ATF decides firing a Sig Pistol Brace From the Shoulder is creating an SBR

Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
3,653
Likes
453
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
"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."



OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”
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 devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.
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….” (Emphasis added).
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, in Revenue 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.
Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.
If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at [email protected] or by phone at (304) 616-4300.
Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division
 
Last edited:
Didn't this come out in 2014 sometime?
Not calling a dupe, but just curious if there's been an update.
 
This is NOT a dupe. This is an open letter declaring ALL previous letter validating the shouldering of the Sig brace as invalid. Any shouldering of the sig brace is now a felony and the creation of an SBR
 
Last edited:
BULLSHIT. A handgun was designed to be fired with one hand. Using two hands does not redesign it into a rifle. A rifle was designed to be fired with two hands. Using one hand does not redesign it into a pistol. Using a bipod mounted on a pistol as a forward vertical grip does not make it and illegal weapon.
 
How difficult is it to challenge ATF "law"? Is something like this an opportunity to bring them to court?
 
BULLSHIT. A handgun was designed to be fired with one hand. Using two hands does not redesign it into a rifle. A rifle was designed to be fired with two hands. Using one hand does not redesign it into a pistol. Using a bipod mounted on a pistol as a forward vertical grip does not make it and illegal weapon.

apparently it does, as you are talking in contradiction to those who make up the rules and definitions ;-)
 
BULLSHIT. A handgun was designed to be fired with one hand. Using two hands does not redesign it into a rifle. A rifle was designed to be fired with two hands. Using one hand does not redesign it into a pistol. Using a bipod mounted on a pistol as a forward vertical grip does not make it and illegal weapon.

Agreed. Its like arguing using an apple as a baseball makes it a baseball.

This is the first redeisgn that requires no redesigning I have heard of since my first communion!
 
BULLSHIT. A handgun was designed to be fired with one hand. Using two hands does not redesign it into a rifle. A rifle was designed to be fired with two hands. Using one hand does not redesign it into a pistol. Using a bipod mounted on a pistol as a forward vertical grip does not make it and illegal weapon.

So if I put a grippod on an AR Pistol BATFE's not gonna get pissed because it's a bipod? [laugh]

-Mike
 
BULLSHIT. A handgun was designed to be fired with one hand. Using two hands does not redesign it into a rifle. A rifle was designed to be fired with two hands. Using one hand does not redesign it into a pistol. Using a bipod mounted on a pistol as a forward vertical grip does not make it and illegal weapon.

Agreed, but you are preaching to the choir, and when pitted against a government agency such as the BATFE, I doubt that any such logic would matter. From my interpretation, there is no problem using the brace as it was designed/intended, but they can now charge you with a felony for violating NFA laws.
 
Not good. I suppose it was to be expected, though. Too bad. It was a nice wallhack.

I thiink most of the people exploiting this already knew this and they were reasonably certain that the use aspect was a sleeping dog left best lying, but it would appear enough people came along and shit in the punchbowl on this one.

For example on one forum a guy was curious about using a crutch tip (like you find on a big pair of post-op crutches) on the buffer tube, and the request he sent to BATFE was something like "Is it OK if I put this crutch tip on my buffer tube and leave it attached there "so I can use it as a stand so that the rifle wont fall over when I prop it up in my safe or against a wall?" etc. They basically wrote him back and said it was legal. But he was smart enough to never come out and ask whether or not it was legal to shoulder and fire the thing with the tip attached to it.. and BATFE didn't comment about that, either.

That aside, this is kind of unenforceable regardless... at least till they attempt to prosecute someone. If they think that doing this OK, then you can kiss things like bump firing goodbye, too. What's next, they're going to prosecute Jerry Miculek for being a human NFA device, because "he operates guns at a speed which they were not intended to be operated at" or some BS. [laugh]

I can hear it now guys with AR pistols at the range... "I got this cool sig brace but DONT PUT IT UP TO YOUR SHOULDER THE ATF BOGEYMAN WILL SUDDENLY COME OUTTA nowhere AND GIT YOU!!! " [rofl]

-Mike
 
Last edited:
This is why we can't have nice things...

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

****ing idiots.
 
How difficult is it to challenge ATF "law"? Is something like this an opportunity to bring them to court?

Difficulty is not the issue, its the cost. SIG would be a prime candidate to sue. They are already suing ATF over suppressor parts.
 
Difficulty is not the issue, its the cost. SIG would be a prime candidate to sue. They are already suing ATF over suppressor parts.

pretty big customer base owns this device. Seems that IMO it would be something national organizations would be interested in acting against. What do I know tho.
 
...any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol ...

...and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.

Who else but the .gov could come up with this BS? You are 're-designing' a piece of equipment by picking it up and holding it a certain way?

I guess just don't shoot it from the shoulder in front a BATF agent.
 
what if you put it against your crotch? Not "shouldering" ... penising? Legit? Inquiring minds want to know.

There are ranges with cameras. Put it against your shoulder and you are committing a felony on tape. Also, look at the YouTube videos of comrades doing it, that's on record and in public view.
 
I'm just gonna leave this here cause it's funny. And true.

4j79Xzo.jpg
 
A man's testicles have a particular design and function. If an ATF agent were to lick some testicles, would they be engaged in an act of redesign?
 
I said this before. My brace is grandfathered in.

How many thousands of these have been bought/used? Is every atf agent going to wait for you to go to the range and make sure you don't shoulder it?
 
I said this before. My brace is grandfathered in.

How many thousands of these have been bought/used? Is every atf agent going to wait for you to go to the range and make sure you don't shoulder it?

Do ATF agents do this for illegal machine guns? No. They just check every once in a while when they hear shooting and if you have one you are in deep trouble. It'll probably be the same for this.
 
Back
Top Bottom