[Newshawk]

I posted this in another gun forum. I found it today in a newsletter for authors I get daily. It's chilling in its aptness to the ATF:

The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.
Philip K. Dick

 

[CPTdaz]

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.

I agree for the most part, but I think Sig have a better chance in winning this. Government might not pay for this battle but even if it's not theirs, taxpayer dollars is still a limited resource for them and there are bigger battles in the Capital hill for Obama's administration and Democrats to be concerned about than backing up the ATF in a minor skirmish especially with next presidential election two years away.

 

[liass44]

Sig braces and Kak buffer tube kits are currently selling very reasonably. If you are in the market, now is the time to get a set-up.

 

[DAWGfan1980]

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.

I kinda see where you are coming from... In my opinion a lot of people are upset because they can't use the brace as a non-collapsing stock... While you can still use it as an actual brace. I'm assuming at some point prior to the release of the of the brace Sig sought out ATF approval as to the braces legality under current federal laws. I don't believe there is a federal law which specifically addresses the use of a brace in an application similar to the Sig brace.

There is a video below this post that goes on for almost 10 minutes where there is discussion about definitions and redesigning, etc... I understand how some of that logic seems twisted but the individual in the video states that officials with the ATF basically wrote law... which I would assert they did not, but they did change their mind on how they were going to apply the current laws that are on the books. When I saw Sig braces initially starting to show up on the inter web I thought to myself, "is that thing legal?" The questions I had about its legality were based on my own opinions and current understanding of the laws at the time, as someone who had gone through the NFA process for a SBR, etc. I soon read articles about how it was "approved" by the ATF and deemed to be legal for this or that reason exempting a pistol with one installed from the NFA process. To me it has always been a slippery slope that I decided to stay away from.

I personally believe that if you think there should be less restrictions on items currently controlled by the NFA it would be politically more prudent to address an actual law that is written rather than what I see as something that has always kind of hinged on the opinion of the ATF.

And while loopholes or gray area regarding laws have always existed... from time to time they close for one reason or another...

 

[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.

 

[CPTdaz]

I kinda see where you are coming from... In my opinion a lot of people are upset because they can't use the brace as non-collapsing stock... While you can still use it as an actual brace. I'm assuming at some point prior to the release of the of the brace Sig sought out ATF approval as to the braces legality under current federal laws. I don't believe there is a federal law which specifically addresses the use of a brace in an application similar to the Sig brace.

There is a video below this post that goes on for almost 10 minutes where there is discussion about definitions and redesigning, etc... I understand how some of that logic seems twisted but the individual in the video states that officials with the ATF basically wrote law... which I would assert they did not, but they did change their mind on how they were going to apply the current laws that are on the books. When I saw Sig braces initially starting to show up on the inter web I thought to myself, "is that thing legal?" The questions I had about its legality were based on my own opinions and current understanding of the laws at the time, as someone who had gone through the NFA process for a SBR, etc. I soon read articles about how it was "approved" by the ATF and deemed to be legal for this or that reason exempting a pistol with one installed from the NFA process. To me it has always been a slippery slope that I decided to stay away from.

I personally believe that if you think there should be less restrictions on items currently controlled by the NFA it would be politically more prudent to address an actual law that is written rather than what I see as something that has always kind of hinged on the opinion of the ATF.

And while loopholes or gray area regarding laws have always existed... from time to time they close for one reason or another...

I think a lot people are upset because ATF interpret the NFA law beyond what we would consider reasonable. Previous interpretations of NFA by ATF have always been related to physical change of firearms, there's never been a legal precedent where how one HOLDS the weapon constitutes as a "re-design" of the firearm. Again if this is to be accept as norm, then ATF can restrict how gun owners are allow to hold their weapons, since now they established that alone is all they need to charge us with a Federal crime.

Furthermore, the way at which ATF arbitrarily flip flop back and forth in the legality and the inconsistent method in which they make that determination is almost entrapment.

I disagree that tackling NFA is a "politically prudent" course of action. Problem is that gun control issue is essentially at a political stalemate; there's no chance of either side will be able to score a major win over the other. And modifying or even overturning the NFA is about big of a win as we can hope. So both sides have resorted to argument over specific language of the existing law (i.e. loopholes or gray area). Those loopholes or gray areas benefit both sides (although I personally believe that the NFA is clear in the definition of what the controlled items are). They might close but they should always be challenged as it won't be the first time a government agency gets slapped for overstepping their authorities in their interpretation of the law in a court case.

 

[oldguysshoot]

I think the best thing Sig can hope for here is a follow-up letter from the ATF stating that if used in a self-defense emergency, then the ATF will not prosecute. Seems like the best balance of intent VS use we could hope to get.

Sig could argue the above by illustrating that even a person with disabilities that needs the brace to accurately shoot the weapon, may in time of duress be forced to use it on the shoulder. Can you imagine the ATF prosecuting a disabled vet who shouldered the weapon defending his family?

The ATF should have never approved the brace in the first place. They should have either made Sig redesign it so it wasn't so easy to shoulder, or they should have set up a Waiver of Disability application system.

 

[MEvans1993]

A waiver of disability would descriminate. Also, an "emergency situation only use" would NEVER fly, or happen.

 

[CPTdaz]

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.

Yes.

c) you do not agree with this definition of "redesign".

But you do, thus enabling ATF to not only control possession or modification of guns but how gun owners use or hold their weapons. It's basically gun control without giving us the chance to fight it. And that seems to be something you're okay with? Seriously, did you just come into this forum to troll?

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.

You don't? If ATF already established that the way you HOLD a firearm constitute as redesign of the weapon to potentially NFA controlled item then hold a handgun using two hands would also be considered as redesigning it to a firearm intended to be shot with both hands and no longer a pistol (i.e. AOW). That goes for griping the mag well on AR pistol or shouldering any pistol whether it's the buffer tubes on AR pistols or just the grip on a handgun.

e) you would like ATF to be challenged in court to leave the interpretation to higher courts.

And you would like ATF to left unchallenged in the hope of what? They will stop there?

f) should the courts agree with your interpretation of "redesign" (thus legalizing shouldering the brace), you would be happy with the victory.

Let me get this straight: you wouldn't be happy with ATF getting slapped for overreach their authority. Again, are you trolling or what?

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.

Sorry but that's stupid question. Are you really asking me whether I would rather see law passed through the proper legislative process than it arbitrarily be decided by single individual? No, I would love for this country to get turned in North Korea *sarcasm*

 

[CPTdaz]

Can you imagine the ATF prosecuting a disabled vet who shouldered the weapon defending his family?

Yes, I can.

 

[monsterdog]

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.

I think what he means is that the law the ATF refers to as their reasoning for this determination specifically defines a handgun as a gun designed to be shot with one hand.

Previous ATF interpretations of the same law states that if you put a vertical foregrip on the accessory rail of your pistol, you have then redesigned it to be fired with two hands, and you must register it as an AOW.

Now that their opinion simply is how you use the gun redesigns it, then the logical (re-)interpretation of the same law would make it illegal to shoot your handgun while holding it with two hands. Unless you register it as an AOW.

He is trying to apply logic and consistency to the behavior and opinions of the ATF.


At the very least, this new opinion shows a conflict with (an interpretation of) the law and how most handguns are actually used in this country. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and if any legislative changes happen as a result once this conflict becomes apparent to the ATF and legislators in Congress.

 

[CPTdaz]

He is trying to apply logic and consistency to the behavior and opinions of the ATF.

Admittedly a pointless effort.

 

[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.

 

[HK SD9 Tactical]

......

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.

 

[HK SD9 Tactical]

KiA, CPT Daz....Rules......

 

[CPTdaz]

KiA, CPT Daz....Rules......

Roger that. I will tone it down.

 

[KiA]

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

 

[Big Muddy]

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?

Yes on both points considering how clueless your average juror is on most laws pertaining to firearms.

 

[S*****4]

They should have either made Sig redesign it so it wasn't so easy to shoulder, or they should have set up a Waiver of Disability application system.

This would never work because you cannot, in a free America, REGULATE INTENT.

 

[Rattyxj00]

Again, I don't personally own any AR pistols, but it's what this all means that irks me. And anyone who is a true firearm enthusiast and roots some of that enthusiasm in a love for country an Constitution should feel irked as well. Anyone happen to do a little net-searching on the name of the 'firearms expert' who penned and signed the letter???????? Maybe you should.


Oh yes...perhaps intent is everything...
so what do you think the intent of the letter is? Excuse me while I...:th_puke: