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

[JackRydden224]

Keep in mind that the next guy who responds to the Sig brace might say it is legal just like the first letter. You get a different guy in ATF you might get a different response. What Sig might do is to seek a clear cut decision, they have nothng to lose at this point.

[MCM]

After reading these 13 pages, I now know why things are the way they are here. Its kinda pathetic

[gdt82]

I would guess this letter and this opinion have no bearing on the AOWs that Franklin built and stamped and on the Calgunner that cleverly built the folding stock with the brace and Form 1 it? Maybe the Form 1/AOW is the best way to go if you want no worries about getting popped?

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.

[rosemont83]

Friggin youtube videos man.
I saw one of them about skirting the law by some usmc guy that was basically saying "ha ha ha ha look what I can do you're stupid" and that everyone should skirt the law because its a good idea to "throw this stuff in the face of lawmakers."
Uhhhhhh lol you just described to anyone that watches the video, how they screwed up..
I'm sure he's a cool guy and all but what he is saying is bad. Really bad.
We're doomed.

[infringed711]

Friggin youtube videos man.
I saw one of them about skirting the law by some usmc guy that was basically saying "ha ha ha ha look what I can do you're stupid" and that everyone should skirt the law because its a good idea to "throw this stuff in the face of lawmakers."
Uhhhhhh lol you just described to anyone that watches the video, how they screwed up..
I'm sure he's a cool guy and all but what he is saying is bad. Really bad.
We're doomed.

I saw that video too, Hoss USMC I think...yea that was bad

[gdt82]

I don't know what Sig's plans are, but I suppose they could file a lawsuit saying that the current definitions of "rifle" and "short barreled rifle" are too vague and thereby allow too much government latitude that violates the 2nd amendment as defined in Heller. It's a stretch, but they could argue that a firearm needs to be classified either legal or illegal based on defined configurations, and not the arbitrary definition of "intent". If you remove the stock from a rifle it doesn't magically become an illegal AOW. Likewise, it makes no sense to have a legal pistol that magically becomes illegal based on a slight adjustment of the shooter's stance.

[Press Check]

For all the armchair lawyers:

http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/26/whoops-we-atf-did-it-again-arbitrary-determinations-over-the-sig-brace/#comment-20159

VERY good read.

[infringed711]

For all the armchair lawyers:

http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/26/whoops-we-atf-did-it-again-arbitrary-determinations-over-the-sig-brace/#comment-20159

VERY good read.

So basically the guy who wrote the new ATF letter is full of ****

[loyalgunfighter]

a good update for reading.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/foghorn/calm-pistol-brace-ruling-hasnt-changed/

[Press Check]

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

Good reading as well.

[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.

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.

These laws are ridiculous and should be legally challenged as much as possible. If "protestors" can riot for a thug and call him a victim, why should lawful tax paying gun owners quietly submit to unjust limits on our civil rights? We have a strong lobby with lawyers behind us, let's put our political capital to good use by being a united front.

[gdt82]

All interesting reads, but unfortunately it's clear that nothing is clear. Which means it will take some type of court case to clear it up. This would be safest if it took place in the form of a lawsuit, because nobody wants to be the defendant in a criminal case in which a loss would mean they are a felon. In CA we have the added danger of the redundant state SBR law, which means even if the Feds don't really care about the Sig Brace, CA could decide they do care. And before now the most compelling defense was that the CA law and federal law are worded identically, so in the absence of a CA-DOJ statement (despite repeated requests), all that a law-abiding citizen had to go on was the ATF guidance. Perhaps not rock solid, but a pretty decent defense. Now there are just as many ATF letters calling into question the legality that it's not such a great defense anymore.

[FiveSeven]

All interesting reads, but unfortunately it's clear that nothing is clear. Which means it will take some type of court case to clear it up. This would be safest if it took place in the form of a lawsuit, because nobody wants to be the defendant in a criminal case in which a loss would mean they are a felon. In CA we have the added danger of the redundant state SBR law, which means even if the Feds don't really care about the Sig Brace, CA could decide they do care. And before now the most compelling defense was that the CA law and federal law are worded identically, so in the absence of a CA-DOJ statement (despite repeated requests), all that a law-abiding citizen had to go on was the ATF guidance. Perhaps not rock solid, but a pretty decent defense. Now there are just as many ATF letters calling into question the legality that it's not such a great defense anymore.

Fed (NFA) definition of SBR is the same as CA definition.

[ke6guj]

Fed (NFA) definition of SBR is the same as CA definition.

they may be worded approximately the same, but they are regulated differently by different jurisdictions. just because something is not an SBR per the feds doesn't mean that CA can't consider it to be an SBR.

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.

[gdt82]

Fed (NFA) definition of SBR is the same as CA definition.

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.