[HK SD9 Tactical]

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.

 

[SONYtec]

I'll say it again, keep poking the bear with the stick...

If people had left well enough alone with the ATF FTB's original determination, they would not have come out with another determination. But, some people needed to get clarification, giving reason for the FTB to look at it again, and coming up with an opinion/decision that they did.

 

[SAVAGEJIM]

I'll say it again, keep poking the bear with the stick...

If people had left well enough alone with the ATF FTB's original determination, they would not have come out with another determination. But, some people needed to get clarification, giving reason for the FTB to look at it again, and coming up with an opinion/decision that they did.

Actually, the stick poking first started when the BATF first had their hand pushed to make a decision on the Sig brace.
I am not sure why the issue even got to the BATF in the first place.

I am very certain that if the Sg brace issue never reached the BATF, they would not have made any calls on it, which is what should have happened.
Now, that they have had made a call on it, they gave an initial decision, then made another decision to reverse it.

If there were no BATF/BATFE decisions, there would be no bears being poked with sticks at all.

 

[bayonet14]

All these negative waves ...

 

[CPTdaz]

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.

I'm not sure what your point really is. Are you agreeing with ATF that HOW a person shoots their firearm constitutes as potential redesign into a NFA item? If you do, then you would also must believe that they can prosecute you for shooting pistol two handed, because it's along the same line of logic.

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.

"Don't poke the bear with a stick"? Sorry to break it to you but the bear is coming after you whether or not you poke at it. In fact, that bear has been at it for years, and you just keep appeasing it hoping it will leave you be. The fight for your 2nd amendment right isn't one of those situation where if you leave them alone they will leave you alone.

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.

Except ATF has determined that if you don't use a firearm as originally designed then you effectively "redesigned" it into an NFA controlled item. That means just as you have "redesigned" an AR pistol to a SBR by shouldering it you can "redesign" a pistol to an AOW by putting a second hand on it because NFA defines a pistol as firearm designed and intended to be shot with one hand. How do you not see that?

ATF has done what it wants when it wants, this has been proven over time.

No it hasn't. Go back on this thread and read up on what I wrote about US vs Thompson, a case which proved that ATF can't always do what it wants. The above quote and the bear analogy make me think that you think it's all right for government agencies to trample on your constitutional rights, or at least there's nothing you can do about it. I'm sorry but that's BS.

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. :?

If you don't agree with it, then why tell people to go along with it in your first post? It's not MY interpretation; it's ATF's interpretation. And if you disagree with it, then you must disagree with the latest open letter since it's the same logic.

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

Regardless of who defined pistol the definition is still a firearm designed for one hand. The problem with that is when you combine the definition with the fact that ATF seems to think that if you use a firearm in a way other than how it's originally designed then you have basically changed the firearm into one that's restricted.

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.

If they can change their mind at anytime, then how is their response worth "a lot". Is this letter worth "a lot"?

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???

And you don't? Right, I forgot that your solution to any potential confrontation is "don't poke the bear". Why even bother owning a gun?

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.

And you say your head isn't buried in the sand... Sure, you're right. Do everything the government tells you, you don't want to get in trouble...

 

[CPTdaz]

I don't understand how ANY gun owner can side with the ATF on this matter. I feel like if we want to have any hope of protecting our 2nd amendment right from government encroachment, we have a responsibility to challenge every decision against our rights regardless of whether we are personally impacted by the issue. None of this "I don't care because I don't do that anyways".

 

[HK SD9 Tactical]

...

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.

 

[CPTdaz]

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.

I believe he already answered that in his first post here:

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

 

[monsterdog]

This discussion illustrates the largest threat to freedom (not just about the 2nd Amendment): a complacent mindset.

Any limitation put in place before it really affected you, doesn't seem so bad. It's difficult to understand how others would see it as such a bad thing when you live with it just fine. And when things get progressively less free over time, and it only happens to a few people at a time, most people just don't care.

But when you loose or gain a lot of freedom in one go, freedom in general starts to matter to you.

 

[Epeeist]

+1 and well said Monsterdog. Shooters tend to fall very quickly into "tribes" and want to root for their team. We should be defending each and every gun right while pushing for more. We will never gain ground being defensive in mindset and only rallying to one another's defense when our own "tribe" or subset of the sport is threatened.

 

[Rattyxj00]

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.

 

[CPTdaz]

Some excellent points in this video.

 

[jhs27275]

The video was already posted and talked about at length. It resulted in infractions being issued and led to one time out. Keep it civil and on topic.

 

[CPTdaz]

The video was already posted and talked about at length. It resulted in infractions being issued and led to one time out. Keep it civil and on topic.

I looked but didn't find any discussion on the video. Please point me to the thread where the video was posted. The video description states it was posted today. If that's the case then I apologize.

 

[vz58kid]

The Brace is illegal to Shoulder and will stay like that!

 

[vz58kid]

This is a NEW Vid and Mac does have some great Points! Thank's for Posting!

 

[CPTdaz]

The Brace is illegal to Shoulder and will stay like that!

Actual it's not, it's only ATF's opinion which is already being challenged by Sig.

 

[vz58kid]

Actual it's not, it's only ATF's opinion which is already being challenged by Sig.

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?

 

[HK SD9 Tactical]

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?????

 

[CPTdaz]

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?????

Pretty much this. Even if you win the court case you still sank vast amount of your time and resource in fighting something that shouldn't have been so in the first place.