|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 18, 2015, 01:40 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,171
|
SB15 Brace, new ruling? Executive Action?
I'm a little late to the party, but I believe this "letter" that is being "discussed" was already distributed a while back.
If I'm not mistaken, this was already discussed in an older thread, that I cannot seem to find. Reading through the linked letter, if I recall the last interpretation of it was that if you were to install the brace onto a purchased pistol or are building an SBR with the expressed intent of shouldering it with the SB-15 brace, it would then be classified as "altering" or "re-designing" the firearms initial manufacturers purpose/design. Thus making it illegal. However, if you were to should a "pistol" with the brace already installed by the manufacturer, shouldering it would not be illegal, because that was not its intended design, and there is not an unlawful way to fire a handgun. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I ask this, since it sure seems like the NRA-ILA is stirring up the pot if I'm correct. https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...ilizing-braces |
January 18, 2015, 05:49 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,302
|
NRA isn't stirring the pot - ATFE is.
|
January 18, 2015, 09:34 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
The non-sensical part to me is per that letter an AR-pistol with a Sig brace is BOTH a pistol and an NFA SBR, but which it is depends on how the user intends to hold it.
This seems ripe for a lawsuit on this "arbitrary" policy of a firearm that simultaneously is and is not subject to the NFA. |
January 18, 2015, 10:07 PM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,060
|
The short version is this:
The ATF sent out a private letter stating that attaching the brace to a pistol did not constitute a short-barrel rifle, period. They followed up with another private letter clarifying that shouldering a pistol with the brace didn't affect anything because that wasn't the design intent. Now they've published a public letter rescinding the two prior ones, in which they state that shouldering a pistol with the brace constitutes "redesign" of the firearm into a short-barrel rifle and requiring a Form 1. Yep. Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania. There's a discussion thread here on the matter. If we're to have a concurrent thread in L&CR, let's stick to the legal ramifications of the matter.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
January 19, 2015, 04:19 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,442
|
So...
If the ATF now considers simply 'shouldering' a stabilizing brace to be an act of 'redesigning' the part into a shoulder stock (and the entire firearm into an SBR), then how long will it be before they decide that simply shouldering a pistol buffer tube (receiver extension) falls into the same category? It is exactly the same act, with the same result. The only difference is the lack of a stabilizing brace. I have an AR pistol that was built and used as a pistol -- sometimes, but rarely, shouldering the receiver extension. Then, down the road, I picked up an SB-15 arm brace. In all honestly, I actually prefer the bare receiver extension, which is why I don't care tremendously about this new letter; but with the arm brace, the rig was the perfect size for some of my nieces and nephews (who shouldered the brace, of course). With this new letter, I own both a completely legal pistol AND a completely illegal SBR, in exactly the same firearm. That is completely illogical and ridiculous.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
January 20, 2015, 03:18 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
So, now that NFA violation is a matter of intent rather than equipment...is having a pistol with a brace that you intend to shoulder now an official "Thought Crime?"
|
January 20, 2015, 01:32 PM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,475
|
Quote:
How ATF plans to act on the letter remains something of a mystery. However, we are all on notice that if an ATF agent sees someone shouldering a handgun with a SIG Brace, the agent is likely to arrest him for possession of a SBR. But that still leaves a bunch of question unanswered, including:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; January 20, 2015 at 02:20 PM. Reason: correct typo |
|
January 20, 2015, 02:11 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
January 20, 2015, 02:12 PM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,060
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 20, 2015, 02:23 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,878
|
Lets turn the debate around . If intent is what matters in terms of design . What does it mean if I'm firing my rifle from the hip and not from the shoulder . I'm sure some anti judge will find that is not using the firearm as intended . Therefore under the new rule be illegal .
I guess what's needed is the complete definition of a rifle ? Does a rifle have to be shoulder to be a rifle ?? Does it just have to have a stock like device that can be shouldered . What about a shotgun with pistol grip only . They are a long gun / rifle but have no stock ??? Seems to me there is to many thing that are debatable for this to have any real teeth .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
January 20, 2015, 02:28 PM | #11 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Except that you're arguing against something that BATFE hasn't claimed. I understand the logic of it, but that's not quite how it works. BATFE said [paraphrasing]If you use an arm brace as a stock, then you have an SBR.[/paraphrasing] They didn't argue anything about rifles over 26" in length, or shotguns. They haven't claimed that shooting a rifle from the hip is illegal.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
January 20, 2015, 02:37 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,878
|
I agree , how ever to claim something is being used as something it was not designed for ie a pistol as a rifle . Don't you need to define what a rifle is and how it's different then a pistol first ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
January 20, 2015, 02:39 PM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
That has already been done:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
January 20, 2015, 02:46 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,878
|
Quote:
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; January 20, 2015 at 02:52 PM. |
|
January 20, 2015, 05:13 PM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
January 20, 2015, 06:05 PM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,060
|
Quote:
That said, how would we redefine it? What wording would suffice?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 20, 2015, 06:17 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
IMHO Congress isn't going to rewrite the NFA, and furthermore, we really don't want them to even try. HUGE HUGE risk that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater.
In the past, I've characterized the NFA as the proverbial third rail of American gun politics, and I stand by this statement.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
January 20, 2015, 09:56 PM | #18 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,878
|
Quote:
Quote:
If that's the case and we are still talking about intent . Why would shouldering a handgun/pistol be a big deal . The handgun/pistol is one of the most concealable firearms you can own . The firearms in question are already designated as a pistol and one of the most concealable firearms . Why would shouldering it be a crime . on a side note I watched a SB15 review video earlier today . The guy talked about the ATF saying it was legal only if it is strapped to your forearm . Not sure if thats true or how there text reads
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; January 20, 2015 at 10:02 PM. |
||
January 20, 2015, 11:52 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,302
|
Quote:
There, that should do nicely. *sigh*, I know, just a pipe dream... |
|
January 21, 2015, 03:32 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Spats and Tom, correct me if I'm wrong here, but with most Constructive Possession and Intent cases, the physical properties of the thing(s) in question generally determine how the law is applied. (AR-rifle lower + pistol upper = SBR or X quantity of drugs = presumed dealer) With this letter, that is not the case. The SB-15 equipped pistol is not an SBR if the person intends to shoot it like a pistol, but IS an SBR if they intend to shoulder it. The physical properties of the thing being regulated do not change, but the legalities of owning that object do change, based upon nothing more than how a person INTENDS to hold it. That, to my non-lawyer mind, is a very different approach to the law.
|
January 21, 2015, 06:07 AM | #21 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,496
|
Quote:
One example might be a modern reproduction shoulder stock for a Luger. Someone light buy one with the intent of displaying the stock next to the pistol, but have no intention of mounting it. Another example might have been a flash hider during the Clinton AWB period. If you owned a legal, post-ban AR-15 with a (legal) compensator but you also had a flash suppressor on your work bench, you could have been charged with constructive possession. Not because you intended to put the flash suppressor on the AR, but because you could do so. That's the insidious aspect to the constructive possession snake. |
|
January 21, 2015, 12:43 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 864
|
... And this is why congress needs to pass yet another law... Something like "notwithstanding any other law, no person shall be punished with imprisonment unless the intent to violate the law was admitted by the defendant, or proven at trial"...
There are way too many federal laws that do not require "intent" to be proven, yet can result in prison time. I am OK with violation of rules being punishable by fines or other civil penalties... but criminal punishment should be reserved for those who knew they were breaking a law. It is less of a problem at the state level, but once we fix the federal code, we can get to work fixing the states. Jim |
January 26, 2015, 04:32 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,302
|
|
|
|