with due to the clumsy working, that a crafty wordsmith could twist it into allowing more restrictions beyond the brace.

The way they used the word 'remanufactured ", and the language surrounding it, is one thing that gets to me.

Had the letter been written more like John's explanation, then I feel the wording would be sufficiently tight and focused, and I wouldn't have a problem.

John's explanation breaks down the reasoning of why using the arm brace as a makeshift stock is against the NFA, much better than the ATF letter.

The brace is an assesory outside the relm of items needed for the proper function of the firearm... Its design/shape and method of attachment to the firearm makes it similar enough to a buttstock, that it is is capable of spreading out recoil forces, and aiding in stabilizing the firearm by placing it against the shoulder.

An arm brace, not being neccesary to the basic and proper function of the firearm; using said arm brace by placing it into the shoulder, is in effect causing the arm brace to be a buttstock de facto.
 
Last edited:
JohnKSa said:
By your statement... it would seem that buying a pistol with the brace installed from the factory is exempt from this rule.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
What about the Rossi Ranch Hand and other clones of Steve McQueen's Mare's Leg cut-down version of a Winchester Model 94 carbine? If it were a rifle, it would be an SBR. Because the butt stock and barrel have been cut off short, these clones are sold and classified as handguns. Hickock 45 has a video on Youtube testing one, and it has a full-size buttstock attached. He specifically mentions (two or three times, I think) that the owner met the law and paid the piper to own it as an SBR.

But ... the unmodified Mare's Legs can be fired using the factory buttstock as a shoulder stock ... especially by kids and adults of small stature. By your logic, then, ALL Mare's Legs should be SBRs rather than handguns, because they can be fired from the shoulder.
 
Last edited:
Well... The mare's leg could be thought of like the buffer tube... But then again, the little extra part isn't needed, so you could make it just a pistol grip to alleviate the ambiguity...

Or we can shut up and never mention this fact ever again and hope the ATF does not take notice, and then by default the buffer tube will be illegal to shoulder as well.
 
Regarding that recent email from SIG that was mentioned in the first post: this is the second time I've seen someone misunderstand it and think that it meant something had changed yet again regarding the legality of the brace. It's ironic that the email SIG sent out to correct confusions regarding the ATF's stance seems to have caused confusions itself.
 
The letter from Sig didn't seem confusing... It said that you could still buy/own, install, and use the arm brace as designed...

The whole mess makes me glad I never got into the whole arm brace thing to begin with.
 
If you use it as a stock and the barrel is less than 16 inches your in violation. Someone made an attachment for mag light flashlights so Police Officers could brace their pistols with it and use the flashlight as stock for longer shots. The idea never made it because ATF said it's a no go without complying with NFA. The flashlight wasn't made to be a stock but it was used that way with the new end cap. You could possess the flashlight, new end cap and pistol legally but you were in violation if you used them together. Don't use the arm brace as a stock if your barrel length is less than 16 inches.
 
Noreaster, that is your understanding others feel differently because the receiver extension is just that, part of the pistol not an addition like your flashlight. I think the entire thread is funny because no matter what anyone thinks the ATF will decide their rules case by case. I gave in and sent them $200 and will wait until the stamp arrives to get the parts out of hibernation.
 
marine6680 said:
The letter from Sig didn't seem confusing... It said that you could still buy/own, install, and use the arm brace as designed...
Click to expand...
I never said the letter was confusing. It seemed pretty straightforward to me. But nevertheless it seems to have confused some people. I've seen it referenced by two different people in as many days, and both of them seem to have been confused by it.

Yesterday I had a customer come in to buy an SB15 arm brace because he said he just got an email from SIG saying they were legal again.
 
The only reason that there is confusion is because the ATF had to backpedal a bit. I'm sure the knee-jerk response to the brace was to ban it outright. Most reasonable, logical thinking people would have said, yeah it sucks but at least it's consistent with the ATF's lunacy. That "device" makes it an SBR. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but wait, no paperwork? Thaaaaanks ADA!! I'm buying one at the next gun show.....wait, do I need to show that I am disabled?

The difference here is that it now involves the ADA and eventually the ACLU should they have chosen to ban it. Think about it. Would it be SO BAD if a disabled person could not safely fire an AR pistol? There's a lot of firearms they can't shoot, so why make an exception here? The ADA, that's why.
For most here, the brace makes it an SBR. Forget the arguments about whether it's a stock or not, it doesn't matter - it CAN be used as one. To some extent, I'd WANT the ATF to classify it as an SBR, at least in my mind, it would make sense for them to do that. For the ADA/ACLU, it's an assist device and GOD SAVE YOU, the ATF or anyone else, if you try and muck with that. If ISIS had disabled terrorists, they'd defend their right to have a device to better sever heads with. Liberals........

This is what happens when two different federal lunatic laws conflict. Instead of a court battle, the ATF gathers their word smiths in a room to hammer out a "fix" that makes each other happy (ATF/ADA), but confuses the SANE people because it makes absolutely no sense at all (dictating HOW a firearm should be handled???!!!). I have to believe there are a FEW sane people at the ATF. They knew fully well this letter made no sense but it was the only way to make the "math" workout. ATF+sig brace = happy ADA.

In a sense, it's good to see all the confusion......I'd be more concerned about those that accepted the ATF's letter at face value and say it makes perfect sense.
Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Maybe the ADA/ACLU will find a way to repeal NFA. I have a disabled trigger finger, I need a device to allow me to fire consecutive shots without having to move it more than once.
 
Last edited:
imagunnut said:
The only reason that there is confusion is because the ATF had to backpedal a bit. I'm sure the knee-jerk response to the brace was to ban it outright. Most reasonable, logical thinking people would have said, yeah it sucks but at least it's consistent with the ATF's lunacy. That "device" makes it an SBR. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but wait, no paperwork? Thaaaaanks ADA!! I'm buying one at the next gun show.....wait, do I need to show that I am disabled?

The difference here is that it now involves the ADA and eventually the ACLU should they have chosen to ban it. Think about it. Would it be SO BAD if a disabled person could not safely fire an AR pistol? There's a lot of firearms they can't shoot, so why make an exception here? The ADA, that's why.
For most here, the brace makes it an SBR. Forget the arguments about whether it's a stock or not, it doesn't matter - it CAN be used as one. To some extent, I'd WANT the ATF to classify it as an SBR, at least in my mind, it would make sense for them to do that. For the ADA/ACLU, it's an assist device and GOD SAVE YOU, the ATF or anyone else, if you try and muck with that. If ISIS had disabled terrorists, they'd defend their right to have a device to better sever heads with. Liberals........

This is what happens when two different federal lunatic laws conflict. Instead of a court battle, the ATF gathers their word smiths in a room to hammer out a "fix" that makes each other happy (ATF/ADA), but confuses the SANE people because it makes absolutely no sense at all (dictating HOW a firearm should be handled???!!!). I have to believe there are a FEW sane people at the ATF. They knew fully well this letter made no sense but it was the only way to make the "math" workout. ATF+sig brace = happy ADA.

In a sense, it's good to see all the confusion......I'd be more concerned about those that accepted the ATF's letter at face value and say it makes perfect sense.
Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Maybe the ADA/ACLU will find a way to repeal NFA. I have a disabled trigger finger, I need a device to allow me to fire consecutive shots without having to move it more than once.
Click to expand...
Your disdain for the ADA is rather disturbing. I hope no one in your life becomes disabled.
 
Your disdain for the ADA is rather disturbing.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I have a disdain for any individual or organization that takes advantage of and abuses an otherwise noble and constructive idea and turns it into a self-serving, self entitling endeavor.

I hope no one in your life becomes disabled.
Click to expand...
Sure you do. There were two. They are gone now.
 
Thanks! I have a disdain for any individual or organization that takes advantage of and abuses an otherwise noble and constructive idea and turns it into a self-serving, self entitling endeavor.
Click to expand...

Your experience then is much different than mine.

Sure you do.
Click to expand...

You're free to believe that, even if it isn't true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top