FN Herstal Firearms banner
1 - 20 of 102 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,731 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Since all of the threads on Sig brace are closed, not sure where else to post this:
BREAKING: Statement from SIG SAUER About ATF Pistol Brace Ruling - The Truth About Guns

Here are the highlights in Sig's letter to ATF -
Sig said:
In the letter of January 16, 2015, ATF opines that a person’s actual use of the product as a shoulder stock can change the legal classification of the product.
Opines, interesting choice of word.

Sig said:
We question ATF’s reversal in position that the classification of the brace may be altered by its use. We are reviewing the legal precedents and justification for this position, and will address our concerns with ATF in the near future.
Heck yeah, time to put that expensive legal team of yours to good use Sig.

Sig said:
We will vigorously defend the classification of all of our products and our consumers’ right to use them in accordance with the law. If we find that the open letter opinion is outside the scope of the law, we will seek further review.
That's good news IMO, it sounds like Sig is more prepared to fight this then I originally give them credit for. This could force ATF to completely retract their earlier approval to Sig brace or their open letter about "redesigning" the brace by using it a certain way. Nothing risked nothing gained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,498 Posts
I haven't been following the story enough to add an informed comment, but good for Sig for standing up and challenging the ATF. The laws need specificity and cannot be ambiguous for an agent to make an opinion that's outside of what the law defines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
Thanks for posting this, and I hope you don't mind my tacking this on:

TTAG Exclusive: SB Tactical's Statement on the ATF Pistol Brace Ruling - The Truth About Guns

Also pertinent to the story. In addition to expecting Government Agencies to follow the law they enforce, I'd say it's about time America took back a little of what was taken back then--perhaps it's a little altruistic at this point, but I hope they and us(Gun-owners and enthusiasts) can take this to the courts and strike down what shouldn't be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Myscar and CPTdaz

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,731 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I've said this before and I will state it again: if left unchallenged, this ATF determination could set a dangerous precedent for agency to charge gun owners whenever they like by simply outlawing the way we hold our weapons.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,217 Posts
I haven't been following the story enough to add an informed comment, but good for Sig for standing up and challenging the ATF. The laws need specificity and cannot be ambiguous for an agent to make an opinion that's outside of what the law defines.
Unfortunately, once the FTB makes a determination, you are left with little recourse except legal channels to challenge their opinion at a great cost to you. Take for example the SS190. By definition, it is not AP ammo because it does not fall within the statute but FTB has declared it to be AP ammo and there is little any one can do about it except challenge it in the court system.

It does have a steel penetrator but an aluminum core and thus does not meet the specifications of "core entirely constructed" of a banned metal. Further, the SS109 has a steel penetrator and a lead core yet is is not classified as AP ammo.

The only difference between the two with the exception of the weight is one has a lead core, the other an aluminum core, neither of which is a banned metal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
i don't understand why people are getting bent out of shape about the ATF's new ruling. it makes sense to me.
it basically says it would be illegal to use it other than intended. that applies to many things, and in fact that legal warning can be found in many consumer products. this is the same clause that could be used in the legal defense of someone who was attacked by another person yielding a wooden stick as a weapon. the argument would be that the attacker had remade/re-purposed/redesigned/whatever the stick into a dangerous weapon. it means the person that performed the re-design (i.t.e. the attacker) was responsible, not the product. it's a means for them to prevent a loop-hole (to create an SBR) and to prosecute potential offenders, not to re-classify the arm brace and make it illegal.

people may be having an issue with the word "redesign", thinking that it has to involve physical change of property, or assembly; or that one mis-use will reclassify the entire product. the ATF is saying that it's based on intent in each particular case. i.e. a baseball bat is a baseball bat until it's intended to be used as a dangerous weapon; then it becomes a dangerous weapon in that case. they're not going to reclassify all baseball bats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,663 Posts
I was expecting sig to answer this most ATF rule. It is simple, the ATF in previous letters, allowed the brace to be manufactured stating "changing the way it is used, does not change the purpose of the brace". For Sig to invest millions of dollars to develop, manufacture, and market this brace based on the ATF's letter, Sig has every reason to challenge this ruling. If the ATF included this information in their initial letter, things would be different and rightfully so. The purpose of a business it to generate wealth, the purpose of a governing agency is to govern, so there for the responsibility of the governing authority is to set rules beforehand in effort to prevent harming a business. Sig should fight this as far as they can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
i don't understand why people are getting bent out of shape about the ATF's new ruling. it makes sense to me.
it basically says it would be illegal to use it other than intended. that applies to many things, and in fact that legal warning can be found in many consumer products. this is the same clause that could be used in the legal defense of someone who was attacked by another person yielding a wooden stick as a weapon. the argument would be that the attacker had remade/re-purposed/redesigned/whatever the stick into a dangerous weapon. it means the person that performed the re-design (i.t.e. the attacker) was responsible, not the product. it's a means for them to prevent a loop-hole (to create an SBR) and to prosecute potential offenders, not to re-classify the arm brace and make it illegal.

people may be having an issue with the word "redesign", thinking that it has to involve physical change of property, or assembly; or that one mis-use will reclassify the entire product. the ATF is saying that it's based on intent in each particular case. i.e. a baseball bat is a baseball bat until it's intended to be used as a dangerous weapon; then it becomes a dangerous weapon in that case. they're not going to reclassify all baseball bats.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I personally think, and I could very well be wrong, that the popularity of the sig brace is in the fact that it basically came as a work around to the law against pistols with buttstocks, because it *could* be used as a brace attached to the wrist, with the majority of those who purchased it intending to use it as a makeshift buttstock. The gunstore I worked at last summer got one of the ar-15 pistols with a brace on it in, and literally everyone who picked it up put it to their shoulder, and most remarked on its legality. It's the same with the popularity of the sliderfire/bumpski stocks as an alternative to full auto. It's not 100% the same thing, but it is a substitution.

I personally believe that sbr's, machine pistols, and the like should be legal; but as the current law sits, I totally understand the ATF's position, and actually feel they are being generous. They're giving gun owners enough rope to hang themselves with, it's up to the purchasers of the brace to hang themselves. I'm going to just go ahead and say that all of the uproar is about people being upset that they cannot legally circumvent the law now, which sucks, but I wasn't surprised it went this route. In fact, the only thing that does surprise me about this entire thing is that it was ever permitted in the first place and allowed to run for as long as it did. Where the slidefire/bumpski stocks were an attempt to circumvent the laws against FA, they might have produced similar rates of fire, but not for any sustainable period and without anywhere near the accuracy, since the weight of the gun is no longer firmly in the shoulder weld and recoil is less controlled because of it, the brace, on the other hand, was a more effective replication of what a buttstock provides for a pistol in the control of recoil forces with 3-4 points of contact and being able to effectively fire the weapon while holding it closer to the center of gravity and reduce arm fatigue, plus the benefits to sighting that comes from all of the above. I spelled it out. Again, I don't agree with it, but I totally see where they are coming from, and it currently IS the law. What we need to do, and I know this is likely not going to happen in the near future, is get the laws on SBRs/SBSs reversed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
The idea that misusing something is redesigning it or making it something it isn't is stupidity at its finest. But we've already been over this..

ETA: Loopholes aren't exactly unicorns, they apply to many parts of the law, so why people condemn it as a "loophole," like it never happened before, is beyond me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,731 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
i don't understand why people are getting bent out of shape about the ATF's new ruling. it makes sense to me.
it basically says it would be illegal to use it other than intended. that applies to many things, and in fact that legal warning can be found in many consumer products. this is the same clause that could be used in the legal defense of someone who was attacked by another person yielding a wooden stick as a weapon. the argument would be that the attacker had remade/re-purposed/redesigned/whatever the stick into a dangerous weapon. it means the person that performed the re-design (i.t.e. the attacker) was responsible, not the product. it's a means for them to prevent a loop-hole (to create an SBR) and to prosecute potential offenders, not to re-classify the arm brace and make it illegal.

people may be having an issue with the word "redesign", thinking that it has to involve physical change of property, or assembly; or that one mis-use will reclassify the entire product. the ATF is saying that it's based on intent in each particular case. i.e. a baseball bat is a baseball bat until it's intended to be used as a dangerous weapon; then it becomes a dangerous weapon in that case. they're not going to reclassify all baseball bats.
Never thought I would see someone arguing FOR a government agency to exercise power that's not constitutionally theirs on a gun forum, especially an agency that's responsible for gun control under an anti-gun administration no less.

Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that only the legislative body can make new laws or change existing ones. Now if I do something that's legal one day then that same thing is now a federal crime the next day. Explain to me how that can happen WITHOUT a new Federal law being in place or change made to the existing Federal law. But don't take my words for it, here's a lawyer talking about the exact topic:

Your baseball bat is a terrible analogy. First of all, assault with deadly weapon is an existing law. The language and legal precedent are clear in what can reasonably defined as assault with deadly weapon. Second, the charge based on the assault which in itself an illegal action; it's not possession or manufacturing or modification. Regarding the sig brace, there's no law that restriction the act of shouldering a rifle or even SBR. And the existing NFA law only limits manufacturing and modification of NFA firearms. What ATF did is intentionally interpreted the law (misinterpreted it beyond its reasonable definition IMO) as to effectively changing it without going through the constitutionally mandated legislative process. If misuse constitute as re-design, then what's stopping ATF from charging individual with possession of unregistered NFA controlled firearms for using two hand grip to fire pistols (AOW), or grabbing magwell on AR pistols ((AOW) or holding pistols against their shoulders (SBR)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,381 Posts
Oh well, maybe my plan to sell off my SBR lower in favor of SIG brace pistol lowers than I can travel across state lines without asking for permission needs to be put on hold until this is sorted.

I think I'll still buy a SIG brace though, I have an itch to have any and all things the Authoritarians tell me I can't be trusted with.

If we still had prohibition I would own a still just for GPs and I don't even drink very much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,731 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Oh well, maybe my plan to sell off my SBR lower in favor of SIG brace pistol lowers than I can travel across state lines without asking for permission needs to be put on hold until this is sorted.

I think I'll still buy a SIG brace though, I have an itch to have any and all things the Authoritarians tell me I can't be trusted with.

If we still had prohibition I would own a still just for GPs and I don't even drink very much.
I honestly don't see why gun owners aren't more upset over this. This issue goes beyond Sig brace. ATF is basically demonstrating that they can bypass the Senate and House and make their own law regarding guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,663 Posts
I honestly don't see why gun owners aren't more upset over this. This issue goes beyond Sig brace. ATF is basically demonstrating that they can bypass the Senate and House and make their own law regarding guns.

Crossed lines??? Just Wait till they do something more.---- maybe change how u buy or take possession of a suppressor, or more serialization on sbr's-- this is potentially the beginning and will goe way beyond a brace if they are not checked. They are an extension of the gun control function, and they will if unchecked do more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,692 Posts
I wholeheartedly agree with CPTdaz..... The issue at hand goes well beyond the Sig type braces. I hope Sig really takes them to task and with hopefully a more constitutionally leaning governmental legislative body in the majority now we can push the ATF and such back down the road and let them be the "tax man" as they were originally setup for...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,217 Posts
I honestly don't see why gun owners aren't more upset over this. This issue goes beyond Sig brace. ATF is basically demonstrating that they can bypass the Senate and House and make their own law regarding guns.
Not at all surprising. More of Obama's anti gun initiatives. Firearm maker makes a firearm item after the FTB approves it costing them millions of dollars which they hope to recover after sales of the items so that they can make a profit. Once released, FTB declares "Oops, we were wrong" and changes their mind (which they do with alarming frequency), so Sig is out all of the R&D and tooling money and takes a loss that they can not claim on their taxes. Sig, a firearm manufacturer, looses millions of dollars and Obama's anti gun policies go forward unchecked because FTB now makes decisions based on political expediency, not law. Obama get what he wants and now has another way to squeeze firearm manufacturers out of millions of dollars.

Want to challenge it? Got an extra couple of million of dollars sitting around that you are willing to loose? Who cares, government does not pay for this battle, taxpayers do.

Once again, this administration and their anti gun czars make unconstitutional determinations that have the weight of law, yet are not accountable to anyone. Typical mentality of "we know it is unconstitutional but who with deep enough pockets is going to challenge it?" And even though another political party controls both houses, nothing will get done because neither has a veto override majority and the anti gun dems will continue to block anything that may interfere with Obama's anti gun policies.

Face it, the only thing that is going to change at this time is that Obama is going to use his VETO pen because he no longer has Harry Reid to block any of his non socialist anti gun big government agenda anymore. He has only used it twice, once shutting down the government by veto of a Continuing Resolution, and the other time was the veto of Interstate Recognition of Notarization.

I give you 100 to 1 odds that Obama uses his veto pen more than any other president in the last two years of office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Never thought I would see someone arguing FOR a government agency to exercise power that's not constitutionally theirs on a gun forum, especially an agency that's responsible for gun control under an anti-gun administration no less.
i'm not arguing for the ATF but rather the logic they are making on this whole ridiculous NFA process. if someone is making sense to me, i'm not going to invalidate them just because they wear a government suite.

the NFA laws (passed by legislation) specify the "attorney general" as the authoritative agent. the ATF, working under the DOJ, is governed by the AG and is essentially the authoritative agent here. their interpretation and authorization is not in question here. if you are saying that ATF is not in a position to interpret existing laws, then that is another argument.

since they are in a position to authorize & enforce, let's assume that they (not another agency) can also interpret the laws.

they're not pulling new laws out of their butt. they are interpreting existing:

definition of rifle (strait from title 18, chapter 44, 921 a7): "A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder" {ref:page 6}

their interpretation is that when the user shoulders the brace, the user has [during such time that it is shouldered] redesigned / remade the brace into a shoulder stock.

that make sense to me.
if you disagree and win the battle, you have to realize that it'll open a loop-hole that will seek specific legislated banning, or imposed tax, in the future; lose the war.
they're basically coming out and officially saying to not do it, which they have to. the brace remains untaxed and legal.

If misuse constitute as re-design, then what's stopping ATF from charging individual with possession of unregistered NFA controlled firearms for using two hand grip to fire pistols (AOW)?
the definition of pistol is: "A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand" {ref:page 39}

i think the keyword here is originally. if a pistol is held by two hands it would still remain a pistol because it was originally made to be held in one hand. there are no other definitions for "two hand grip" that the user would be jumping/redesigning to. now if the user was to shoulder a pistol, sure - same thing as the brace. it jumps from an "originally made for one handed" device to a "redesigned to be fired from a shoulder" device (i.e. the brace).

what's stopping them? nothing. you don't think ATF would prosecute someone for shouldering a pistol if they want to be asshats or give someone a hard time? are you challenging them to make a decision? i would bet if people were to write in and question shouldering pistols (as dumb as it sounds), the ATF would announce a similar interpretation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,731 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 · (Edited)
i'm not arguing for the ATF but rather the logic they are making on this whole ridiculous NFA process. if someone is making sense to me, i'm not going to invalidate them just because they wear a government suite.
If the whole NFA law is so ridiculous, then what is making sense to you? How exactly does one make sense to you when they are ultimately making a ridiculous assertion?

the NFA laws (passed by legislation) specify the "attorney general" as the authoritative agent. the ATF, working under the DOJ, is governed by the AG and is essentially the authoritative agent here. their interpretation and authorization is not in question here. if you are saying that ATF is not in a position to interpret existing laws, then that is another argument.
I'm not and never was arguing their power to enforce the law. Their authority to intentionally misinterpret the word of the law IS in question here. Again I have to ask: if I do something that's legal one day then that same thing is now a federal crime the next day. How that can happen WITHOUT a new Federal law being in place or change made to the existing Federal law?

their interpretation is that when the user shoulders the brace, the user has [during such time that it is shouldered] redesigned / remade the brace into a shoulder stock.

that make sense to me.
No it does not. No reasonable (and legal) definition of redesign means using the item in a different manner than the original design. Take End User License Agreement for any software for example, the term redesign means changing the original code, not temporary misuse of it.

if you disagree and win the battle, you have to realize that it'll open a loop-hole that will seek specific legislated banning, or imposed tax, in the future; lose the war.
they're basically coming out and officially saying to not do it, which they have to. the brace remains untaxed and legal.
I would rather ATF go through the proper process for those "specific legislated banning" then arbitrarily declaring something illegal without elected officials. If it is a war, then you're basically saying we should appease the other side with something small hoping they will be satisfied. That strategy worked really well for Europe against Hitler too. Well, fvck that, I rather lose the war after fighting than give up without trying. But seeing how the last election turned out, I like our chance with the legislative channels.

the definition of pistol is: "A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand" {ref:page 39}

i think the keyword here is originally. if a pistol is held by two hands it would still remain a pistol because it was originally made to be held in one hand. there are no other definitions for "two hand grip" that the user would be jumping/redesigning to. now if the user was to shoulder a pistol, sure - same thing as the brace. it jumps from an "originally made for one handed" device to a "redesigned to be fired from a shoulder" device (i.e. the brace).
Except ATF also this to say about AOW:
ATF said:
ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.
They can easily argue that by using the pistol with two hands, you have "redesigned" it to be held two hands, therefore no longer classified as pistol and in possession of an unregistered AOW which is a Federal crime. Also there's this:


what's stopping them? nothing. you don't think ATF would prosecute someone for shouldering a pistol if they want to be asshats or give someone a hard time? are you challenging them to make a decision? i would bet if people were to write in and question shouldering pistols (as dumb as it sounds), the ATF would announce a similar interpretation.
Sure, they certain can "opine" similarly. But answer me these: do you think they would prosecute someone who does shoulder a pistol? And do you think they have a good chance of winning?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spilz
1 - 20 of 102 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top