Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TruthTellers
Wait a minute, so if one were to manufacture their own stabilizing brace for a pistol, why couldn't it be used to be fired from the shoulder while the Sig brace is okay to fire from the shoulder?
|
Who said it couldn't? There should be no difference between a home-built brace and the SIG brace in that regard.
With the SIG brace, the ATF has offered the opinion that since it's designed as an arm brace that's not intended to be fired from the shoulder, it doesn't make a difference how it's used after that: Shouldering it doesn't change its intended use. So if the ATF offered the opinion that a home-built brace isn't intended to be fired from the shoulder, it shouldn't be any different. But since this is all about interpretation of law, that could change depending on who's interpreting it and when.
Keep in mind that at one time the ATF interpreted federal law differently. They decided that shouldering a brace "redesigned" it into a short barrel rifle (see the federal definitions I quoted above). This wasn't the ATF just making up laws, this was them interpreting existing federal law (even if many people think it was a poor interpretation).
People are way over-thinking this. The ATF doesn't make up law, they simply offer up their take on existing laws. Yes, they do enact regulations that essentially have the force of law in many respects, but they haven't enacted any regulations in regards to the arm brace issue. Everything published by the ATF in regards to the arm brace issue is their interpretation of the existing federal laws I've already quoted.