Thordsen CAA cheek adapter ATF ruling!

[mag360]

Im not saying im ok with much of that either but rules over a public road are hardly similar to restrictions on firearms.

[gdt82]

Im not saying im ok with much of that either but rules over a public road are hardly similar to restrictions on firearms.

A better analogy would be the government (usually local in this case) giving you strict restrictions on what you can build on your property. Even though you own the property, you can't just build or do anything you want on it.

[Str8Shoot3r]

I can't wait to see what happens when a smart guy shoulders a brace and/or cheek rest and gets popped for it. Even if you nit pick the law to death, and even if you eventually win, you'll be broke defending yourself. And most likely be a bit older.

Either way, you guys go for it, I'll watch.

[gdt82]

Here's another article that mentions both the Sig Brace and the Thordsen and touches on all of these matters (article dated Jan 2).

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/new-atf-letter-confirms-pistol-braces-intent/

[smith and wesson]

Ask and you shall receive.


This is why we can't have nice things. People cant just leave things alone can they.

Yeah this.

Why do people keep asking if this thing is legal? I bet if people wrote in last year to ask if sse was legal they would get no as an answer. It's not illegal until it's stated outright, just like sse, just like rebuild kits before that.

Hey let's start writing in about bullet buttons too, maybe squeeze in that you own a preban mag.

[customiiguy]

Well as long as u use the brace and cheek riser as intended. Not from the shoulder u will be fine

[Losd619]

Well as long as u use the brace and cheek riser as intended. Not from the shoulder u will be fine

Correction. If you built the pistol with the intention of using the brace one handed, you can use the pistol with the brace as you please.

The new opinion by the atf states that it's the intent at the time of manufacture that comes into play here.

[caliberetta]

March determination letter was under the old BATFE FTB director.

December determination letter is under the new BATFE FTB director (who took over in November 2014).

That is correct, each letter was signed by 2 different people.

[SA227driver]

If people on IG and YouTube would not have posted videos and pics of them shouldering their "pistols" this all could all could have been under the radar. People asked me why I chose to Form 1 a number of my SBRs instead of doing the Sig Brace, for this exact reason. All it took was a reversal from the ATF and now most people have a $150 paperweight.

[JDay]

BATF should just repeal the NFA and focus on processing tax stamps. You know a law is flawed when its filled with gray areas.

If the NFA was repealed there would be no tax stamps for the ATF to process.

[JDay]

The rise of the bullpup has killed any desire I may have for a bubba'd SBR AR pistol hack job.

California's minimum overall length requirements make bullpups pointless in this state.

[Dingusmalarky]

If people on IG and YouTube would not have posted videos and pics of them shouldering their "pistols" this all could all could have been under the radar. People asked me why I chose to Form 1 a number of my SBRs instead of doing the Sig Brace, for this exact reason. All it took was a reversal from the ATF and now most people have a $150 paperweight.

You do understand that this is an opinion letter and even still they'd have to prove intent at the time you put the brace on the pistol. Shouldering it alone isn't a crime, installing it with the intent of shouldering it then shouldering it is according to the ATF. I, like most people I know, installed it to use it as a brace to help me shoot one handed so even if I did shoulder it I wouldn't be breaking the law according to this latest opinion.

[.45 ACP]

I think the point is no one wants to be the first guy to go to court for this, legally strong case or not. Whoever does end up being the first case, I will gladly donate to the defense fund.

[rigid650]

The language on this latest ATF letter (Dec 2014) seems to contradict the language used in an ATF Letter from last March 2014, specifically referencing the Shouldering of AR Pistol.

In that March 2014 letter, it was stated that:

"Generally speaking we do not classify a weapon based upon how an individual uses that weapon."

Also:

"... the firing of a weapon from a particular position, such placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 type Pistol on the user's shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon."

In this most recent letter (December 2014) seems to contradict this, as now the language - "... is not used as a shoulder stock" - suggests that USING it on the shoulder may change its classification from Pistol to SBR.

I guess this is just another layer of confusion for us all.

I don't understand how anyone can think this is contradictory....

March 2014 letter as quoted above, specifically uses the term "receiver extension" :

"...such placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 type Pistol on the user's shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon."

Cheek saddles and arm braces are in no way a "receiver extension", they are in fact accessories attached TO the receiver extension.

December 2014 letter is saying if you use these accessories added to the receiver extension as a shoulder stock, then its a shoulder stock, and thus SBR

this was clear prior to the December letter....

[caliberetta]

^^ you see it differently than I do, no problem.