[KiA]

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.

 

[KiA]

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.

 

[KiA]

...

this is spiraling out. i think the important objective for me is to understand your point; then i can decide whether i agree to it.

see if i got these correctly:

a) you're indicating that the ATF had previously approved the brace (i'm not clear on whether that approval was specific to shouldering it).
b) thru their new interpretation, they are claiming that misuse == redesign.
c) you do not agree with this definition of "redesign".
d) you think that this could (or would?) lead them to accuse people operating a pistol using a two handed grip to having "redesigned" an AOW.
e) you would like ATF to be challenged in court to leave the interpretation to higher courts.
f) should the courts agree with your interpretation of "redesign" (thus legalizing shouldering the brace), you would be happy with the victory.
g) should further laws be legislated to specifically ban the brace, or shouldering of, you would be ok with that for the mere fact of having gone thru proper legislative process.

 

[KiA]

Again, are you trolling or what?

my objective was to understand your point of view. i was looking for a yes/no verification, not for you to tell me what i think or name calling.
have you ever been told that you argue like a little girl? (again, it's a yes/no question :smile

PS> thank you for the ATF letter. i was not aware they had specifically stated that misuse is not redesign.

 

[KiA]

i am going on a hike with the dogs for a few hours. i may return with changed opinion.

 

[KiA]

so i've changed my perspective.

previously i was narrowly focused on the brace. i figured that what they said was opinion. i don't think it really mattered. the brace was still legal and it made sense to blame the person, not the device, for the misuse. what matters is the court's interpretation. if ATF is challenged, it'll push their opinion into courts which i did not think would go well either way. so let them get away with their opinion. nod head. move on.

however i started to see the bigger picture. if we were to actually put value into their interpretation then its implications would be ugly as well; maybe uglier. from the perspective of playing it as a political chess game, i don't have the foresite to make a strong stance either way, so i retract my previous opinion. i'd say it's probably better to disagree with their interpretation; maybe even challenge it. from the perspective of principles alone, i don't agree with the ATF's interpretation. however i don't favor to always play the hot headed purist (stick). i think sometimes more can be done thru the political chess game (carrot).

here's a good article about carrots vs sticks : by joe huffman

 

[KiA]

the BATF did us a favor by allowing the use of the Sig brace to be attached on short barrel firearms.

could you elaborate on why you see it as a favor?

 

[KiA]

How is it that I see the BATF doing us a favor by allowing Sig braces on short barrel firearms?
The way I see it as a favor is that the BATF decided to allow it instead of prohibit it from the very beginning.

i'm not sure i follow your logic.
a favor would mean that they had just reason, or the proper semantics to disallow the brace all together, but instead chose, out of kindness, to allow it. maybe i need more examples of ATF's act(s) of kindness to be convinced.

basically, it sounds like you're saying they could have not authorized it, but they did -- 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)

 

[KiA]

... Just as they say you cannot put an M4 style adjustable buffer tube on a pistol as it makes it too easy to convert.

do you have a letter saying such?

i did a quick search and found the following letter:

which i understood as:
a) (somewhat unrelated) you can not use a receiver that has been previously classified as a rifle
b) it is permissible to use the adjustable buffer tube, however possession of the buttstock that could readily be installed on it could be constituted as possession of an SBR.

point (b) falls under constructive possession, which to my knowledge, there's only been one case of prosecution here. similarly, another person in your household could be prosecuted for possession of your NFA item if they can readily have access/control to/of it -- thus a good reason to get a trust. follow the "myth or reality" link in that article as well.

it would be the same situation with buying a short barrel for a receiver that's been classified as a rifle before approval of form 1. should the person announce this publicly, or the ATF burst into their house, they could be prosecuted for constructive possession of an SBR.

 

[KiA]

flashback

that will just lead to them coming back wanting all of your carrots. This has been happening since 1934:

i recently read an article that reminded me what you said & the cartoon:
Gun Owners, Gun Legislation, and Compromise

 

[KiA]

SONYtec, you're making the same argument that i initially made.

to rehash, it would make sense if their opinion was to only apply to the brace: blame the person, not the tool. also, it is only an opinion, not a ruling, so it makes sense to just let it be.

the problem is with the specific word play that they used. if you accept their definition that something can be redesigned thru usage (rather than just be misused), then you must also accept that the ATF could in a ruling, state that a person holding a pistol with two hands has redesigned an AOW. they have not yet; but the implications of accepting their logic is that they could.

ultimately, what they say doesn't matter. they would take their argument to court and it would be left for the courts to interpret the words and make a decision.

it's a complex chess game. let them be? challenge them early? challenge them late? who knows.

i think the argument boils down to whether misuse is equal to redesign - not just as it applies to the brace, but in the general sense with all its future implications.