ATF repeal sig brace stance.

[motoman]

But is covers the blade and that's what I have on both my pistol builds. So I'm good with it. Lol.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's their interpretation. The ATF letter stated that anything making the brace ridged to be used on the shoulder is still illegal. Tim with Military Arms Channel did a great video on it yesterday.

[Chili]

That's their interpretation. The ATF letter stated that anything making the brace ridged to be used on the shoulder is still illegal. Tim with Military Arms Channel did a great video on it yesterday.

Everything that is going around is just someone's interpretation until a judge backs it up, including the ATF..

[motoman]

Everything that is going around is just someone's interpretation until a judge backs it up, including the ATF..

My point here is that the letter sent to SB Tactical was a closed letter sent only to SB Tactical, it was not an open letter sent to the industry stating that it's legal to shoulder pistols with braces. KAK or whoever the company making the blade brace is interpreting this letter as one that says shouldering a brace is no legal, when that's not the case, it only applies to the braces made by SB Tactical.

[Chili]

My point here is that the letter sent to SB Tactical was a closed letter sent only to SB Tactical, it was not an open letter sent to the industry stating that it's legal to shoulder pistols with braces. KAK or whoever the company making the blade brace is interpreting this letter as one that says shouldering a brace is no legal, when that's not the case, it only applies to the braces made by SB Tactical.

I get that but my point is that it's ALL just opinion until a judge makes a ruling.. The first letter, the open letter, the direct letter, everything.

People are acting as if these letters are law, and they are not. They may keep someone from getting prosecuted, or shut the mouths of the retarded gun range crowd that feels it is their job to police everyone, but ultimately it would be up to the judge to decide.


That's all I am saying. Everyone is getting too hung up on these stupid fucking letters and the opinions of a few people who post on the internet.

[David]

While the letters aren't law, they do help in clarifying the atf/doj position on what they would/could seek prosecution on. Sometimes, they help. Sometimes they hurt. But atleast they give some guidance on not getting a random knock on your door from an internet posting.

[Jimbo]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/04/24/breaking-news-atf-reverses-stance-shouldering-stabilizing-braces/?utm_content=buffer5f554&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

“an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not reconfigured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder. To the extent that the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational “use� of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute “redesign,� such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.�

[motoman]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ampaign=buffer

Did you even read the first paragraph?

"Saint Petersburg, Fla. (April, 25, 2017) – SB Tactical™, inventors and manufacturers of the Pistol Stabilizing Brace®, is excited to announce that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) has issued SB Tactical a reversal letter containing a sensible clarification of the Bureau’s position on the lawful use of SB Tactical braces."

Will we see the same letter to other companies, maybe. Does this letter mean any and all braces regardless of the manufacturer, as of right now, no.

As I said before, the ATF hasn't come out with an open letter to the industry, this was just in response to SB Tactical regarding their braces.

[Nash B.]

Any kind of pistol brace should be a violation at the end of the day.

I agree with that

[Grimpala]

I agree with that

May I ask why?

[helosailor]

[David]

May I ask why?

Because nobody is being fooled by thinking anyone is really using it as a pistol and not rifle.

[Nash B.]

Because nobody is being fooled by thinking anyone is really using it as a pistol and not rifle.

This. That's not to say I think SBRs and suppressors should be as heavily regulated as they are.

[Blackout]

This. That's not to say I think SBRs and suppressors should be as heavily regulated as they are.

This


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grimpala]

Because nobody is being fooled by thinking anyone is really using it as a pistol and not rifle.

This. That's not to say I think SBRs and suppressors should be as heavily regulated as they are.

But, why does that bother you personally? Is it that it could bring down further scrutiny on other issues because this one is 'abused'? That's the one big reason I could see against it.

I'm on the fence with it all. On one hand it's a loophole and is being exploited as needed to achieve an acceptable goal(something our POTUS has done in the past with his taxes), but on the other, it does go against the spirit of the law.

I have one and when needed I will use it as needed at that time. I'm not going to flaunt it, but I have it to do with as I see fit within the 'law'

[Grimpala]

I'm on the same page as you two about SBRs and suppressors as well. Way too much regulation on those items, as well as, SBSs.