[17heavy]

I'm glad to see them actively following through on this.

 

[17heavy]

so then my question is thru what interpretation of the existing laws could the ATF not have authorized the brace? (i'm asking for your opinion, not arguing)

I think think they could have very easily placed it under the broad umbrella of "intent to construct". Just as they say you cannot put an M4 style adjustable buffer tube on a pistol as it makes it too easy to convert.

 

[17heavy]

I don't know if I agree with that analogy, since those type of stock buffer tube was originally intended to be part of a stock. Sig brace on the other hand is design from the ground up for completely different purpose and utilize none of the parts from a stock (in fact it uses AR pistol buffer tubes which are legal on pistols).

I don't agree with the analogy either. The man asked what the AFT could have used to not approve them. They are an out of control agency that makes it up on the fly and will continue to do so until the courts or the executive branch, that they ultimately answer to, reigns them in.