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

[inbox485]

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.

You haven't been around very long. Every "example" I've seen has been exactly a Joe nobody. Some dude who had a random picture on Facebook, or some dumb thing like that. Famous people instantly get lawyers and legal funds. Average Joes usually take it to the hilt in their brown eye before enough publicity gets out. It's terrorism 101 (for when you actually mean to terrorize and not just drum up support for a war). You hit normal guys so nobody feels safe. Nobody feels immune because they aren't somebody or somewhere special.

[.45 ACP]

To my knowledge no, there is no precedent

Because it's ridiculous.

If I one hand a SCAR, is it a pistol?

If I tape a tennis ball to the back of my 1911 and fire it from the shoulder, is it an SBR?

If I pee on a camp fire to put it out, is my dick now a fire hose? This is the can of worms the idiotic ATF is opening up.

[THEJAPINO]

Because it's ridiculous.

If I one hand a SCAR, is it a pistol?

If I tape a tennis ball to the back of my 1911 and fire it from the shoulder, is it an SBR?

If I pee on a camp fire to put it out, is my dick now a fire hose? This is the can of worms the idiotic ATF is opening up.

Careful with all that 'poking the bear talk'. You just posted on a public forum your intent to put that fire out with your short barre... Eh NVM.

[SkyHawk]

The Gun Control Act defines a handgun as that which is designed to be fired from one hand. The National Firearms Act defines 'pistol' with the same characteristic one hand design. If ATF goes through with their rumored faulty logic, has anyone who has ever shot a pistol with a two handed grip broken the law against having an unregistered AOW?

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

Q: Is it legal to attach a vertical fore grip to a handgun?
“Handgun” is defined under Federal law to mean, in part, a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single handwhen 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).

So perhaps someone should write ATF a letter asking if it is legal to grip a handgun with two hands, and in the same letter ask them if it is still legal to shoulder a pistol that was made with the Sigtac brace

[.45 ACP]

Careful with all that 'poking the bear talk'. You just posted on a public forum your intent to put that fire out with your short barre... Eh NVM.

I suppose this is where I retort with "ask your wife/gf about my barrel".

[THEJAPINO]

I suppose this is where I retort with "ask your wife/gf about my barrel".

Yeah I was hoping for something a bit more clever. Eh, maybe the discussion belongs in the "How long is yours? AR pistol" thread.

Carry on, happy holidays

[JackRydden224]

If I pee on a camp fire to put it out, is my dick now a fire hose? This is the can of worms the idiotic ATF is opening up.

No it becomes a mandingo hose!

But yea, I can try to cut a steak with a spoon but it doesn't make a spoon into a knife.

[elSquid]

The Gun Control Act defines a handgun as that which is designed to be fired from one hand. The National Firearms Act defines 'pistol' with the same characteristic one hand design. If ATF goes through with their rumored faulty logic, has anyone who has ever shot a pistol with a two handed grip broken the law against having an unregistered AOW?

(snip)

So perhaps someone should write ATF a letter asking if it is legal to grip a handgun with two hands, and in the same letter ask them if it is still legal to shoulder a pistol that was made with the Sigtac brace

If intent is an issue, then what about all handguns that have a squared off or hooked front trigger guard? Some are even stippled or checkered. The only 'reasonable' justification for this feature is to create a resting place for the index finger of the support hand...which means that the pistol was designed to be shot two handed.

Non-NFA handgun:



Possibly illegal NFA-violatin' handgun:



-- Michael

[inbox485]

Because it's ridiculous.

If I one hand a SCAR, is it a pistol?

No, because use doesn't alter intent of design.

If I tape a tennis ball to the back of my 1911 and fire it from the shoulder, is it an SBR?

As a matter of fact, yes. You designed or redesigned it with the intent of firing from the shoulder. Hope you brought your brown eye lube.

Seriously this whole nonsense is needlessly over complicated. The law only covers intent of design or redesign. The ATF thinks it can use the final use to prove intent of design in a court of law. They very well may have decent odds on that given other "intent" precedents. But if you purchase a completed rifle, it is not possible to charge you with anything related to the design or redesign of the rifle, because you had nothing to do with it, and the designer isn't a mind reader to know what any random customers intent of use was.

[Press Check]

But if you purchase a completed rifle, it is not possible to charge you with anything related to the design or redesign of the rifle, because you had nothing to do with it, and the designer isn't a mind reader to know what any random customers intent of use was.

I purchased a Daniel Defense MK18 pistol from a Brick and Mortar with the SB15 already attached, but obviously, the original manufacturer does not sell the MK18 equipped with the SB15, so how does LE prove that it was or was not sold in that configuration? On my receipt, which I am under no obligation to retain as a record, it does not say that the SB15 was included, attached, removed at the time of DROS, sold separately, or anything else, but I did in fact take delivery of the pistol with it attached.

I own a BCM pistol as well, but in this case, the BCM pistol lower was shipped to my dealer, and I supplied the BCM upper. In this scenario, my 07 dealer manufactured the pistol, and I paid a Federal Excise Tax. How does LE know if I installed the SB15, or if the manufacturer did during assembly of the pistol?

What if I transferred either of those pistols to my brother, or another family member in that configuration?

What about those who receive a franken-pistol equipped with an SB15 via PPT?

[bulletblood]

I purchased a Daniel Defense MK18 pistol from a Brick and Mortar with the SB15 already attached, but obviously, the original manufacturer does not sell the MK18 equipped with the SB15, so how does LE prove that it was or was not sold in that configuration?

Sig Sauer got approval from the ATF that their braced P556 models are not considered SBRs.

ATF has reviewed this product and determined that attaching the SB15 to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control.

Your Brick and Mortar store, I'm guessing, didn't bother to cover their asses, or yours, with any legal trail.

[Press Check]

Hardly the point. The point is, the discussion has gravitated towards design, redesign, manufacturing and intent by the end-user.

[bulletblood]

Hardly the point. The point is, the discussion has gravitated towards design, redesign, manufacturing and intent by the end-user.

My point is concerning design and manufacturing. In sigs case, they designed a pistol and sold it as such. In this case the intent by the end user doesn't matter because the handgun was approved by the atf and the DOJ didn't object to it being sold as a handgun to the user.

Redesign is the iffy area in terms of a random gun store slapping a sig brace onto a pre-made handgun and selling it as a handgun. Did the store re-design it? Did the buyer buy it with the intent of by passing the sbr law?

Sig only sells the P556 with shoulder brace attached. The end user had no choice but to buy it with one.

[dfletcher]

Seriously this whole nonsense is needlessly over complicated. The law only covers intent of design or redesign. The ATF thinks it can use the final use to prove intent of design in a court of law.

You know the old saw about "using a hammer to kill a fly"? I suppose to the ATF killing a fly with a hammer turns it into a fly-swatter - or turns the fly into a nail ....

On another thread someone supposed that changing public perception about 'assault weapons" was the most importanttask at hand. It seems to me all this "defining", whether by ATF or legislatures, is a significant problem. Define something as an "AW" and all sorts of restrictions follow. Define a shoestring as a machine gun or that a DIAS by itself is a machine gun. There seems to be no restrictions on the ability of those in power to define and by doing so, restrict.

[radicalray]

Clearance sale Sig brace $99 dang just bought one too

http://palmettostatearmory.com/index.php/sig-sauer-sb15-pistol-stabilizing-brace-psb-ar-blk.html?utm_source=CLEARANCE%3A+Sig+Brace%2C+AR15+Bolt+%26+More&utm_campaign=Constant+Contact&utm_medium=email