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

[wenlee]

Another good article:

http://www.thebangswitch.com/did-the...radict-itself/

I freely admit that I'm biased here, but it's important to note that the letter was written to a builder/user of the pistol and brace. If one were to acquire a similarly equipped firearm from a company like Sig or Franklin Armory, the user would not be responsible for the intent during manufacturing. However, if you build it and shoulder it, you have less recourse.

I'm not saying that this is the magic formula for future acquisition, but I am saying that it is an unanswered question at the moment.

a good update for reading.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...hasnt-changed/

It appears that some legal experts agree with Franklin Armory and those of us who bought pistols or AOWs from Franklin, DD, Sig, PWS, Adams, Phase 5 , Radical, Primary Arms, etc. should use them as we see fit.

[gdt82]

That is interesting, and is an excellent illustration of the can of worms that the ATF has opened in their latest letter. If this reasoning were to be used, we would have a situation where two identical firearms, in every way identical down to every last detail with the exception of who slid the Sig Brace on, could be classified differently depending on how they are held in hand by the user. That seems untenable.

As other articles have mentioned, this whole mess also brings up other legal absurdities, including what if you handed your Sig Brace equipped pistol (which you only used as an arm brace) to a friend at the range and he shoulder fired it and then handed it back to you. Who committed the crime here. Did your friend redesign a rifle? Are you now in possession of an unregistered SBR? If you then take the Sig Brace off is it still a rifle because it was once a rifle? These and other questions are a perfect illustration of why firearms need to be classified by measurable characteristics, rather than by how it is used by a particular user.

[bulletblood]

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.

Yeah, the ATF or DOJ is not going to go after some nobody average Joe gunner using a brace at the range. They will go after someone high profile to set an example.

[bulletblood]

That is interesting, and is an excellent illustration of the can of worms that the ATF has opened in their latest letter. If this reasoning were to be used, we would have a situation where two identical firearms, in every way identical down to every last detail with the exception of who slid the Sig Brace on, could be classified differently depending on how they are held in hand by the user. That seems untenable.

It is untenable. The logical outcome to this mess would be for the ATF to only allow braces on weapons that came from the factory manufactured as handguns. I don't see any other way around this mess, other than a blanket ban or a blanket approval.

[Quiet]

Official BATFE ruling may be coming out at 2015 SHOT Show...

"Word from a local ATF Agent who reached out to the Firearms Tech Branch is that an official decision has been made on the Sig Brace issue:

They are reversing the earlier opinion and using established case law and precedent, stating a firearm may be classified based upon its use. Attorneys from SIG are on board, stating it was never intended to be used in a shoulder fired position.

They are in the process of producing an industry circular, and public bulletin which will address it shortly."

[SkyHawk]

OK so all we do is cut off the wings/straps and it becomes a rubber version of the CAA saddle. Does anyone see a problem with that or do we need to ditch them on ebay now before the bottom falls out of the market? Seems it would be hard to argue they are any different after the Sigtac is modified.

(rough mock up comparison: Sigtac on top, CAA on bottom)

[infringed711]

Official BATFE ruling may be coming out at 2015 SHOT Show...

Source?

[SkyHawk]

Source?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=15530208&postcount=42

From a post by F3 Tactical Inc via Breach-Bang-Clear on social media...

Apparently this is the post: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...14210288658395

And there are some interesting replies including this one:

Jeff Zimba Not true guys. I can't reveal my sources in the industry but this simply isn't true. A firearm can't be defined by its use and SIG is not having talks about this, at all. A brace installed on an AR pistol is not a rifle. The problem with this is people are writing letters asking if they can build an SBR and ignore the NFA SBR rules and are being told NO. That doesn't mean you can't build a PISTOL and use it as you wish. Words mean things and this is where people are getting confused. If you build it as a pistol, intending to use it like a pistol, including occasionally firing it other than intended (from the hip, the shoulder, etc) everything is OK. If you want to build a SBR and not pay the tax because you are building it intending it to meet the definition of a rifle, short or otherwise, it's a no go. Intentions mean everything. Is this moronic and picky? He'll yeah, but like I said, words mean things. So, just build your PISTOL, and shoot it like you want. Just don't build a rifle. I hope this helps. Nothing has been overturned, and SIG is NOT in talks about this at this time. No idea where the rumor is coming from, but I went to the top and it isn't true.

[bulletblood]

I dismissed this as BS rather quickly, like a government agency waiting for shot show to make an official announcement? lol.

[SkyHawk]

I dismissed this as BS rather quickly, like a government agency waiting for shot show to make an official announcement? lol.

As it turns out ATF does in fact do it every year. The hold seminars at the show, and usually have a FAQ on their website every year called the SHOT FAQ and it goes into detail about what new things were discussed by ATF at SHOT. They use some of these seminars to clarify questions just like the one we have here.

There is a section on the SHOT Show website about the ATF seminars. http://shotshow.org/education/atf-seminars/

Here is a sample agenda of ATF at SHOT from 2012 https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms...SHOT-show-2012

[bulletblood]

As it turns out ATF does in fact do it every year. The hold seminars at the show, and usually have a FAQ on their website every year called the SHOT FAQ and it goes into detail about what new things were discussed by ATF at SHOT. They use some of these seminars to clarify questions just like the one we have here.

There is a section on the SHOT Show website about the ATF seminars. http://shotshow.org/education/atf-seminars/

Here is a sample agenda of ATF at SHOT from 2012 https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms...SHOT-show-2012

Hold seminars I understand, but to wait for a trade convention to make an official ruling announcement seem so tacky. But since shot show is next month it would be more coincidental, I guess. So I should not dismiss this rumor then.

[SkyHawk]

Hold seminars I understand, but to wait for a trade convention to make an official ruling announcement seem so tacky. But since shot show is next month it would be more coincidental, I guess. So I should not dismiss this rumor then.

You are right - and I am not ready to dismiss it yet either. It was at SHOT 2008 when ATF clarified their interpretation of the CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT passed in 2005, and added a bunch of soft regs like safe affidavits would no longer be acceptable for handgun sales. For whatever reason, they really do this kind of crap at SHOT so I will be on the edge of my seat to see what happens with the Sigtac brace.

[gdt82]

Would there be any precedent for classifying firearms by the manner in which they are handled by the user? So a firearm could be in a perfectly legal configuration as it lies on the table but then become an illegal firearm depending on how it is picked up and fired? So anytime you see a potentially legal pistol, it may or may not have passed through multiple illegal configurations based on prior use, which are untraceable, and according to the once a rifle always a rifle doctrine which is still the case in many states, would still be illegal by definition (yet undetectable as such). If they want to simply declare the Sig Brace a stock and make it illegal without a tax stamp that's one thing, but this magical status change seems illogical even for the ATF.

[infringed711]

Would there be any precedent for classifying firearms by the manner in which they are handled by the user? So a firearm could be in a perfectly legal configuration as it lies on the table but then become an illegal firearm depending on how it is picked up and fired? So anytime you see a potentially legal pistol, it may or may not have passed through multiple illegal configurations based on prior use, which are untraceable, and according to the once a rifle always a rifle doctrine which is still the case in many states, would still be illegal by definition (yet undetectable as such). If they want to simply declare the Sig Brace a stock and make it illegal without a tax stamp that's one thing, but this magical status change seems illogical even for the ATF.

To my knowledge no, there is no precedent

[infringed711]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...8&postcount=42



Apparently this is the post: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...14210288658395

And there are some interesting replies including this one:

Thanks, interesting reading the comments

Guy seems like he's just spreading FUD