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

[elSquid]

http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/26/whoops-we-atf-did-it-again-arbitrary-determinations-over-the-sig-brace/

Sure enough:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

The plot thickens!

-- Michael

[protohyp]

Indeed!

Unfortunately someone will interpret that as only the SB15 and NOT the SBX because the letter didn't say anything about shouldering the SBX then they'll ask for a letter from the ATF seeing if it's ok and we will know the outcome of that very soon..haha

[JackRydden224]

So which dumb dumb asked the ATF to rule on it?

Also I imagine Sig is going to fight this to the bitter end. If shouldering the brace is illegal then people are not going to buy them anymore. Hell, I was finally convinced that a Sig brace is comfortable after handing one today and I am sure as hell not going to buy one after seeing this. I was seriously looking into how to get a 9mm AR pistol with the Circle 10/DDLEs lower.

Damnnn!

[FiveSeven]

Reading the second page, they point out that modifying or un-modified is no different, intent of use is.
So much for FUB people saying against making changes to it as in how it attaches or folds etc.

[protohyp]

So which dumb dumb asked the ATF to rule on it?

Also I imagine Sig is going to fight this to the bitter end. If shouldering the brace is illegal then people are not going to buy them anymore. Hell, I was finally convinced that a Sig brace is comfortable after handing one today and I am sure as hell not going to buy one after seeing this. I was seriously looking into how to get a 9mm AR pistol with the Circle 10/DDLEs lower.

Damnnn!

Don't let the fact that you cant 'use' brace discourage you from getting a pistol especially a 9mm. They're fun to shoot. If there is ever a change in the Sig Brace that is favorable and you don't have your pistol before 2015 then it'll just be that much harder to get the pistol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[infringed711]

I guess I'll have to carefully hold it 1 inch away from my shoulder when I'm not using it as a brace (by the way using it as a brace is surprisingly fun)

[infringed711]

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.




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"

Fair enough but it's also on their privately owned AR pistols with bullet buttons and everything. I'd rather not risk LE encounters at all when I shoot so I drive out to BLM land with no one around or shoot on private property

[gdt82]

Hey guys, first post here although I've been reading for awhile. As I'm sure many of you have, I've been following this Sig Brace phenomenon with fascination, but now it looks like the party is over. In many ways this latest letter from the ATF makes the most sense from a strictly legal point of view, but it of course directly contradicts their other letters. It's worth pointing out though that the letters are fairly meaningless, and it is up to the discretion of a United States Attorney to charge people with federal crimes. As silly as the laws on SBRs are, the law is actually remarkably clear that in order for a firearm to be classified as a rifle, two basic conditions have to be met with respect to shoulder fire: (1) design/redesign and (2) intent. Unfortunately a misunderstanding of these definitions has led to the spreading of a lot of bad info and myths on the internet. Design doesn't only refer to what the manufacturer does, but anything you, the end user, do to the weapon. So shoulder firing a firearm does not make it a rifle unless the gun was designed to do so, or you redesigned it to do so. Importantly, in the eyes of the law almost anything you do to a firearm will be considered a redesign. So it's legal to shoulder fire a 1911 unless you did something to redesign the gun for shoulder fire (like add a stock). Likewise, shoulder firing an AR pistol with a bare buffer tube is legal, because even though you intended to shoulder fire it you didn't redesign the gun for shoulder fire. But if you duct taped a towel to the end of the buffer tube and then shoulder fired, you would have just created an SBR.

Enter the Sig Brace. I think the most amazing thing about the Sig Brace is that the ATF ever said it was legal to shoulder fire in the first place. I think the ATF naively failed to understand the popularity that these things would have as a workaround for NFA regulations, and have been trying to correct the mistake ever since. The fact that everyone is upset about these recent developments tells you everything you need to know about the Sig Brace and it's intended use (by end users, not by Sig). And it wasn't just the letter writers that caused the fallout, but the hundreds of youtube videos showing people using the brace as a stock, and encouraging others to use it as a stock, and even going so far as to say things like "F the ATF", etc., etc., that basically dared the ATF to reverse course. Nobody, not even the ATF, likes to be goaded and messed with. I wonder if the reason the CA DOJ stayed silent on this for so long is that they saw the writing on the wall and knew that this would be cleared up soon on the federal level.

[infringed711]

Hey guys, first post here although I've been reading for awhile. As I'm sure many of you have, I've been following this Sig Brace phenomenon with fascination, but now it looks like the party is over. In many ways this latest letter from the ATF makes the most sense from a strictly legal point of view, but it of course directly contradicts their other letters. It's worth pointing out though that the letters are fairly meaningless, and it is up to the discretion of a United States Attorney to charge people with federal crimes. As silly as the laws on SBRs are, the law is actually remarkably clear that in order for a firearm to be classified as a rifle, two basic conditions have to be met with respect to shoulder fire: (1) design/redesign and (2) intent. Unfortunately a misunderstanding of these definitions has led to the spreading of a lot of bad info and myths on the internet. Design doesn't only refer to what the manufacturer does, but anything you, the end user, do to the weapon. So shoulder firing a firearm does not make it a rifle unless the gun was designed to do so, or you redesigned it to do so. Importantly, in the eyes of the law almost anything you do to a firearm will be considered a redesign. So it's legal to shoulder fire a 1911 unless you did something to redesign the gun for shoulder fire (like add a stock). Likewise, shoulder firing an AR pistol with a bare buffer tube is legal, because even though you intended to shoulder fire it you didn't redesign the gun for shoulder fire. But if you duct taped a towel to the end of the buffer tube and then shoulder fired, you would have just created an SBR.

Enter the Sig Brace. I think the most amazing thing about the Sig Brace is that the ATF ever said it was legal to shoulder fire in the first place. I think the ATF naively failed to understand the popularity that these things would have as a workaround for NFA regulations, and have been trying to correct the mistake ever since. The fact that everyone is upset about these recent developments tells you everything you need to know about the Sig Brace and it's intended use (by end users, not by Sig). And it wasn't just the letter writers that caused the fallout, but the hundreds of youtube videos showing people using the brace as a stock, and encouraging others to use it as a stock, and even going so far as to say things like "F the ATF", etc., etc., that basically dared the ATF to reverse course. Nobody, not even the ATF, likes to be goaded and messed with. I wonder if the reason the CA DOJ stayed silent on this for so long is that they saw the writing on the wall and knew that this would be cleared up soon on the federal level.

The problem with your logic is that the brace wasn't designed as a stock, it was designed as a brace. The ATF has consistently said that it is ok to use as a brace and attaching it to the firearm does not make it illegal, even in this last letter. No one is redesigning anything as an sbr, what the ATF is saying is that how you fire a gun determines it's classification which is simply ridiculous.

[gdt82]

The problem with your logic is that the brace wasn't designed as a stock, it was designed as a brace. The ATF has consistently said that it is ok to use as a brace and attaching it to the firearm does not make it illegal, even in this last letter. No one is redesigning anything as an sbr, what the ATF is saying is that how you fire a gun determines it's classification which is simply ridiculous.

Just to be sure we're clear.....this is not my logic.....just the logic of the law. What the item was designed for is irrelevant. Duct tape and cloth wasn't designed as a stock either, but if you tape a shirt or towel to your AR buffer tube and fire from the shoulder you have just redesigned a rifle. But you are correct. The ATF is now saying that how you hold your firearm affects the legality of it. Which I agree is ridiculous......but that's how it will go down in court. The way the U.S. Attorney, or the CA D.A. if in California, will argue is that the brace itself is not illegal, because it was designed to use as an arm brace. So if you are found with an AR pistol equipped with a Sig Brace in your possession, you are in the clear because nobody knows what your intended use was. Likewise, if you are observed shooting it attached to your arm you are in the clear, because you are not indicating an intent to shoulder it. The moment you shoulder fire it, however, you are now indicating the intention to fire from the shoulder. How do we know your intentions? Because you are firing from the shoulder. Actions speak louder than words. Shoulder fire on it's own does not change the classification of a firearm (hence shoulder firing a buffer tube AR pistol is legal). But when combined with the attachment of the Sig Brace (which will be deemed a redesign of the original firearm), this will now create a rifle. And if the barrel is less than 16 inches, this will be an SBR......no tax stamp = felony. I agree this is ridiculous but this is now the way things are looking.

[fmunk]

Unfortunately someone will interpret that as only the SB15 and NOT the SBX because the letter didn't say anything about shouldering the SBX then they'll ask for a letter from the ATF seeing if it's ok and we will know the outcome of that very soon..haha

It's like the scab they couldn't stop picking. Now we have this course reversal. Good job everybody!

[.45 ACP]

That's stupid. If I fire my 1911 from the shoulder it is not a redesigned rifle. What a crock of ****.

[blackhawke88]

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

[gdt82]

That's stupid. If I fire my 1911 from the shoulder it is not a redesigned rifle. What a crock of ****.

You're correct, but if you first attached some device to the rear of your 1911, let's call it a brace, and then fired it from the shoulder, you could be charged with a felony in federal court for a redesigned short barreled rifle. This is completely insane, but is the way our laws currently read. The issue of the Sig Brace has managed to encompass all of the absurdity of our firearms laws into one seemingly very small niche market of the AR pistol.

[dozer wright]

THIS

That's stupid. If I fire my 1911 from the shoulder it is not a redesigned rifle. What a crock of ****.

This is the way I took the first atf letter floating around. The fact that you could take a standard pistol 1911,glock or revolver and shoulder:-)it does not make it a rifle.Well,Aparently it does.
Per the Atf.