Joined
·
8,711 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.