Sig pistol stabilizing brace

slugchucker · January 19, 2015, 12:46 PM

Well, it was only a matter of time until the $200 stamp collections needed bolstering. The ATF has spoken. http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...ing_braces.pdf

Fishbed77 · January 19, 2015, 01:06 PM

Frankly, the ATF is on very shaky legal ground here. I expect this one to be challenged pretty soon.

By this line of reasoning, it is illegal to shoot a pistol (say a Glock 19 or 1911) with two hands, since that would be "redesigning" a pistol into a short-barreled rifle.

RJay · January 19, 2015, 01:16 PM

Nothing new, the BATFE has always stated that if you use the brace as intended it was OK, but the second you put it to your shoulder it becomes a short barrel rifle.

Uncle Malice · January 19, 2015, 01:18 PM

Quote:

the BATFE has always stated that if you use the brace as intended it was OK, but the second you put it to your shoulder it becomes a short barrel rifle.

You are 100% incorrect. Their initial letter stated that shouldering the gun did not change the intent of the design and therefore did not create an SBR. This is a new decision.

slugchucker · January 19, 2015, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Fishbed77....with two hands

Just mount an AFG, they've already okay'ed that.

Evil Monkey · January 19, 2015, 01:21 PM

Quote:

This is a new decision.

Exactly. Which I said was coming.

I said in another thread it pretty much means if you even think about using the brace as a stock, it is constructive possession.

Uncle Malice · January 19, 2015, 01:30 PM

Quote:

if you even think about using the brace as a stock, it is constructive possession.

Fortunately we don't live in minority report.

marine6680 · January 19, 2015, 03:10 PM

From what I read... This was an open letter and not an official decision with legal weight...

Yet.

I never bothered with the brace due to this possibility.

Their misuse of the word redesigned... Puts this on shake ground though.

If I put gloves on my feet have I redesigned them into socks? Or am I just a jack hole who is acting a fool?

Skans · January 19, 2015, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Frankly, the ATF is on very shaky legal ground here. I expect this one to be challenged pretty soon.

Don't hold your breath waiting for BATFE to make a federal case out of how someone uses the brace just so someone can get their shot at making BATFE look stupid.

Fishbed77 · January 19, 2015, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Don't hold your breath waiting for BATFE to make a federal case out of how someone uses the brace just so someone can get their shot at making BATFE look stupid.

...which is exactly why this "open letter" carries no legal weight.

9x19 · January 19, 2015, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Frankly, the ATF is on very shaky legal ground here. I expect this one to be challenged pretty soon.

By this line of reasoning, it is illegal to shoot a pistol (say a Glock 19 or 1911) with two hands, since that would be "redesigning" a pistol into a short-barreled rifle.

Holding a pistol with two hands doesn't change the design... adding a second vertical grip does, and that is already subject to NFA.

Why has that not been overturned via a challenge in court?

Holding an AK pistol against your shoulder doesn't change the design... adding a Sig Brace does, so that may now become subject to NFA.

I'm afraid it's wishful thinking that it will be overturned via a challenge in court. ATFE is given rule-making authority under the law and all they have to do is hold a Sig-brace equipped AK pistol to their shoulder to show why they are taking this action. How many non-gun (on a jury) people do you think would disagree?

To the ATFE, it appears what the brace was designed for has become less important than how it is being used.

How that would surprise anyone is a mystery. I wouldn't be shocked to see a new rule issued (given the downward direction of these recent opinions), especially as a result of a court case. Something along the lines of "adding any device to a pistol which aids firing from a shouldered position is subject to NFA..."

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...ilizing-braces

Ozzieman · January 19, 2015, 08:34 PM

Does this mean that I have to cut the stock completely off of this thing???

marine6680 · January 19, 2015, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Holding an AK pistol against your shoulder doesn't change the design... adding a Sig Brace does, so that may now become subject to NFA.

Not according to their own letter...

Just adding the Sig brace does not change the intended function of the pistol. Using the brace as it was demonstrated/intentioned when given approval is ok still.

What they are saying now... Is that simply holding the pistol wrong "redesigns" the weapon into a rifle.

By their logic, If you hold a Glock 17 grip against your shoulder (in a manner the slide will be free to move of course) and then fire the pistol... You have redesigned the Glock into a SBR type rifle.

A bit of an extreme example, but it does follow the logic of their statements, even if it is absurd.

9x19 · January 20, 2015, 12:55 AM

But that letter was in regards to a pistol that had a device added... not about a Glock with no additions.

Again, firing your Glock with both hands while held.against your shoulder... no problem... add a second vertical grip to the rail, or a stock-shaped "brace" to the rear... and do the same...ATFE NOW sees either addition as subject to NFA regulation.

skizzums · January 20, 2015, 12:56 AM

I am about to order one because of this new controversy, is their any difference between the gen1 and gen2 besides looks?

**JohnKSa** · January 20, 2015, 12:56 AM

Under discussion HERE.

January 19, 2015, 12:46 PM	#1
slugchucker Member Join Date: March 30, 2014 Posts: 87	Sig pistol stabilizing brace Well, it was only a matter of time until the $200 stamp collections needed bolstering. The ATF has spoken. http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...ing_braces.pdf

January 19, 2015, 03:10 PM	#8
marine6680 Senior Member Join Date: July 24, 2012 Location: Parker, CO Posts: 4,594	From what I read... This was an open letter and not an official decision with legal weight... Yet. I never bothered with the brace due to this possibility. Their misuse of the word redesigned... Puts this on shake ground though. If I put gloves on my feet have I redesigned them into socks? Or am I just a jack hole who is acting a fool? Last edited by marine6680; January 19, 2015 at 03:18 PM.

January 20, 2015, 12:55 AM	#14
9x19 Senior Member Join Date: October 16, 1998 Location: Sherman, TX USA Posts: 3,759	But that letter was in regards to a pistol that had a device added... not about a Glock with no additions. Again, firing your Glock with both hands while held.against your shoulder... no problem... add a second vertical grip to the rail, or a stock-shaped "brace" to the rear... and do the same...ATFE NOW sees either addition as subject to NFA regulation. __________________ Make mine lean, mean, and 9x19!

January 20, 2015, 12:56 AM	#16
JohnKSa Staff Join Date: February 12, 2001 Location: DFW Area Posts: 25,566	Under discussion HERE. __________________ Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?

January 19, 2015, 01:06 PM	#2
Fishbed77 Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2010 Posts: 4,862	Frankly, the ATF is on very shaky legal ground here. I expect this one to be challenged pretty soon. By this line of reasoning, it is illegal to shoot a pistol (say a Glock 19 or 1911) with two hands, since that would be "redesigning" a pistol into a short-barreled rifle.

January 19, 2015, 01:16 PM	#3
RJay Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2005 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,936	Nothing new, the BATFE has always stated that if you use the brace as intended it was OK, but the second you put it to your shoulder it becomes a short barrel rifle.

January 20, 2015, 12:56 AM	#15
skizzums Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2013 Location: Douglasville, Ga Posts: 4,615	I am about to order one because of this new controversy, is their any difference between the gen1 and gen2 besides looks?