FN Herstal Firearms banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

· Administrator
Joined
·
12,336 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.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
12,336 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.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
12,336 Posts
......

He is trying to apply logic and consistency to the behavior and opinions of the ATF.
Won't work. Logic and consistency are two abilities that the FTB lacks as shown by all their previous determinations which they then recanted and voided costing people and corporations millions and millions of dollars in developmental and marketing costs. Remember the guy here in Florida who developed a means for rapid firing a firearm. FTB said it was was OK in a determination letter then recanted their position about a year later. Confiscated the makers items and sales list and then contacted every person on the list and "stole" their paid for item with no compensation.

This is nothing less than a full on attack of the reading and their interpretation of the NFA. And if they can get away with this, then they can make any NFA item illegal by simply re-defining what a word means. Typical liberal mentality - "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...".

Remember that law has two meanings. What it was meant to mean and what it is interpreted to mean. Congress passes laws meaning this and the same law is interpreted by others who are not accountable to mean something else that is totally different that what the law was originally meant to be.

Law reads (Obamacare): everyone "must participate by this date".

Obama reads: I can change it to make it work as I see fit based on my counsels interpretation of what "must participate by this date" means.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
12,336 Posts
I don't think they really flip-flopped based on what I've seen... there is the redesign statement... but again... everyone wants to basically use the Sig brace as a stock and to me these arguments further force their hand... The ATF can always interpret the law as they see fit depending on the political environment... I just don't see how a suit or anything else is going to change their mind absent cases being prosecuted unsuccessfully... Or political pressure from the top... think about it...
I never have had the intent or desire to utilize the brace in any other manner than which it was designed. However, if I hold the end of the brace with my left hand and the pistol with my right hand, does that make it an AOW because it can be "re-designed" using both hands instead of the one hand that makes it "designed" as a pistol?

BTW, think of all the $200 tax stamps that this "re-design" will require.......registration of AR15 pistols with a Sig brace as SBR, mommy's permission to move it out of state, etc etc etc.... Further, now they may determine that the use of the buffer tube is being "re-designed" to be used as a shoulder stock making all AR15 pistols with buffer tubes SBRs. Cha ching, cha ching, cha ching,.......
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
12,336 Posts
Very good, we are both on the same page as far as legal interpretation goes, especially in this case concerning the Sig brace.

My belief still stands as I see it in my opinion: the BATF did us a favor by allowing the use of the Sig brace to be attached on short barrel firearms.
But yes, I agree it sucks that they decided to consider an opinion to reverse their initial regulatory decision.
I would also like to know if you truly mean that you think that "the BATF did us a favor by allowing the use of the Sig brace"? is OK. Are you indicating that you think that it is OK for the government to have oversight and penalize me for the use of a piece of plastic and that it is all right for them to now put me in jail for 10 years, fine me, and destroy my life because of the way I use this piece of plastic? I can't put it up to my shoulder but I can fire it from my nuts? Are you OK with the government oversight of this?

Or are you indicating that you think that the issue by the BATFE allowing the use of the brace first and now recanting, that somehow this is also good for us because we now have to spend millions and millions of dollars and tie up the court system for the next 8 years with an appeal to the SCOTUS? After getting the governments permission in the first place? And get to pay on both sides due to higher charges from the maker and government fees (taxes) to pay the lawyers for these trials? (I think this last part is called social engineering - forcing something to happen vs allowing something to happen naturally unimpeded).

Or this is what FTB said and I am alright with it for now because they know what is best for me. Not my problem, I don't care, does not affect me, it is somebody's else problem, not my fight....

Or I hope that some government supervisor will change this reversal and if not then I will let the court system make a determination no matter the cost, outcome, or stupidity of it.

I think I must have missed something so please expound so that I fully understand your discussion points on this matter. I am not trying to be sarcastic, I just want to know the depth of understanding that you as a former government regulator view this and how you think that this is a good thing for the American people.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
12,336 Posts
Approving the Sig brace also puts their impartiality in question.
They should have made a no call and told Sig simply this: "as long as it isn't a butt stock, sell it." Yet they had to stick their heads too deep and have their Tech Branch make in depth assessment of their decision.

now, I will not be dissuaded that their initial decision was a favor. It was.
BUT if they didn't stick their heads so far into it to begin with, they would have never had to do us this favor to begin with. And it was a favor they eventually took away when a different bureaucrat decided he didn't like the initial decision.

Whether it's a favor or not is irrelevant. We would not be having this discussion if the SBR and AOW laws were not in the USC.
The 1934 NFA even existing in the USC is the root of all this.

As I said before, I would love to see the USC amended to repeal the SBR parts out. That way the Sig brace issue would not even exist.



Compromise is what the Anti gun lobby uses as their weapon.
I wish the law makers will finally wake up and realize that the 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED and finally abolish the NFA and all other gun control laws as unconstitutional.
I understand what you are trying to impart with your posts. However, it still sticks in my craw that you think that the FTB should even have the authority to rule on this stuff. It is a piece of plastic. What next, the Dep of Trans needs to make a determination because I use my screwdriver as a punch or chisel and that is not the way it was intended to be used?

I have a rubber band. It can be made to make a SA firearm into a FA firearm. Does that mean now that I have to get a determination from the FTB about all my rubber bands? Further, does me possessing a rubber band and the firearm that it can be used on to make a post 86MG make it a felony in the same category of having the firing components for an M16 and being in possession of an AR15 in at the same time?

The FTB is trying to get into the arena of intent, and that is intent based on their perspective, not mine. They have no business here on this. We have been slammed with conspiracy charges in that "we think that this is what you were going to do so we are going to charge you with a crime even if you did nothing to provoke it, either by misusing an item or not." Now you have to spend millions of dollars to protect your freedom because they are trying to take it away based on "their thinking".

It is an arm brace. If I use it to fire from my knee, shoulder, forehead, chest, or whatever, does this now make it a crime that will cost me my freedom because I did not use it solely as a arm support? This is a freaking giant can of worms that they are trying to control and their intent is control every aspect of firearm ownership that they can.

You seem content with allowing the FTB the widest latitude in interpretation of the law.

Government has too much power right now and should not be allowed to arbitrarily make something illegal based solely on accidental use of the item. This can make everything that you touch and use an illegal item if you do not use it solely as what it was intended to be used as. Hey kids, forget that inner tube raft, it is against the law because some wacko decided that using it as a raft is not the intent of the item therefore it is now outlawed.

If someone breaks into my home and this is the firearm at hand, you are damn right that I will use it how I see fit to protect myself, regardless of what the Federal crap shoot boys call it.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
12,336 Posts
Exactly. Misuse does not equal re-design. As mentioned in a previous post, if I use a screwdriver as a chisel, I have misused the tool, not redesigned it.

This is the sticky wicket. By misusing something, you do not re-design it as the FTB wants you to believe. So I use an ashtray as a butt stock on the AR15 pistol, have I re-designed the ash tray or misused it? Obviously, I misused it and did not re-design anything.

We can not allow the FTB unbridled authority to issue opinions (people are arrested and prosecuted on opinions issued by the FTB) that indicate that the simple misuse of an item means that it was re-designed.

I know what the GCA says as well as what the NFA says and you can not have a butt stock on a pistol because it makes it a SBR. So, what about the ash tray? This opinion opens a Pandora box of which the ramifications will not truly be known for some time.

I do not know about you but I do not want to allow the FTB such unbridled authority that affects the very freedom of every gun owner in America.

What they should have said it what they said originally. Using it as it was designed is not against the law. Strange as it may seem though, you can use it as a butt stock on a regular AR15 BTW even if it is an arm brace and it is perfectly legal. Hell, you can use a plastic bottle as a butt stock on an AR15. I wonder if that is misuse or re-design????

I know, I will make a shoulder pad that is designed to protect the shoulder and stabilize any firearm being fired from the shoulder. I am doing this as an aid to help new shooters know exactly where to shoulder a firearm as well as protecting the shoulder from bruising. On this shoulder pad, I will have it designed so that it has a pocket to accept a basic butt stock as well as any round object of 1.5 inches or less in diameter within this pocket. As a result, but not intended, this will stabilize the firing of an AR15 pistol from the shoulder. So, is this a shoulder pad or will the FTB claim that it is re-designed to act as a butt stock for an AR15 pistol?

(You saw it here first, the idea is mine and I claim all responsibility for this idea).

This is rhetorical (except the idea) and I use it to show what a Pandora box this opinion is opening. I know that this is on the verge of stupidity but this is where the FTB has taken us.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
12,336 Posts
...

I could care less about the brace. Why would I mess with trying to bend my way around the law and regulations. I can't have an AR pistol in my state anyway. Even if I could have an AR pistol why bother, I have an SBR AR, no need to get in trouble and never be able to own firearms again....
I find it a bit disturbing that you really think this way about this. Are you also OK with the SAFE act for our NY members because it does not affect you?

On the SBR thing, it is a cost of $200 for the stamp, registration of your firearm with the government, and it requires a mommy may I slip from Uncle Sugar to move the damn thing anywhere but inside your state, pictures, fingerprints, background investigation, months and months or waiting, etc etc etc.... And, if you visit more than one place in a single state, you have to submit a 5320.20 for EVERY ADDRESS with SPECIFIC DATES that your SBR is going to be at ONE LOCATION OR ANOTHER, according to the latest "opinion" that I have received from the FTB about this. What was it she said? Ah yes "the 5320.20 in not a blanket authority for you to move your SBR wherever you want at any time either inside or outside your state of residence". This is why most people stay away from the NFA because of way too much government interference into their private lives. So they opt for a AR15 pistol to avoid the NFA and all the unnecessary government interference into their lives.

I would agree that this specific issue does not affect you because of the restriction placed upon you by your state government but using this logic of I can't have one so it does not affect me, then the strictest gun laws in any state should be OK for everybody in every state because "it does not affect me". Hell, I don't have a gun so why should I care whether the 2nd Amendment is trampled on or not and all gun control laws are OK because they do not affect me.

I do not think that anybody is trying to bend the law or regulations intentionally, but how can we be sure whether we are bending the law or regulations because the FTB changes their mind faster than the average American household toilet is flushed. This is just idiotic in its entirety. Where am I if I put the arm brace on the buffer tube but it is set half way down the buffer tube so if I do shoulder the buffer tube and the arm brace never makes contact with my shoulder, what then? Am I still liable for prosecution because it just got near my shoulder even if it never made contact?



My turn. :eek:
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
12,336 Posts
As Mac said in Vid one might do time and spent a fortune, don't think anybody is shouldering it if they know the latest info!

If not Illegal then why are all so worried about it?
FTB issues letter of "OPINIONS" not law. But these letters allow police officers to arrest people based on "opinions" and not on law that the FTB has ruled on based on their interpretation of the NFA, not what the law says, but what their interpretation of the law says. That interpretation changes faster than you change your underwear. The person arrested has to spend a fortune in court and risks their freedom trying to defend themselves against an FTB "opinion".

Now tell me again how their "opinion" is not something to be worried about?????
 
1 - 10 of 10 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