Sig brace everyone cries...

[vladtepes 1,060]

why, again is the atf so anal about this?

 

 

because there are 800 million letters to the ATF asking them the same question over and over again.. and there are ten times that number of videos online of people talking about how they screwed the ATF.. and got around having to get a stamp..

[PK90 3,570]

There is no mention of "intent" in the letter. It states that it is illegal if you "use" the brace as a stock. Ridiculous. I suggest that if someone is putting their receiving extension against their shoulder, stop doing it, as you may be violating Federal Law. ETA: Is there a opinion letter stating it is okay to shoulder a receiver extension?

[SJG 253]

From a legal perspective this is an interesting discussion. From a practical one, I doubt you will ever see anyone prosecuted because they shouldered the weapon unless the opinion letter, with its inherent flaws ends up in a codified agency regulation. This is not to suggest that the opinion letter should be disregarded, but it is only an opinion letter and does not provide the "notice" that a statute, agency regulation, or court opinion would. We may see this subject further addressed. Prosecutors usually do not prosecute where there is an automatic built in defense based on existing agency interpretation.

[carl_g 568]

It all comes down to how much bullshit the NFA is and how bad it needs to be repealed.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

they've gone beyond ridiculous. they are yet another alphabet agency that needs to be gone.

[The_Matrix 105]

they've gone beyond ridiculous. they are yet another alphabet agency that needs to be gone.

Some senators are currently attempting to get rid of ATF.  

[1LtCAP 4,262]

Some senators are currently attempting to get rid of ATF.  

good. and it should be replaced by nothing........there's a few alphabet agencies that should be gone too. epa being one. blm another........

[JT Custom Guns 957]

Just curious as to why so many NJ members complain about the legality of the brace.

It's not like there is a wide assortment of NJ legal AR pistols in the first place, so in reality

you don't have very many choices to put it on anyway.............. Just sayin'

 

the brace won't fit on the Professional Ordnance Carbon 15 I sell, and I don't believe

it will fit on the Extar that Paul sells, so what AR pistol are the NJ guys gonna put it on????

[PK90 3,570]

It does work with the EXTAR. An adapter is available.

[PK90 3,570]

FWIW, half of the posters in this thread are NJ Refugees.

[High Exposure 5,664]

The best part of the brace keeping an AR pistol a pistol, was the adherence to CCW laws.

 

In theory, if I lived anywhere but Jersey, I could carry a loaded AR pistol with a 16" barrel loaded and charged in my vehicle, because it is a pistol not a rifle. All legal due to a CCW license, even in states that don't allow carrying loaded long guns in passenger compartments.

[mipafox 438]

So if I decide to bump fire my AR, is the ATF going to come after me because of the way I am holding it allows for "auto fire"(I know it's not but humor me).

If you write it, they will come.

 

 

 

 

The best part of the brace keeping an AR pistol a pistol, was the adherence to CCW laws.

 

In theory, if I lived anywhere but Jersey, I could carry a loaded AR pistol with a 16" barrel loaded and charged in my vehicle, because it is a pistol not a rifle. All legal due to a CCW license, even in states that don't allow carrying loaded long guns in passenger compartments.

Are there really that many states that don't allow loaded rifles in cars? I know it's "illegal" in PA but it's only a summary offense. Of course it is legal in PA with SBRs, SBSs, and MGs with barrels <16" if you have a carry permit.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

[Krdshrk 3,877]

A Redditor's reply to the ATF (NSFW)

http://imgur.com/a/gLBU5

[carl_g 568]

A Redditor's reply to the ATF (NSFW)

http://imgur.com/a/gLBU5

Hahahaha!!!

[Polak 3]

Lmfao. Define this!

[mipafox 438]

You know he's going to get a big drum mag and bumpfire that

[Carcano 14]

A Redditor's reply to the ATF (NSFW)

http://imgur.com/a/gLBU5

 

ATF wouldn't touch it...too sticky...

 

 

 

You know he's going to get a big drum mag and bumpfire that

 

After that hope he sends it to ATF...will never hear from them again

[raz-0 1,259]

So if I decide to bump fire my AR, is the ATF going to come after me because of the way I am holding it allows for "auto fire"(I know it's not but humor me).

No because you have to pull the trigger for each round fired.

 

This falls in the concealable category of the nfa rules. If I take an otherwise legal firearm, and disguise it or conceal it, technically I have violated the terms of the nfa. It's outside the bounds of affecting sale, but when used as such, The user has put themselves in possession of an untaxed nfa item.

 

The brace is similar. You build it, sell it, and use it as intended, it's a pistol and not nfa. You shoulder it, it becomes an sbr. You stop shouldering it and nobody saw it, poof it's a pistol again for all practical purposes. BATFE isn't clairvoyant. However with YouTube, they don't need to be if you are stupid enough.

 

 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

technically speaking, isn't the entire nfa thing kinda illegal?

[Carcano 14]

technically speaking, isn't the entire nfa thing kinda illegal?

 

Most would say yes, read this:

 

This is especially absurd for the statute under which Haynes was tried -- the National Firearms Act of 1934. This law was originally passed during the Depression, when heavily armed desperadoes roamed the nation, robbing banks and engaging in kidnap for ransom. The original intent of the National Firearms Act was to provide a method for locking up ex-cons that the government was unable to convict for breaking any other law. As Attorney General Homer Cummings described the purpose of the law, when testifying before Congress:

 

• Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it, but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to comply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want them to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.

During the same questioning, Cummings expressed his belief that, "I have no fear of the law-abiding citizen getting into trouble." Rep. Fred Vinson of Kentucky, while agreeing with Cummings' desire to have an additional tool for locking up gangsters, pointed out that many laws that sounded like good ideas when passed, were sometimes found "in the coolness and calmness of retrospect" to be somewhat different in their consequences.

 

Source: https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

[1LtCAP 4,262]

heh.///////

[mipafox 438]

 

Most would say yes, read this:

 

This is especially absurd for the statute under which Haynes was tried -- the National Firearms Act of 1934. This law was originally passed during the Depression, when heavily armed desperadoes roamed the nation, robbing banks and engaging in kidnap for ransom. The original intent of the National Firearms Act was to provide a method for locking up ex-cons that the government was unable to convict for breaking any other law. As Attorney General Homer Cummings described the purpose of the law, when testifying before Congress:

 

• Now, you say that it is easy for criminals to get weapons. I know it, but I want to make it easy to convict them when they have the weapons. That is the point of it. I do not expect criminals to comply with this law; I do not expect the underworld to be going around giving their fingerprints and getting permits to carry these weapons, but I want them to be in a position, when I find such a person, to convict him because he has not complied.

During the same questioning, Cummings expressed his belief that, "I have no fear of the law-abiding citizen getting into trouble." Rep. Fred Vinson of Kentucky, while agreeing with Cummings' desire to have an additional tool for locking up gangsters, pointed out that many laws that sounded like good ideas when passed, were sometimes found "in the coolness and calmness of retrospect" to be somewhat different in their consequences.

 

Source: https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

I don't believe that was the primary motivation. $200 was a lot of money back then and I think it's pretty obvious the intent was all but eliminate ownership. The Ford Model A Roadster started at $385 around that time. The NFA was also supposed to include any concealable firearm, including handguns. They managed to get handguns pulled from the final legislation. That is the only reason SBRs and SBSs are in there, so that people couldn't exploit a loophole on the handgun "ban" by modifying long guns to be concealable.

[Sixtytwo327 14]

Listing on GunBroker: 7.5" Aero Precision AR-15 Pistol 7.62x39 Sig Brace

 

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=461185647

 
From the ad: "The ATF has ruled that the Sig Arm brace even when shouldered does not change the AR Pistol from a pistol to an SBR, this is good news for the shooting community, a copy of the letter with the senders info redacted is seen in the last pic."

[PK90 3,570]

Listing on GunBroker: 7.5" Aero Precision AR-15 Pistol 7.62x39 Sig Brace

 

From the ad: "The ATF has ruled that the Sig Arm brace even when shouldered does not change the AR Pistol from a pistol to an SBR, this is good news for the shooting community, a copy of the letter with the senders info redacted is seen in the last pic."

Welcome to March 2014

[Carcano 14]

Here is the letter from that GunBroker listing:

 

[PK90 3,570]

Here is the letter from that GunBroker listing:

 

See post #15

[Carcano 14]

See post #15

 

I know, Paul, I only posted the image so people wouldn't have to click on the GB link.

[Sixtytwo327 14]

Welcome to March 2014

 

Thanks; I wasn't trying to present an opinion on the legality of the brace, and have no desire to wade into that debate. But I can see how my comment could be interpreted that way.

 

This was an interesting thread, and after reading it, I happened to see a current listing on Gunbroker, citing the letter from March 2014. The listing is nothing more than an example of how the Sig Brace is being marketed by gun shops right now, as of January 2015.

 

Personally, I think the Sig Brace is stupid - yet another AR gimmick, and that the typical AR operator would be better served learning how to shoot a standard-length rifle first — but to each is own.

[mipafox 438]

Stick a fork in it, it's done. ATF just further clarified. You put it to your shoulder it's an SBR. Doesn't matter why you made it, which way the wind was blowing, day of the week, nothing.