• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

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

PaulD said:
The problem here is trying to determine intent and ways to use objects. The very concept is f*****g idiocy. It's equivalent to thought crime or pre-crime.
Click to expand...

That's what all gun laws are. They are pre-crime. The NFA, GCA, all of it. Does just possessing an unregistered SBS or SBR or machine-gun hurt anyone?
 
I really don't think this letter should affect what anybody is doing. If you want an SBR, file for the tax stamp. If you want a pistol, put a brace on it. If you need more toilet paper, print out this letter because that's all it is. It's not even a ruling (which are also BS administrative law). The ATF doesn't get to redefine NFA or GCA because it suits their agenda.

Yes, there is the possibility of encountering a douchenozzle ATF agent at the range who could make life difficult for you. But I'll bet that through the magic of the internet you could probably get your case funded, and I doubt that even our kangaroo court "justice" system will accept ATF's novel idea of what "redesign" means.

F them and the horse they rode in on.
 
Yes, there is the possibility of encountering a douchenozzle ATF agent at the range who could make life difficult for you. But I'll bet that through the magic of the internet you could probably get your case funded, and I doubt that even our kangaroo court "justice" system will accept ATF's novel idea of what "redesign" means.
Click to expand...
The federal system works a bit differently than state. When there is a felony conviction, the involved attorneys start arguing over where it fits in the "sentencing matrix" (this is why a felony defendant needs an attorney experienced at negotiating federal sentences). A lack of mens rea might get the defendant a prison sentence at the lower end of the suggested range, however, there will still be prison. It's not like the state courts where the court will say soemthing like "3 years .... suspended" or "X years supervised (or unsupervised) probation.

Given that, are YOU willing to step forward and be the test case?

The real lesson is to investors in new gun products - if you are skirting the edge or apparent intent of NFA34, don't count on a BATFE letter confirming compliance to remove the risk that you will wake up to find your product has been banned by fiat.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The federal system works a bit differently than state. When there is a felony conviction, the involved attorneys start arguing over where it fits in the "sentencing matrix" (this is why a felony defendant needs an attorney experienced at negotiating federal sentences). A lack of mens rea might get the defendant a prison sentence at the lower end of the suggested range, however, there will still be prison. It's not like the state courts where the court will say soemthing like "3 years .... suspended" or "X years supervised (or unsupervised) probation.

Given that, are YOU willing to step forward and be the test case?

The real lesson is to investors in new gun products - if you are skirting the edge or apparent intent of NFA34, don't count on a BATFE letter confirming compliance to remove the risk that you will wake up to find your product has been banned by fiat.
Click to expand...

If I had a sig brace, this latest letter wouldn't cause me to lose sleep at night. Especially not when you consider that having a brace by itself doesn't constitute a violation. The ATF would need to catch you shouldering it if they wanted to turn your life upside down.
 
Last edited:
Is this really a surprise to anyone? The act of putting a stock on a pistol or cutting down a rifle into a SBR has been a thing for a while (not that I am ok with that), how can you be shocked that the ATF would release such a letter?

If you are using something as a stock, no matter what someone may be selling it as, on a SBR or pistol is still "illegal" if the right (wrong) person wants to rat you out. How is this any different than putting a collapsible stock, or a pad at the end of an AR buffer tube? Just because Sig sells it as a support? Come on guys, you can tone the drama down just a bit.
 
Last edited:
My question is, is it now illegal in Tue ATF's eyes to have a pistol without a brace and shoulder the buffer tube only? Seems ridiculous that the brace would be in question but not this case too.

shipwreck - DTOM
 
shipwreck said:
My question is, is it now illegal in Tue ATF's eyes to have a pistol without a brace and shoulder the buffer tube only? Seems ridiculous that the brace would be in question but not this case too.

shipwreck - DTOM
Click to expand...
This is an interesting question that hopefully no one ever asks the ATF
 
joshk1025 said:
I'm just hoping that this gets more people to realize how stupid the NFA is.
Click to expand...

I think it's safe to say 99% of non fudd gun owners feel this way......
So nothing is going to change unless enough pro2a people get in office and can just throw it out the window.


But sadly a lot of machine gun owners might fight back if it opens up new production machine guns. Since there value will drop from not being so limited and only worth money for there vintage .
Ww2 m2 tommy gun etc will hold on to a lot of its value.
But stuff like Mac 10's that are really only a 500$ gun aren't gonna be worth 5k.
Same with m16 lowers . Would you still be willing to pay close to 20k$ for a pre 86 m16 lower . When you could buy a new one for the same of not a little more then a ar15 lower .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
warwickben said:
I think it's safe to say 99% of non fudd gun owners feel this way......
So nothing is going to change unless enough pro2a people get in office and can just throw it out the window.


But sadly a lot of machine gun owners might fight back if it opens up new production machine guns. Since there value will drop from not being so limited and only worth money for there vintage .
Ww2 m2 tommy gun etc will hold on to a lot of its value.
But stuff like Mac 10's that are really only a 500$ gun aren't gonna be worth 5k.
Same with m16 lowers . Would you still be willing to pay close to 20k$ for a pre 86 m16 lower . When you could buy a new one for the same of not a little more then a ar15 lower .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I have never heard a machine gun owner support the Hughes amendment, because if prices fell they'd be able to afford more.
 
shipwreck said:
My question is, is it now illegal in Tue ATF's eyes to have a pistol without a brace and shoulder the buffer tube only? Seems ridiculous that the brace would be in question but not this case too.

shipwreck - DTOM
Click to expand...

There's a atf letter saying it's ok to put a crutch rubber pad thing on the end of the buffer tube and fire it from the shoulder . Don't get how that's different from the sig brace .


joshk1025 said:
I have never heard a machine gun owner support the Hughes amendment, because if prices fell they'd be able to afford more.
Click to expand...

Im thinking more towards guys who buy machine guns as investments (not shooters) and rental ranges .
There inventory value would drop .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Don't the ATF rulings hold no actual weight in court. They aren't law afterall, and you wouldn't be on trial for violating their rulings... Also, this seems waaaaaaaay overbroad. It seems like for this to stick there would need to be a law against using a device with a firearm for an other than intended purposes. By this logic if you bump fore you have now made a machinegun.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
warwickben said:
There's a atf letter saying it's ok to put a crutch rubber pad thing on the end of the buffer tube and fire it from the shoulder . Don't get how that's different from the sig brace .




Im thinking more towards guys who buy machine guns as investments (not shooters) and rental ranges .
There inventory value would drop .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

On your first point, ATF letters can over rule previous ATF letters at any time with no warning, due process, etc. It's one of the most blatant examples of how the USA is apparently no longer a republic. To your second point, I have heard of machine guns as an investment, but does that actually happen or is that just what husbands who shoot tell their wives? Also, rental ranges would be able to cheaply acquire new machine guns and would thus presumably quickly recoup their money.
 
joshk1025 said:
On your first point, ATF letters can over rule previous ATF letters at any time with no warning, due process, etc. It's one of the most blatant examples of how the USA is apparently no longer a republic. To your second point, I have heard of machine guns as an investment, but does that actually happen or is that just what husbands who shoot tell their wives? Also, rental ranges would be able to cheaply acquire new machine guns and would thus presumably quickly recoup their money.
Click to expand...

There not made any more every year they gain value .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
joshk1025 said:
On your first point, ATF letters can over rule previous ATF letters at any time with no warning, due process, etc. It's one of the most blatant examples of how the USA is apparently no longer a republic. To your second point, I have heard of machine guns as an investment, but does that actually happen or is that just what husbands who shoot tell their wives? Also, rental ranges would be able to cheaply acquire new machine guns and would thus presumably quickly recoup their money.
Click to expand...

But as I understand it ATF letters aren't law... they are guidelines, or advisories as to how issues should be handled legally. If you went to court you are going to be charged under the NFA, not anATF letter.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
joshk1025 said:
I have never heard a machine gun owner support the Hughes amendment, because if prices fell they'd be able to afford more.
Click to expand...

There are many MG owners who consider them investments, its not as much of a stretch as you make it sound.
 
joshk1025 said:
I have never heard a machine gun owner support the Hughes amendment, because if prices fell they'd be able to afford more.
Click to expand...

MG owners here and I have talked to plenty of others who would love for the Hughes amendment to go away. Loss of money but gaining the chance to buy more, have your kids be able to buy them and to not have to worry the next step was even more paperwork (ie: trust debacle) would be worth it. I am sure a few high end dealers would be unhappy though.

FYI: Rental ranges are typically 07FFls so they build and rent out post samples. Basically no more cost than a semi version.

On a related note: First SBR arrest with a Sig brace on it.

https://www.turlockcitynews.com/cri...the-arrest-of-three-for-turlock-home-invasion

Calistanifornia, though.
 
Last edited:
Those d-bags were arrested for a home invasion, though, not for the sig brace. Whether they get charged by CA for a SBR type violation is sort of secondary.
 

Similar threads

Federal Judge Rules Millions Of NRA Members Exempt From ATF Pistol Brace Rule
Replies
12
Views
537
1919FAN
1919FAN
Status of Pistol brace ruling?
Replies
0
Views
118
TomMalthus
T
Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
ATF new report shows FFLs are not the problem
2
Replies
47
Views
1K
SkilledSovereignty
S
ATF Receiver Rule - FPC Granted Cert
Replies
9
Views
474
pastera
pastera
Back
Top Bottom