ATF reverses decision regarding "Sig Brace"

[Farmer Br0wn]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/01/16/sig-brace-no-go-per-atf/

It appears the ATF has reversed its decision with regards to the "Sig pistol Brace"

For those who don't know, the sig pistol brace is used to stabilize AR and AK pistols for more accurate one handed shooting. It looks like this:

The ATF had previously sent out a letter stating that the Sig brace was legal to shoulder due to the fact that you were not redesigning the weapon in any way. Here is what that looks like:

Not it seems the ATF has reversed its decision and decided that the Sig brace, if shouldered, now falls under the scope of the NFA (National Firearms Act) and shouldering the weapon somehow "redesigns" the weapon.

To me, this sets a dangerous precedent. Government bureaucrats shouldn't be arbitrarily deciding how you can even hold your own property!

My personal opinion, the NFA needs to be abolished. A private citizen has the right to alter, redesign, or change his/her own property in any way they see fit so long as they harm no one else, regardless of any state edict.

Thoughts?

 

[James Keith]

Abolish the ATF while you're at it.

 

[second sight]

it turns a pistol into an SBR, by law you have to have tax stamp to own an SBR

I went through trouble to be able to own NFA weapons so I don't mind this

I wish the would amend the 1988 law to include more full auto's

 

[second sight]

I'm not sure why pistols aren't included and rifles are?

 

[Like A Bas]

As long as I can still hold it sideways, we're cool.

To me, this sets a dangerous precedent. Government bureaucrats shouldn't be arbitrarily deciding how you can even hold your own property!

Something about overdramatic complaining combined with rabid gun lust is just inherently goddamn hilarious. I'm for people being able to modify their guns to their heart's content provided they aren't going full-auto. But unlikely to shed any amount of tears, other than in laughter, about any of this minutiae.

If I had artistic talent I'd love to draw up a cartoon of the Minutiae Men, brave men ready at a moment's notice to cry about small things.

 

[mantronix]

I don't think that there should be prohibitive legislation based on how something looks.

Here is a recent article about how it might play out it court. Something about Declaratory Relief.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...pistol-arm-brace-decision-declaratory-relief/

Either way, it might be uncomfortable, but you can still shoulder an ar pistol.

 

[OldGoat]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/01/16/sig-brace-no-go-per-atf/

It appears the ATF has reversed its decision with regards to the "Sig pistol Brace"

For those who don't know, the sig pistol brace is used to stabilize AR and AK pistols for more accurate one handed shooting. It looks like this:

The ATF had previously sent out a letter stating that the Sig brace was legal to shoulder due to the fact that you were not redesigning the weapon in any way. Here is what that looks like:

Not it seems the ATF has reversed its decision and decided that the Sig brace, if shouldered, now falls under the scope of the NFA (National Firearms Act) and shouldering the weapon somehow "redesigns" the weapon.

To me, this sets a dangerous precedent. Government bureaucrats shouldn't be arbitrarily deciding how you can even hold your own property!

My personal opinion, the NFA needs to be abolished. A private citizen has the right to alter, redesign, or change his/her own property in any way they see fit so long as they harm no one else, regardless of any state edict.

Thoughts?

Well, I don't see that line of thought being widely accepted.

 

[My Spot]

What about the CAA stock saddle and/or the Magpul AFG on pistols? They said it was good to go awhile back.

 

[__Big_D__]

Who cares?

 

[My Spot]

You do, apparently. :icon_lol:

 

[__Big_D__]

You do, apparently. :icon_lol:

Can't say I do..

 

[My Spot]

And yet you're posting about it.

 

[__Big_D__]

That means I care?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Abolish the ATF while you're at it.

Abolish the NFA, and the ATF can no longer tell gun owners what they can and can't do with their own property. Get rid of the NFA and the "ATF" becomes the "AT". :icon_chee

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I went through trouble to be able to own NFA weapons so I don't mind this

This reminds me of a reply I left for oldshadow in regards to open carry, just replace any mention of open carry with "shouldering a Sig Brace" and replace any mention of a CCW permit with "holder of NFA tax stamp" and it applies perfectly here:

What are your thoughts on Constitutional Carry? This is something I wholeheartedly support for all 50 states.

I ask because it seems whenever individuals have to go through regulation x,y, or z, they tend not to support the idea of others not having to go through regulation x,y, or z. From what I've seen on this form and others, those with a concealed carry permit don't like the idea of others skirting that regulation and carrying without a permit. I believe this disliking has more to do with the frustration CCP holders feel at going through all the hoops only to see others carrying easily and hassle free, more than any other reason.

Just because you had to jump through hoops doesn't make it right to impose it upon everyone else.

I wish the would amend the 1988 law to include more full auto's

I wish they would abolish the NFA.

I'm not sure why pistols aren't included and rifles are?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to communicate here. Care to elaborate?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Something about overdramatic complaining combined with rabid gun lust is just inherently goddamn hilarious. I'm for people being able to modify their guns to their heart's content provided they aren't going full-auto. But unlikely to shed any amount of tears, other than in laughter, about any of this minutiae.

Somehow, I don't think many people would find it "goddamn hilarious" if the same types of regulations and infringements were places upon the First amendment.

If certain words and phrases were restricted, and could only be used by private individuals if they first paid a tax stamp, would you still call that "minutiae" then? Or would you see that as a clear violation of the First Amendment?

If I'm restricted from even placing my own property on my own shoulder, and that property is a firearm, then my right to keep and bear arms is plainly and clearly being infringed.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Well, I don't see that line of thought being widely accepted.

What line of thinking are you referring to?

 

[OldGoat]

What line of thinking are you referring to?

That it ought to be legal to do whatever one wishes to whatever piece of property they own without any form of regulation if it's not currently being used to hurt another.

 

[Scrody]

I'll just make sure not to do that in front of any ATF agents.

 

[golvmopp]

A few questions from an outsider:

As I understand it, if your rifle has a barrell below a certain length (feel free to tell me specifics), it's labeled an SBR and subject to a tax stamp. What sum are we talking about here, and is there any other reason that people are abject to it?
Now, in order to avoid the bureaucracy tied to an SBR, some manufacturers offer what essentially is a stock-less SBR that affords it a "pistol"-label instead of an SBR, correct? And this is where the SIG arm-brace comes in.

Did I get it right?