Sig SB15 Pistol Stabilizing Brace can be legal federally depending on how it's used

[Press Check]

All interesting reads, but unfortunately it's clear that nothing is clear.

The first and second links bring additional clarity to the issue, especially the second from TTAG, but it seems that you have no interest in clarity. What is clear in your 14 posts is that you would like to continue debating on behalf of the ATF, in addition to your personal interpretation of the recent letter, which apparently, holds more merit than the professional interpretation in the first link.

[Capybara]

Everyone has different opinions on what this letter means, but if we are to take it at face value, that the brace is legal when installed but magically transforms a firearm into a rifle when shouldered, then it would affect the Franklin AOWs just the same. The idea behind the Franklin AOW, which was very clever, was that because AOWs are referred to in the California penal code in such a way that they are exempt from California SBR laws, you don't need to worry about getting charged with an SBR in CA, because even if CA were to view the brace as a stock, they couldn't do anything about it. However, under federal law you are also not allowed to put a stock on an AOW, but the defense here was that the Sig Brace was also not considered a stock by the ATF. Now it appears that a braced and shouldered pistol could be considered an SBR under federal law, which means you have no more immunity with an AOW.

Thanks for the analysis and the finer points. Makes sense.

[FiveSeven]

Right, and the recent ATF letter indicates that shouldering the brace is a violation of federal law. So even if the Feds don't care to prosecute you for it, CA could and they could use the federal guidelines.

I believe its making an SBR with intent to shoulder. Nothing more or less. Intent of making SBR has to be proven here.
CA (or even Feds) would have to be very meticulous in proving someones intent, which even for an veteran expert lawyer would be difficult to prove in a criminal (victimless) case.

case in point, the feds measure the 26" minimum OAL with the stock extended/unfolded whereas CA measures it collapsed/folded. so you get a federally-legal underfolder AK that is considered an SBR in CA.

I believe this falls into AW category rather than SBR in CA.

[Quiet]

case in point, the feds measure the 26" minimum OAL with the stock extended/unfolded whereas CA measures it collapsed/folded. so you get a federally-legal underfolder AK that is considered an SBR in CA.

I believe this falls into AW category rather than SBR in CA.

Nope.
The CA case law that established how overall length is measured, stemmed from a SBR charge.
When the arrest (1991) and case was ruled (1993), there were no minimum overall length requirements for assault weapons.

[JackRydden224]

The TTAG piece is an interesting read. Basically if someone ask the ATF if it is OK to use the Sig brace as a support for the weapon to make it more controllable then ATF is most likely going to say it is OK but if someone ask them if you can use it to make it a SBR they will say no. Interesting.

[gdt82]

The first and second links bring additional clarity to the issue, especially the second from TTAG, but it seems that you have no interest in clarity. What is clear in your 14 posts is that you would like to continue debating on behalf of the ATF, in addition to your personal interpretation of the recent letter, which apparently, holds more merit than the professional interpretation in the first link.

I think the only way to stay on top of an issue is to play devil's advocate and imagine you are the U.S. Attorney or whoever will be prosecuting you. If you have a hard time making a case when playing prosecutor, then you know you are good to go. Make no mistake....I think these laws are ridiculous, but they are the law until another law that supersedes them is written, or until part (or all) of one is declared unconstitutional. The problem I have with the Sig Brace issue is not that I agree with the ATF's letters, but rather that I can easily see how a prosecutor can use the existing laws to argue that by using the brace you have manufactured an SBR. Wanting the brace to be legal is different from it actually being legal (for shoulder fire) under existing laws. My personal interpretation has no more or less merit than the opinion of those in the links provided. However I have yet to come across an expert in firearms law that thinks that someone shouldering the Sig Brace is immune from prosecution. There is risk involved. Almost all experts agree on that. Now, any conviction could eventually be overturned upon appeal, but that would take years, and nobody wants to face criminal charges over this. Having it cleared up in a lawsuit would be much safer because there is no criminal penally if you lose.

[ke6guj]

Nope.
The CA case law that established how overall length is measured, stemmed from a SBR charge.
When the arrest (1991) and case was ruled (1993), there were no minimum overall length requirements for assault weapons.

exactly. and we are assuming that that SBR case law would be applied in the same manner to how OAL is measured for AW's.

[protohyp]

I think the only time we should really worry is when the dudes 'skirting' the laws on youtube get a knock on the door from the ATF. Then we will know exactly where everyone stands.

[Donk310]

Of course the idiots in the California DOJ along with those @#$! 58 DAs won't put out an official decision on the SB15!

They know most of the sheeple & cowards in this state will continue to be Fearful of owning and/or using one. Lots of folks will be Uncertain about the legality. And others will Doubt that even a Federal decision will have any effect or bearing in the POS state.



I have an SB15 Sig Brace on an AR Pistol. Heck, I'm going to buy a second one!

Lead, Follow, or get the F%@! out of the way!

So do I. And I "F"-n LOVE it. I shoot that thing everywhere.

[Donk310]

I've never shouldered my SB15 brace and I never will.

I never knew you COULD shoulder it. The thought never crossed my mind....EVER! Mine has always been fired strapped to my arm as designed. And I still love it.

[rosemont83]

I never knew you COULD shoulder it. The thought never crossed my mind....EVER! Mine has always been fired strapped to my arm as designed. And I still love it.

You can shoulder the sig brace? That's weird I didn't know that either

[Capybara]

You can shoulder the sig brace? That's weird I didn't know that either

Hmm...something about boating accidents, this line of reasoning sounds familiar

[JackRydden224]

Hmm...something about boating accidents, this line of reasoning sounds familiar

Calguns hard drive crash losing all posts of members talking about shouldering the brace? We'll take a page out of IRS' book.

I guess one thing for sure is that if you ever shoulder a sig braced pistol for HD nobody would testify against you (be nice to your wives!).

[blackhawke88]

It slipped off my wrist on the first shot and slid snugly into my shoulder for the follow up shots

[phase1]

I think the only way to stay on top of an issue is to play devil's advocate and imagine you are the U.S. Attorney or whoever will be prosecuting you. If you have a hard time making a case when playing prosecutor, then you know you are good to go. Make no mistake....I think these laws are ridiculous, but they are the law until another law that supersedes them is written, or until part (or all) of one is declared unconstitutional. The problem I have with the Sig Brace issue is not that I agree with the ATF's letters, but rather that I can easily see how a prosecutor can use the existing laws to argue that by using the brace you have manufactured an SBR. Wanting the brace to be legal is different from it actually being legal (for shoulder fire) under existing laws. My personal interpretation has no more or less merit than the opinion of those in the links provided. However I have yet to come across an expert in firearms law that thinks that someone shouldering the Sig Brace is immune from prosecution. There is risk involved. Almost all experts agree on that. Now, any conviction could eventually be overturned upon appeal, but that would take years, and nobody wants to face criminal charges over this. Having it cleared up in a lawsuit would be much safer because there is no criminal penally if you lose.

Nice, I agree