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

[protohyp]

Do BLM Rangers enforce these stupid ATF laws?

BLM rangers are mostly cool and I know a few, but thats just like saying I know some cops and they're cool too.

Mostly BLM guys wants you to keep their back yard clean and be safe out there. When it comes to you and your guns around OHV they will definitely regulate but for the most part they wave and expect you to clean up

[xxINKxx]

Rahuagees allows them.

[RobG]

Who bought one of these to actually use as an arm brace? Seems the issue stems from the brace being installed to be used primarily as a shoulder stock. Flooding the internet with videos and posts of using one to obtain a pseudo SBR surely didn't help.

Non existent, I've gone shooting with cop friends and some of them have the brace on private ar pistols

Cop "friends" are different from "normal" cops. I wouldn't bet my freedom on what some of my cop buds would let me get away with.

Frankly I am glad the brace is illegal to shoulder. Everyone knows how much more deadly a 10.5" 5.56 barrel is compared to a 16"

[protohyp]

So it IS that shoulder thing that goes up!

[12voltguy]

Do BLM Rangers enforce these stupid ATF laws?

ATF do not make "Laws"

[fmunk]

Sooo... if I went to the range and shouldered one, what are the odds I'll be reported to the ATF

Do it every time you go and you'll find the odds. Report back with your findings, OK?

It's a numbers game. How many times you do it and how many people you will run into who a) knows what's going on with the rules, b) wants to make a name for himself in the legal/political community

So regardless of the ATF guidance letters, nothing's really changed. Use at your own peril... and don't claim you haven't been warned if you find yourself in hot water. It's still a free country (somewhat), you make your decisions and you face the consequences. Whether the consequences are worthwhile risking is entirely up to you.

[wenlee]

So I'll just put the butt of the brace against my chest not my shoulder and use a laser sight instead of aiming the old fashion way.

Or I'll just put it over my shoulder, stick a red dot on the side rail, and hold it like an RPG.

Or I'll just hip fire it like a snackbar.

Way more dangerous but hey at least I'll be legal?

[franklinarmory]

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.

[fmunk]

So I'll just put the butt of the brace against my chest not my shoulder and use a laser sight instead of aiming the old fashion way.

Or I'll just put it over my shoulder, stick a red dot on the side rail, and hold it like an RPG.

Or I'll just hip fire it like a snackbar.

Way more dangerous but hey at least I'll be legal?

No. The difference uses you describe still do not match the intended use of the SB15 brace, which is wrapped and strapped to your forearm.

[wenlee]

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.

That was my interpretation of the letter too based on the wording.

[fmunk]

I knew this would happen. Basic human psychology. Get enough people second guessing and asking questions about a decision and you're bound to get second thoughts.

Stupidity all around.

[Dump1567]

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.

You do bring up a good point.

Mis-using (shouldering) an accessory that came with your pistol vs. Building one with the INTENT to use the accessory as a stock.

[protohyp]

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.

I would disagree. The letter clearly names in the paragraph the Sig Brace SB15 and its use legally and illegally irregardless of which pistol it came from either home made or firearms manufacturer. It goes on further to separate that use of the sig brace to a rifle and says you can do whatever you want if its a rifle which to me points that if its on a pistol and shouldered your screwed because we (ATF) would see it as a stock when shouldered on a rifle. To me they covered a lot of bases with this new letter because as many have said, too many questions were probably sent it to the ATF in hopes they would get a letter like the original Bradley letter in hopes they'd get their *** covered. Now it just seems that we have the definitive letter that says no go. Think it FUD if you like and use at your own discretion.

[protohyp]

Btw...I like how the title of this thread has changed today

[fmunk]

I would disagree. The letter clearly names in the paragraph the Sig Brace SB15 and its use legally and illegally irregardless of which pistol it came from either home made or firearms manufacturer. It goes on further to separate that use of the sig brace to a rifle and says you can do whatever you want if its a rifle which to me points that if its on a pistol and shouldered your screwed because we (ATF) would see it as a stock when shouldered on a rifle. To me they covered a lot of bases with this new letter because as many have said, too many questions were probably sent it to the ATF in hopes they would get a letter like the original Bradley letter in hopes they'd get their *** covered. Now it just seems that we have the definitive letter that says no go. Think it FUD if you like and use at your own discretion.

Indeed!