[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)

 

[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.

 

[SAVAGEJIM]

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)

Unfortunately, as for more acts of BATF "favors," I cannot provide because I know of no other examples. There might be other regulatory decisions that are in favor of us, the gun enthusiast, but I don't know what they are.
But honestly, it was nice to have that "act of kindness" granted to us when they could have gone the other way and prohibited it from the very beginning.

You are exactly right in that it sounds like BATFE could have prohibited it altogether.
The interpretation of the NFA laws in USC would be one of prohibition by assumption of the worst case scenarios. I.e. if the firearm would be made so that it could be fired from the shoulder even though the brace is not designed for that nor sold and advertised for that purpose.
Their possible interpretation could have been: If the Sig brace could be shouldered and allow the short barrel firearm to be fired from the shoulder, if the firearm is less than 22in overall and/or has a barrel shorter than 16in, it is an NFA classified SBR requiring the Forms and Tax Stamp.

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.

This. The BATFE could have used this regulatory decision as a basis for or at the very least, similar to in the sense of "intent to."

On a side note:
I am not fully versed in the NFA laws of the USC; I will have to read them all to discover the exact extents of what is law and what is regulation.
My curiosity right now is to find out if "intent to construct" is actually from the USC or if it is a regulatory decision from BATFE.

 

[CPTdaz]

Let me begin with my two part opinion to address the root behind your question and hopefully ease your thoughts. *edited

I hear you, but as KIA mentioned I don't see how that initial decision by the ATF is a favor. It's simply them doing what they are supposed to do. Disapproving Sig brace would be put the impartiality of the agency in question.

 

[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.

 

[CPTdaz]

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.

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).

 

[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.

 

[Clyde]

Sig Sauer will take the issue to court. They have several new products coming out that use the new version of the brace. The time honored maxim: Once a pistol, always a pistol....

"Handgun. (a) Any firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand;...." So, a handgun can have a short stock, as long as it "is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand...."

The ATF opinion letter is subject to judicial review. I always planned to use mine one-handed anyway...so I will just wait for this one to end up in court. If one can shoulder a padded buffer tube on an AR-15 pistol, how is using a buffer tube covered with that brace any different if used on a pistol? I believe the BATFE will lose this one in court....

 

[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

 

[SAVAGEJIM]

I hear you, but as KIA mentioned I don't see how that initial decision by the ATF is a favor. It's simply them doing what they are supposed to do. Disapproving Sig brace would be put the impartiality of the agency in question.

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.

flashback

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

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.

 

[HK SD9 Tactical]

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.

 

[SAVAGEJIM]

And I see your points too. But despite my belief that the BATFE is charged to make regulatory calls, I am 100% with you in that the BATFE shouldn't even be making these callsto begin with.
These are my following opinions:

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?

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.

Again, too much big brother, which I abhor. I agree with you; how a tool is used by the end user should not be regulated.
HOWEVER, if the tool is used in a crime, then judge only the person for the crime and don't judge the tool.
If a criminal takes a hammer and uses it to kill someone by bashing their head in, the criminal should be charged for murder and hammers should never ever be regulated just because a criminal wrongfully used it as a weapon instead of a tool.

My opinion, I stress, it is my opinion, extends to the Sig Brace. So what if someone shoulders it? Was the pistol or "ad hoc SBR" used illegally in a crime?
If no, allow the end user to shoot at the range all he wants, to legally hunt as his permits of his laws will allow him, etc.
Even if the answer is yes, charge, convict, and punish the criminal. But don't regulate the Sig brace because the Sig brace did not Jedi-mind-trick the user to commit the crime. The criminal would have committed the crime with or without a Sig brace.

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".

The interpretation of intent is also my fear. And yes, I agree with you 100% here too.
The allegation of intent should not even be brought up against law abiding and upright gun owners. We know the laws and we abide by them. This is where I agree with you that the intent should be discarded and never considered.
I therefore stand by you on this one.

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

Wrong and absolutely not true. As a matter of fact, I am so strongly polarized against the BATFE that I simply want to address the root of the issue which is eliminating the SBA, AOW, Suppressor laws by amending and repealing them out of the NFA parts of the USC.
I only said the BATFE has to be the guys who have to eat the $#!+ burger of a mess and make these calls only because these 1934 NFA laws were ratified into the USC.

I stand by what I said earlier: if the NFA laws did not exist, we would not be in this quagmire of a legal interpretation mess. Just maybe, the BAFTE wouldn't even exist if the NFA laws were never ratified.

But here we sit under the dark cloud of the NFA laws infringing our Constitutional right and unfortunately we have to live with it.
Sadly, we will have to pay millions in courts to fight each and every one of the BATFE's bad regulatory decision making.

Again, I am nowhere near content that the BATFE's Tech Branch is even making any calls.
I personally blame the higher-ups for forcing the BATFE Tech Branch to make such calls. My thoughts are that the liberal leadership and/or anti-gun congressmen are breathing down their necks to make a call when the BATFE would probably prefer to stay out of it.

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.

Again, I agree with you in this. The BATFE is too much Big Brother and out of control making stupid regulatory decisions as they go in a rather stupid manner.
The BATFE would not be sticking its head in if it weren't for all the mass media over-sensationalizing gun violence beyond what actually happened. This over-sentimentalization in turn gets people to vote in anti-gun congressmen who into create anti-gun committees and pass anti-gun laws and appoint anti-gun leaders in key positions who in turn place undue pressure on government bureaus like the BATFE to act harder and make decisions based on the will of the anti-gun leadership.

The Sig brace issue is only the tip of the iceberg which is the root of the problem here. And the Sig brace issue is only one of many many more problems we will have to fight.
And it will be very expensive because of the anti-gun crowd that has spawned from the mass media wrongfully vilifying guns as the root of all evil when the mass media should be vilifying the criminal instead.

With this, I agree with you: a Sig brace does not automatically make a gun into a weapon that would be used to commit a crime. A Sig Brace does not magically force someone to go out and rob a bank or whatever.
And I agree with you, if I must defend myself, I too would pick up my firearm to defend my home, family, an myself whether or not it has a Sig brace on it.
And if I could not get to my firearm, I will just as easily grab a hammer to defend myself.

I totally agree. A hammer and a Sig Brace and only tools. Regulating them should not even happen.

 

[CPTdaz]

Some more legal opinion on the matter:

From an unconfirmed source (unlike therealTrippleb who's an actual lawyer) so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[SONYtec]

People are playing with trouble when they do not use something as intended.

You take that arm brace, and use it as a shoulder stock, you are opening a can of worms for yourself. This is because in the ATF's eye's you just skirted the NFA laws in regards to SBR's.

That arm brace is not designed TO BE USED as a shoulder stock. It's an aid for holding a pistol one handed. Your caught shouldering it, you just reclassified that weapon as a short barreled rifle. Look at the ATF definitions of what is what.

Now if you have to use the pistol and brace to defend yourself, do what ever, it's spur of the moment. But better hope that no one sees you shouldering it.

Bottom line, don't use it to shoulder the weapon.

I don't understand why people are still debating this issue. Sorry your pissed that you can get in trouble by shouldering it, because you don't want to, or can't, build a legal SBR.

I suggest you move to a place where you can do it.


If people keep poking the ATF FTB, they might, can, and will, decide to ban it all together, if they come to the determination of "intent" is possible.

 

[CPTdaz]

People are playing with trouble when they do not use something as intended...

The NFA define pistol as "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).". Do you hold a pistol with two hands? If you do, you just opened a can of worms for yourself. This is because in the ATF's eye's you just skirted the NFA laws in regards to AOWs.

A pistol is not designed TO BE USED with two hands. It's designed to be held one handed. Your caught two handing it, you just reclassified that weapon as an AOW. Look at the ATF definitions of what is what.

Now if you have to use the pistol to defend yourself, do what ever, it's spur of the moment. But better hope that no one sees you putting your other hand on it.

Bottom line, don't use the pistol two handed.

I don't understand why people are still debating this issue. Sorry your pissed that you can get in trouble by holding pistol with two hands, because you don't want to, or can't, build a legal AOW.

I suggest you move to a place where you can do it.

Excuse the extensive paraphrasing, but I just want you to see how ridiculous your rant sounds.

 

[SONYtec]

The NFA define pistol as "a weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).". Do you hold a pistol with two hands? If you do, you just opened a can of worms for yourself. This is because in the ATF's eye's you just skirted the NFA laws in regards to AOWs.

A pistol is not designed TO BE USED with two hands. It's designed to be held one handed. Your caught two handing it, you just reclassified that weapon as an AOW. Look at the ATF definitions of what is what.

Now if you have to use the pistol to defend yourself, do what ever, it's spur of the moment. But better hope that no one sees you putting your other hand on it.

Bottom line, don't use the pistol two handed.

I don't understand why people are still debating this issue. Sorry your pissed that you can get in trouble by holding pistol with two hands, because you don't want to, or can't, build a legal AOW.

I suggest you move to a place where you can do it.

Excuse the extensive paraphrasing, but I just want you to see how ridiculous your rant sounds.

It's not a rant. Your "paraphrasing" is "ridiculous" since a pistol would only be an AOW if you put a vertical fore grip on it to hold it with two hands, or it meets the criteria as listed below.

Any Other Weapon

26 U.S.C. § 5845(E)

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term “Any Other Weapon” means:
•Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive;
​
•A pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell;
​
•Weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading; and

•Any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire.

Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.


Firearms - Guides - Importation & Verification of Firearms - National Firearms Act Definitions - Any Other Weapon | ATF

A fore grip added to a pistol to hold the handgun with two hands is to be registered as an AOW.

Adding a Vertical Fore Grip to a Handgun | ATF


Has the ATF determined that holding the one hand grip with two hands classifies the handgun as something else???

You are just making assumptions. Maybe you could ask the FTB to clarify the two hand hold of a single pistol grip.


Unfortunately they have made a determination with the arm brace, in regards to improper use as a shoulder stock.

Facts, and their regulations.

 

[CPTdaz]

It's not a rant. Your "paraphrasing" is "ridiculous" since a pistol would only be an AOW if you put a vertical fore grip on it to hold it with two hands, or it meets the criteria as listed below.

No, ATF logic is as soon as you shoulder a pistol, it's no longer a pistol;you have "redesigned" into a SBR, likewise as soon as you put another hand on your pistol; it's no longer a pistol; it's an AOW.

Quoting from your own post, AOW is:
"Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive" (which is pretty much ANY firearm) and "such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver.." (that's not a pistol) or "weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder" (or rifle or shotgun). Combination of those words essentially boils down to AOW being an umbrella category for anything that don't fall into handguns, rifles or shotguns. If you agree that ATF can legally interpret misuse as "redesign" then you are by extension agreeing to ATF can prosecute anyone who shoot pistol with two hands for "redesigning" the pistol into an AOW because NFA definition of a pistol is a firearm designed to be held in one hand.

Sure, you can ask FTB for clarification but what makes you think their response is worth anything? Just few months back a FTB letter states that they didn't consider shouldering sig brace reclassification of the firearm. What make you think they wouldn't also change their mind about holding pistol with two hands after writing back?

You can bury your head in the sand and keep telling yourself they are only after brace, because after all, why would a government agency want to limit your second amendment rights? That's ridiculous right? :roll:

 

[monsterdog]

No, ATF logic is as soon as you shoulder a pistol, it's no longer a pistol;you have "redesigned" into a SBR, likewise as soon as you put another hand on your pistol; it's no longer a pistol; it's an AOW.

This seems 100% logically consistent to me as well.

In fact. I think someone should write the FTB for an opinion on this and word it very carefully and reference the SB-15 letter, so the ATF will have to answer that holding your handgun with two hands makes it an AOW. This would give a LOT more gun owners some skin in the game, probably translating into pressure on legislators.

 

[SONYtec]

No, ATF logic is as soon as you shoulder a pistol, it's no longer a pistol;you have "redesigned" into a SBR, likewise as soon as you put another hand on your pistol; it's no longer a pistol; it's an AOW.

Where is the ATF saying that as soon as you put a hand over your other hand on the same pistol grip, that now it's an AOW??? That's your interpretation. Your missing my point. They have not determined that it becomes an AOW when you do that. They have determined that as soon as you shoulder an arm brace, you now have made an SBR. It's in writing, you have seen and read it.

Reason you don't find anything in writing about using two hands on a single pistol grip, is because people have not raised an issue with it to the ATF to get a determination. IF someone were to, then they just might say that if you do you just made an AOW.

If people didn't "poke the bear with a stick" by repeatedly asking clarification about the SIG arm brace, they may not have changed/or come up with a different determination.

Quoting from your own post, AOW is:
"Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive" (which is pretty much ANY firearm) and "such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver.." (that's not a pistol) or "weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder" (or rifle or shotgun). Combination of those words essentially boils down to AOW being an umbrella category for anything that don't fall into handguns, rifles or shotguns.

You just chopped up and changed what I posted of the ATF's definition of an AOW, verbatim, and unchanged by me.

"Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition."

This means that a pistol and a revolver with a rifled barrel is not an AOW. Put a stock on it, and you made an SBR by ATF definition of a SBR. Just as a weapon fired from the shoulder, rifle or shotgun would when putting a short barrel on it, Short barreled shotgun respectively. They are excluding items that would not be classified as an AOW.

If you agree that ATF can legally interpret misuse as "redesign" then you are by extension agreeing to ATF can prosecute anyone who shoot pistol with two hands for "redesigning" the pistol into an AOW because NFA definition of a pistol is a firearm designed to be held in one hand.

ATF has done what it wants when it wants, this has been proven over time. Doesn't mean I agree with it. And I am not agreeing with YOUR interpretation that holding a pistol or revolver with two hands on the one and only grip, makes it an AOW. Besides you grab the grip with your strong hand, and may support it with your off hand over your strong hand. Not enough room on a grip to hold it with two hands at once. :?

NFA doesn't define what is a pistol. The GCA does. NFA defines AOW's among other items. Take a look at the picture showing some examples. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleE-chap53.pdf

Sure, you can ask FTB for clarification but what makes you think their response is worth anything? Just few months back a FTB letter states that they didn't consider shouldering sig brace reclassification of the firearm. What make you think they wouldn't also change their mind about holding pistol with two hands after writing back?

Its worth a lot because they are the agency regulating firearms among other things. They have, can and will change their minds as they see fit, evidenced again by the SIG brace letters from FTB.

You can bury your head in the sand and keep telling yourself they are only after brace, because after all, why would a government agency want to limit your second amendment rights? That's ridiculous right? :roll:

I am better informed when my head in not in the sand, besides it's hard to breathe. And what do you intend to do about it then, since it appears you hate them so much???

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.

You feel free to believe what you want, good luck. :?

Side note, some reading everyone might find interesting. You may learn something.

GCA http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap44.pdf

NFA http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleE-chap53.pdf

 

[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.