Sig Brace a No-Go per ATF

SB15

Well, we all knew eventually BATFE would come down on it…  Enough people kept sending letters asking or “misusing” the brace and posting about how this was a way around the SBR issue that the Technology Branch made a definitive ruling, revoking all previous letters.

We had previously published the ruling regarding shotguns here:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/20/new-ruling-sig-brace-shotguns/

Here is the “ruling”:
http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/open_letter_on_the_redesign_of_stabilizing_braces.pdf

It can be found at this link (as of today, top of the list):
http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry

Specifically if you use the brace as a shoulder stock you have effectively “redesigned” the weapon into a NFA item, and are therefore out of compliance.

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

Take due notice and govern yourselves accordingly.

UPDATE: The full notice is below.

OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES”

The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol.

These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA.

The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added).

Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, inRevenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.”

In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that

The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously “muscle” this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort.

In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol’s handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent.

ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.

The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.”

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at fire_tech@atf.gov or by phone at (304) 616-4300.

Max M. Kingery
Acting Chief
Firearms Technology Criminal Branch
Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division

At least one retailer has told me they are doing a fire-sale on braces. If you want a brace now is the time to buy one … but be warned: only use it has it is legally intended.



Tom is a former Navy Corpsman that spent some time bumbling around the deserts of Iraq with a Marine Recon unit, kicking in tent flaps and harassing sheep. Prior to that he was a paramedic somewhere in DFW, also doing some Executive Protection work between shifts. Now that those exciting days are behind him, he has embraced his inner “Warrior Hippie” and assaults 14er in his sandals and beard, or engages in rucking adventure challenges while consuming craft beer. To fund these adventures, he writes medical software and builds websites and mobile apps. His latest venture is as one of the founders of IronSights.com; a search engine for all things gun related. He hopes that his posts will help you find solid gear that will survive whatever you can throw at it–he is known (in certain circles) for his curse…ahem, ability…to find the breaking point of anything.


Advertisement

  • ComeAndTakeIt

    Not this again. Would it be too much to ask the BATFE to make up it’s damn mind?!?

    • Doc Rader

      They did. Again.

      • ComeAndTakeIt

        Yep, they sure did. Anybody want to buy a Sig arm brace? NIB

        • I’ve bought 2 in the past month. Bummer.

          • ComeAndTakeIt

            I feel your pain. I hope you kept the receipt.

        • Phaideaux

          Sure. I always thought the intended use was kinda cool. Its screaming to be in a movie.

        • -V-

          Well, you can still very much posses and use a arm brace. You just can’t shoulder the arm brace and use it as a stock.

          I don’t blame the ATF here. If anything I’m surprised they didn’t simply say that all sig arm braces are now classified as stocks and users need to either file a Form 1 or destroy them (the stocks). The law is (no matter how dumb) the law. If you shoulder it, its a rifle, if you don’t its a pistol.

          • MattW

            Yes and as they state in the letter that also means that if you are attacked while working on a construction site and use a .22 blank powered nail gun to defend yourself you have now violated the nfa because you used it as a weapon. You just have to trust they won’t prosecute.

            These rulings of “use = redesign” should be thrown out with a vengeance by the courts

          • Don Ward

            No it doesn’t. A nail gun isn’t a firearm. Don’t be obtuse. And if we’re going to beat a law like this, it would be helpful not to muddy the water with this sort of… wisdom.

  • sammy_ j_bird

    Aw man…so does this mean we’re closer to repealing th SBR ban, or farther away frm it?

    • Farther—-

      • Bill

        WAY farther – I don’t know of a concentrated effort to do so anyway, and the Class 3 lobby is pretty small to begin with. And now that the ATF effectively got burned by a “creative application,” if anything they’ll become more attentive and less flexible. And just as suppressors were going more mainstream…..

    • Dave The Great

      Could be closer, as this sets up more public discourse and potentially-damaged parties who have grounds to sue (let’s face it: the courts are the closest thing we have to friendly ground. The legislature is not inclined to help and there isn’t a “Mothers Against SBR Bans” group).

      Most likely though, this will just reset the clock back a few years and cause no other changes, positive or negative. We had a holiday, we abused it, it was taken away. Likely, end of story.

      • sammy_ j_bird

        Out of all the responses I got, yours didn’t make me feel like an idiot for asking that question! I do hope one day people will have more sense than to poke the bear.

    • Guest
  • 3XLwolfshirt

    How the hell can you “redesign” something by holding it a certain way? This is retarded.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      The ATF is clearly on questionable ground. BUT… that’s not the issue here. People abused the original opinion and poked and pushed, and the ATF had enough of it. That’s all there is to it in the short term.

      Someday the ATF might have to recant that holding something doesn’t redesign it, but then they’ll just change their opinion to be the brace is a stock.

      The far larger issue was a stupid stupid community. Lesson: NEVER write letters to the ATF, EVER.

      • FourString

        We have all the tactless bubbas to thank for this.

        • Blake

          …tacticool tactless bubbas at that…

      • Tom Currie

        Bottom line is that the ATF screwed up when they approved the Sig “Arm Brace” in the first place — now they are trying to backpedal without actually saying that THEY were wrong from the start.

        The entire concept of a SBR being different from a rifle with a barrel an inch or so longer is ridiculous, but that is the nonsense that our elected officials and our beloved NRA decided on.

        • Deqwanne Jackson

          No, the problem was all the AR owners had to be “tacticool” and they abused the system as designed. ATF had enough and put an end to it. Anyone with a brain HAD to see this coming.

      • Grindstone50k

        The ATF would’ve produced the same decision sooner or later anyway. Turning on your fellow gun owners just helps to keep the focus off the ATF.

        • iksnilol

          Not rubbing it in their (ATF) faces isn’t turning on your fellow gun owner.

          • Grindstone50k

            I hope English is your second language, because that’s a very big reading comprehension fail.

          • iksnilol

            I just noticed that. Literally laughed out loud. Yes, my previous comment could be misread if and only if your mind is in the gutter my good sir.

          • JSmath

            Grammatical failure*

      • Can you really abuse freedom? Really?

        • Dan

          Well yes just ask the ATF or any other government entity. They only restrict our freedoms to keep us safe you know.

      • RealitiCzech

        Writing letters to the ATF is very hazardous, true. For now, folding and retractable-stock guns are measured for overall length with the stocks extended to max length. That could change at any time, on the same whim that cause the issuance of this letter.

        • BattleshipGrey

          They could change that opinion as well, but if they go reversing too many decisions, they’ll put even more scrutiny on themselves. The general public probably didn’t even know the arm braces existed, not to mention that until now, you could shoulder them.

          The ATF (or any other government agency), changing their mind on a certain issue once a decade or so is probably acceptable to the public, but if they change their minds on numerous issues, they’ll bring their agency’s existence into question.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        You write a letter to the ATF if you need clarification of a specific point. In doing so, you understand that they might say “no.” Taunting them is all advised.
        For example, an underfolder AK is 25.75″ long, under the 26″ minimum OAL. I was told, “All the manufacturers do it.”

        Before making my own, however, I inquired, and FTB sent me a letter saying that rifles are measured with the stock extended into using position.

        Now, if someone were to develop a rifle that had an ADJUSTABLE stock that adjusted from OAL 20-26″ and tried to get approval for it based on my letter, they’d be told that because it’s usable at 20″, it’s governed under the NFA.

        “Is a wrist brace a shoulder stock?” “No, it’s not intended to be. You COULD use it that way, but that’s not its purpose.”

        “So, I can use it as a shoulder stock?”

        “Uh, no.”

    • steveday72

      Because the ATF are living in a place devoid of common sense.

  • WasThere

    So by their definition, shouldering a pistol buffer tube is a redesign! YAY!

  • WasThere

    by their definition, shouldering a pistol buffer tube is illegal without the tax stamp.
    YAY! I cant wait for my stay in a federal resort

  • Well, there ya go.

    • Rule #1 of hacking the NFA: Do not constantly remind the ATF you hacked the NFA (and didn’t give them $200).

      • Dave The Great

        That should be a sticky.

        No, wait, that should be a STICKER, and applied to every Sig brace ever sold.

      • undeRGRound

        I Said That From The START!!!
        Take the original ruling and letter, buy your pistols and braces, use them however you want, and STFU!!! Can I have “Stupid Maneuvers” for $1,000, Alex? lol

  • euragone

    It just goes to show Ignorant people should be allowed to own guns! How many Dumb@sses posted youtube videos shaking their fists at the ATF alone on the brace itself!

  • MclarenF1Forever

    So do handguns become AOWs when fired with 2 hands?

    • I’m waiting for someone to send a written inquiry to the ATF about that one…

      • Chris

        I think everyone and their brother should send this letter. Two things would happen, one it would make an example of the hypocrisy and maybe make legislators take notice. And two if would bring the “only for hunting and plinking” over to the staunchly pro freedom side because now the Ruger Bearcat they plink with would make them felons.

    • Aaron Russell

      Applause*

    • notinfringed

      By this definition of “redesign,” yes it does. The moment that second hand goes on it, it has been “redesigned.”

      • RealitiCzech

        Yep. It exactly fits this definition of redesigned.

      • iksnilol

        So we who shoot with one hand are following the law while you other guys are criminals? cool while not cool.

        • RealitiCzech

          Yup. Plus, every trainer requiring their students to use a two-handed grip? They’re manufacturing a ton of AOWs by definition.

      • dsd1

        and stabbings with screwdrivers instantly redesign all screwdrivers into knives, and pounding something with the heel of a shoe now instantly redesigns all shoes into hammers.

        can shoes or screwdrivers be brought into courthouses or federal buildings?

        • Cymond

          It’s worse than that.
          THAT shoe instantly becomes “redesigned” as a hammer, while an identical shoe does not, making it absolutely impossible for a third-party to distinguish between shoes & hammers, and a wrong guess could send someone to jail for wearing the wrong pair of shoes.

      • Tothe

        Repurposing is not redesigning.

    • Bill

      No, but they do when you add a second grip to the accessory rail. The ATF ruled on how a part was being used, not that you couldn’t pick up an AR pistol and put two hands on the pistol grip or one there and one on the plain fore-end

  • JumpIf NotZero

    The original ATF opinion on the letter that came with the braces was “using it wrong doesn’t make it an SBR.”

    New ATF opinion they’re saying “Using it wrong totally makes it an SBR.”

    -Caleb on GunNuts, put as well as could be. Right or wrong on the ATF’s part, this isn’t really about them. It’s about the idiots that poked and poked at the ATF. What did you think was going to happen!?

  • Blake

    I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again:

    If it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck…

    As much as it would have been nice for everyone to have frankenpistols, the law is the law (even if it’s a relic of prohibition) & the current ATF directors’ interpretations of it have been inconsistent at best. If your gun looks like an SBR and you’re using it like an SBR then you’d better have the paperwork & stamp for it, regardless of any letter stating the contrary (unless it comes from a judge).

    Question: when was the last time a violent crime was committed in the US with a weapon meeting the definition of an SBR (registered or not)?

    • CommonSense23

      Well somebody just ripped off a drug dealer in California within the last week with a Sig Brace AR-15 pistol apparently and was caught.

  • Don Ward

    I think the issue is that folks have been trying to subvert the law by pretending an AR-15 is a “pistol” just because they shortened the barrel. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a stupid law and not needed. But those AR pistols are not pistols, you don’t use them like pistols nor if you were to show it 99 out of 100 people would they think it’s a pistol.

    • Dave The Great

      Uncomfortable truth is … yeah, true. Damnit.

    • Phaideaux

      AR and AK pistols are definitely still pistols. They aren’t in any way designed to be fired from the shoulder. Just because they use an intermediate cartridge doesn’t mean they’re a rifle. By that logic those T/C pistols that use rifle cartridges aren’t pistols anymore either.

      • Don Ward

        If there were no rules regarding short barreled rifles, I guarantee you those wouldn’t be called pistols.

        • Phaideaux

          Well yeah, these wouldn’t exist, why would you NOT put a stock on them? But I would hesitate to call anything a rifle when its lacking the one thing that makes a rifle a rifle in just about everyone’s eyes. A stock.

          • Bill

            And it’s illegal, flat illegal to put a stock on a contender without it having a 16 inch barrel. That’s been the case for probably 2 decades or more at least, when TC introduced Contender carbine kits

          • Phaideaux

            I am well aware of that. My point is, you wouldn’t call a T/C pistol in an intermediate caliber a rifle just because of the cartridge it fires.

          • Bill

            Then I don’t get the point at all, and may actually be agreeing with you:

            Ruger Blackhawk: .30 Carbine
            Every .22 pistol ever made
            Freedom Arms BFR: 45-70
            Taurus Judge: .410 ga.

            Caliber/gauge is irrelevant, until you get into AOW/DD territory.

  • Ian Mcfarland

    So if I just do not use the sig brace as a shoulder stock and only use it on my shoulder as a sig brace then I am in compliance? Being I never though it was a shoulder stock as that isn’t what it is. I mean it doesn’t change into a shoulder stock when using it ,….right like a transformer it still remains a Sig Brace the whole time right?

    • Cheese_McQueen

      Don’t be an idiot.

    • Dave The Great

      That is the sort of commentary that caused this situation in the first place.

  • Aaron Russell

    We should all consider peaceful demonstrations for our rights.

    • Bill

      You have a right to use something for which it wasn’t designed? Good luck with that. No one is stopping you from submitting SBR paperwork just like we have all along.

      • floppyscience

        We shouldn’t have to fill out paperwork, be fingerprinted, pay a tax, enter a federal registry, and wait 6-12 months to get permission for something the federal government has no authority to regulate in the first place. That goes doubly if that something is putting a stock on a goddamn rifle.

        • Bill

          Apples and oranges. People tried to curveball one around the rules, and that has consequences. There are mechanisms to change laws and rules, there are consequences to trying to circumvent them. Get this creative when you go to file your taxes and see what happens.

          • skusmc

            “People tried to curveball one around the rules”

            I agree, except it’s the BATFE trying to circumvent the rules (i.e. law)here. Words have meaning, and laws are wholly dependent upon the clear definition of those words. No English speaker anywhere would honestly consider and end user utilizing something inefficiently in a way it wasn’t designed for to be “redesigning” that thing. If I use a wrench to hammer a nail, did I just “redesign” it into a hammer? Of course not.

            You’re basically going to bat for an agency that’s purposely misusing words in order to break the clear wording of the law.

            “There are mechanisms to change laws and rules, there are consequences to trying to circumvent them.”

            Boy I wish there were consequences. If that were the case Mr. Kingery here would go on trial after this gets thrown out of court.

          • Bill

            That isn’t the way laws and regulations are drafted. The very first section of any law or regulation I’ve ever read consists of the definitions used in that statute. They aren’t misusing words, because the words are defined in the law. Their dictionary definition is irrelevant in the legal arena.

            Ask your girlfriend/spouse what the definition of “sunset” is, and then look up the legal definition of sunset, and the one used by the FAA, and then the one used by NOAA, and then the one used by the nautical industry.

      • sianmink

        Do you put q-tips in your ears?

        It’s ludicrous that a legal item, misused for a legal purpose, should be illegal just because it was designed for something else.

      • tazman66gt

        If you live in a state where SBR’s are verboten then you try to do what you can with what you have.

    • Dan

      We should all end up outside ATF head office

  • Vhyrus

    Well, my AK pistol became mostly useless again.

    I was going to buy an AR lower tomorrow and make an AR pistol but I am not so sure anymore.

  • me ohmy

    time to answer the unasked question.. why is an SBR so over regulated and short barrels so terrible if they are shorter then X… time to revist ALL THESE stupid gun laws and defund the BATF

    • n0truscotsman

      Absolutely.

      Even some nations with very stringent gun control laws, like France, dont have our restrictions on barrel length.

      It must be an Anglo-American (judging by the US, Canada, and UK) thing.

      • Tassiebush

        Na the Anglo legal background wouldn’t account for it. Canada, Australia and New Zealand don’t have Short barrel restrictions. more overall length restrictions. I have no idea on the rules in the UK about barrel length.

      • Steve_7

        The US came up with the 18-inch barrel length restriction and Canada copied it, then the US went to a 16-inch barrel length for rifles after WW2 to exempt the M1 carbine. Canada went to a 18.5-inch length for semi-autos in 1991 I think it was to catch the H&K 91 as a restricted firearm but subsequently banned them anyway. The UK never had barrel length restrictions for “rifled guns” until 1997.

    • Deqwanne Jackson

      Because Hollywood movies say that only bad guys use SBRs and silencers.

      • charlesrhamilton

        Saidly, this is the main criteria most politicians use when proposing gun laws.

    • supergun

      They don’t know what they are doing.

  • n0truscotsman

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

    People are never content with rulings the way they are, nope. Because it makes far more sense to keep asking until you dont get the answer you want /facepalm/

  • Patrick Mingle

    This is going to make a lot of stuff at SHOT a lot less interesting

    • Holy chit, I didn’t even think about that, lol!

    • Dave The Great

      Ehhh…. I’m kinda assuming that people making their living at SHOT will pony up $200 for the tax stamp. But that waiting period can bite them if they don’t e-file ASAP.

      • JumpIf NotZero

        The brace was never really a full replacement for an SBR, just a hack. It was a nice idea to use it like that until your stamp comes in… But idiots will be idiots.

      • Patrick Mingle

        I was referring to a lot of the non-NFA stuff that manufacturers were planning on selling with a sig brace.

        • Curious_G

          And they can’t sell it why?….

      • KestrelBike

        What’s really crazy is that the GOV could make a damned mint if they made the NFA stamp process take as long as it really does (minutes, as opposed to months) and still only charged the $200.

        For every applicant they get, *I THINK* they just farm out that person’s info to a private 3rd party who does background check on their info from the application. They do it in batches, and the whole process takes at most a couple days, allowing for podunk places to catch up who aren’t totally 24/7 with their data. Each search only costs about $50.

        But really, the whole reason for 6-12mo is to make the applicant wait on bended knee. I think that deters a lot of would-be applicants. Oh, and since it’s a federal issue, stop this BS about demanding change-of-address filings if they move from state to state or county to county (I think they do the former, not the latter)

        • 1911a145acp

          Total NFA tax stamp revenue last year was $9.5 million dollars. ATF Budget was 1.2 BILLION DOLLARS!. IRS budget was 5 BILLION DOLLARS! All separate from the DOJ total! It ain’t about the money folks. It is about an out of control Bureaucratic government that CREATES delinquent citizens, creates it’s authority to tax and regulate them out of thin air. It is forced compliance and extortion plain and simple and it must stop.

      • Deqwanne Jackson

        I just did an MG paper file, and an AOW paper file. Both only took 6 month.

    • RealitiCzech

      The brace is still 100% legal. Shooting it from the shoulder is not.

      • Patrick Mingle

        I realize that, but not being able to shoulder a sig brace takes almost all of the fun out of it for me

        • Deqwanne Jackson

          You cant shoulder it anyways unless you have dinosaur arms.

  • Mike Price

    I think this is all BS letter. I’ll wait until I see it from a major source like HK.

  • wetcorps

    Really, I don’t see why you all play surprised.
    Don’t get me wrong, I think sbr laws are useless and incoherent… But the braces’ only goal is to use the letter of the law to circumvent it. A brace is a stock in disguise, everyone perfectly knows it and the ATF knows it too. And I don’t think they needed youtube videos to guess it…
    AR/AK “pistols” are the same, bumpfire stocks too… They can’t outright ban them by name because they have to follow the law they wrote. But from their point of view, it would be logical to do so.

    • hydepark

      Screw blaming the letters. It’s comments like these that I blame the most. Just because you can’t (or are too lazy) acquire NFA items, why go around spouting this nay-saying bullshit?

      Blame tyranny and the BATFE.

  • Bill

    What’s surprising is that some people seem surprised. Just consider it fun while it lasted. What will be interesting is seeing how it is enforced: it’s unlikely that the ATF will station an agent at every range to watch for someone illegally using a brace.

    There is also applicable precedent for the ATF to do this. Certain chemicals and drugs are perfectly legal to own and use as manufactured, until they are used illegally as precursors to the making of drugs or explosives.

    • Will P.

      But you are not altering the gun in anyway. The ruling is more like telling me you can smoke a this one brand of cigarettes in your nose all day, but when you try to smoke one with your mouth like a normal cigarette it’s illegal contraband.

      • Bill

        That makes no sense whatsoever. The brace was designed for one purpose, it was conveniently discovered to be useful for something else that strayed into a gray area legally. If it wasn’t iffy to begin with, SIG wouldn’t have approached the ATF to get the initial letter clearing it. People and agencies change their minds all the time, particularly when it’s no secret that the device is widely being used to circumvent already standing regulations.

        I wonder how many braces were actually used as actual braces.

  • Ian Mcfarland

    So what if I place the sig brace on my butt and shoot it? does it make it a butt stock and is that an NFA weapon

    • nadnerbus

      Depending on the recoil, it could make it a suppository.

    • On your next form 1 under reason for construction put “to facilitate firing from my posterior”.

    • me ohmy

      wouldnt that then be shooting it out yer ass?

  • Whatever

    I don’t know about you all, but I feel safer.

  • Jeff Suever

    Any thought to the idea it isn’t idiot gun owners who wrote all the letters but MDA and their ilk? The ATF can ignore YouTube videos, but a bunch of “Hey, what if I did….would that be wrong?” Is a lot cheaper than hiring lawyers.

    Conspiracy, I know.

    • nadnerbus

      Don’t underestimate the Bubbas.

    • Dave The Great

      I see your point, and it’s not a bad one, but writing such a letter would require a bit more familiarity with the topic than most anti-gun advocates have (they tend to get their education from pamphlets, much like most other advocacy groups regardless of political ideology).

      So, possible but not likely. The people who very visibly caused this were the bubbas. There may have been some attempts from the other side, but they were drowned out by a flood of bubbas doing it, and doing it better.

      • Jeff Suever

        You’re probably right. It is just that first moment when you realize you have just been shot in the foot, you really hope it wasn’t a buddy that did it.

        Btw, who is blowing these out? I don’t need one, and really can’t think of a use for an AR pistol for me, but hey, if the price is right, eh? Might as well…..

        • Dave The Great

          Well, the good news is that it probably wasn’t a buddy of yours. At least not JUST one. This was the cumulative result of dozens and dozens of people doing pretty specific and public things, so no one person is to blame.

          A few highly specific people do have more blame than others, but if you don’t know anyone that wrote a letter to the ATF AFTER the original decision, then your friends are probably no more at fault than other Sig Brace owners (of which there are very many).

  • nadnerbus

    Much like everybody in California has always owned their twenty and thirty round magazines since before the state AW ban, now everyone who owns a Sig Brace will never ever use one as a butt stock.

    Retarded, unenforceable laws are retarded and unenforceable.

    • kingghidorah

      Similar to 922r. How many have been prosecuted for not having the US 10 parts?

      • sianmink

        I’ve certainly never heard of a single 922r prosecution.

  • Nicks87

    To quote Nelson from the Simpsons. Ha ha!

  • floppyscience

    I just have to say I’m very disappointed in all these comments blaming people who bought the brace and shouldered it. No, this is not their fault. This is 100% the fault of our federal government. Blame the ATF for its arbitrary and capricious decision making and our government for giving the ATF the power to interpret and then re-interpret laws however they’d like, whenever they want.

    I’m going to make a pistol AR and attack a SIG brace. If the ATF wants to follow me to the range to make sure I’m not holding my legal gun an illegal way, they’re welcome to.

    • Aaron Russell

      Preach

    • PointyHead0509

      Few, if any, are upset at those who bought the brace and shouldered it. Rather, many are upset at those who sent letters to the ATF asking, in essence, “if I use a stabilizing brace as a stock, is that ok?”

    • Deqwanne Jackson

      The ATF does not need to follow you to the range to make sure you are not shouldering it. That range will. I own a range and as much as I don’t mind people shouldering it, I can’t knowingly allow people to come to my range and break NFA laws. That could cost me my business. Not worth it at all. I will be posting the new ruling in the lanes and informing those who are shouldering it about the new ruling and asking them to not shoulder it per the new ruling. I will give them a grace period. After a certain time I will be asking to see people’s tax stamps should they shoulder a brace. If they can’t provide one, I have to option to ask them to stop shouldering it or asking them to leave. Knowingly allowing shooters to violate NFA laws would be stupid on my behalf.

      • Ian Thorne

        The range is in no way at risk if they allow it, that’s just dumb. My range doesn’t ask to see any NFA paperwork unless it’s a machine gun. It’s not their job to enforce NFA regulations. The range has 0% culpability here. Take your homophic BS somewhere else and let the adults talk.

        • Deqwanne Jackson

          Knowingly allowing customers to violate NFA laws at their place of business does not put their business at risk?

          LOLOLOLOLCOPTER!!!!!!!!!

          • Ian Thorne

            How is it knowingly? I just said my range doesn’t ask to see stamps, and I have never been to a range that asked to see any of my SBR or suppressor stamps. You can’t even read, let alone put together a full thought. Plausible Deniability is the term for it, but I assume those words are too big for you. If they don’t ask, which they don’t have to, they are not responsible for it.

            Please find the the laws and regulations to back up that they are required to know, have to ask, and are responsible for the actions of the people in the range. Put your money where you mouth is, so to say.

          • Deqwanne Jackson

            Anyways, I don’t care about the ruling. The Sig braces are super gay and you need dinosaur arms and the build of a a 15 year old to shoulder them. I enjoy the NFA laws. They separate the the real gun enthusiasts from the Call of Duty poser boys. If you can’t peel off another $200 and wait 6 months, you did not want it that bad in the first place. Those Call of Duty AR dickknobs who tried to skirt the law and could not wait 6 months to look “Tacticool” just got bit in the ass. GOOD. Can’t own an SBR in your State? Too damn bad. Quit voting for Democrats and move.

          • Ian Thorne

            Okay, so lets look at that. You “Enjoy” an infringement on our constitutional rights because it makes you feel a like a superior type of gun owner? So you are a shallow and short sighted moron.

            You keep calling things gay as an insult, so you are a homophobic biggot.

            And you imply that most people can just uproot their lives and move because they don’t like their laws. So you probably have little of value in your life other than material possessions.

            Every time you comment you just get more and more stupid and ignorant. Please stop, you are embarrassing yourself. Seriously, who goes on a gun blog and brags about liking unconstitutional gun control because it makes them feel cool? You really just can’t see outside of your own little bubble and look at the bigger picture, it’s really pretty sad.

  • kingghidorah

    And I still haven’t pulled the trigger on one b/c I thought they looked like a medical device.

  • Somewhere, Magpul execs are cracking bottles of champagne, tinkling glasses, and getting royally sloshed.

    • Dan

      Oh conspiracy theory, get your tinfoil hats on for this one. What if the ATF reversed their decision on the brace because other competitors in the market who knew their products were inferior all got together and petitioned the ATF to rule against the Sig brace? Maybe they claim that shouldering the brace makes it an SBR and if the ATF didn’t reverse it’s decision they would comw out and say the ATF is allowing gun owners to break the law. Ermegherd!!!!!!!!!!!! Ok tin foil hats off now.

  • fstgnz1972

    Wrong…they say that using a stabilizing brace redesigns the pistol not the brace…so yes…using a buffer tube redesigns the pistol.

    • JSmath

      You have no idea what you’re talking about. Stop.

  • Bill

    The BATFE and a couple thousand other federal state and local agencies deal primarily with administrative law, and thus the enforcement thereof. It is legislated, as part of the Code of Federal Regulations, but they can develop administrative rules as needed, which can be challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction. Subscribe to the Federal Register.

  • fstgnz1972

    You aren’t redesigning the product…you are redesigning the pistol. This is what should scare people. That the atf is now telling you that if you use something in a different way you’ve now changed that thing to something else…

    • Paul Epstein

      It has ALWAYS been that way with the ATF. If you use a shoestring to link the bolt handle and the trigger, that shoestring is now a machinegun along with the gun it was attached to. If you take an oil filter and thread it onto your muzzle, it’s now a silencer. No actual modifications to either was performed, they were simply attached and used in a way that made them fit the static definition of a category.

      The law hasn’t changed, the ATF didn’t make a call in any of these cases that wasn’t completely supported by the NFA and GCA as they were passed by congress. Asking a law enforcement office not to enforce the law when it’s clearly and obviously being broken just because it gets in the way of something you want to do is ridiculous- either the law and it’s definitions is the problem, or there isn’t one.

      • 1911a145acp

        Chicken and egg paradigm- It’s the original LAW that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Reinterpreting or reversing the arm brace ruling still does not change the fact the NFA is unconstitutional. The $200 tax is an obvious undeniable infringement. This has already been addressed. Taxes on ink and paper were deemed unconstitutional because they infringed upon and suppressed free speech.

      • skusmc

        This actually goes a lot further. You’re not physically altering anything here, like with the shoestring altering the design. You’re just moving your joints slightly to bring the brace in contact with your shoulder. That that constitutes a “redesign” is laughable. And Orwellian. It will be hilarious to see them argue that in court, provided someone calles them on it.

        • Paul Epstein

          They’re going to win in court if it goes there. The Sig brace was always on the very edge of what constituted OK, and the ATF honestly should have ruled it was a stock in the first place, *because it is*. All the ATF has to do is point out the literal wording of the law, show an agent or the person on video holding a gun with the brace to their shoulder, and it’s all over for anyone trying to defend the previous usage. I guarantee you all this fluff about the use of the word ‘redesign’ in this letter does not matter to the courts at all, because they’re not investigating whether someone violated the instruction of the letter, rather whether they’re breaking the law as passed by congress.

          • skusmc

            The law as Congress passed it focuses on intent of design, and makes the SIG brace legal. That is why the BATFE is twisting words with redefining “redesign”. If there were a plain laws that made the brace illegal, the BATFE would just say it. They don’t have the literal wording of the law on their side.

    • Patrick Mingle

      Does that technically mean shooting a pistol with two hands makes it an AOW? As pistols are designed to be shot with one hand according to the ATF. Obviously this ruling has the potential to be a slippery slope

  • Aaron Russell

    I wonder what laws congress, i mean the ATF will make next.

  • Orion Quach

    Redesign is a real thing people. If I use a butcher knife to cut meat, it’s just a butcher knife. If I start slashing people at my work, it’s a “deadly weapon” and I’ll get charged with such an offense relating to the use of a deadly weapon, even though it’s just a knife. With that said, the government needs to force the ATF to drop SBRs so they don’t get harassed over a barrel being a ceartin length. We are like one of the only countries who regulate firearm barrel length.

    • sianmink

      The difference is the knife is misusing a legal item for an illegal purpose. The use is an illegal act. The implement is not. It doesn’t compare to misusing a legal item for a legal purpose. Eating soup with a fork doesn’t turn the fork into a spoon.

      • Bill

        Finally, a clear explanation why words can mean different things in the legal arena than in common usage. Next, we take on judicial notice and legal fiction.

  • mosinman

    this just getting stupid now………
    i suppose they’ll be hiring thought police to make sure nobody even thinks about shouldering a brace?

  • Jeff Smith

    Has anything changed since the Military Arms Channel released their video about a week ago? His understanding was that the ATF’s ruling was essentially, if you are installing an arm brace with the intention of subverting the NFA laws, it’s not legal. On the other hand, if you are installing it as an arm brace, it’s totally legal. If you choose to hold that arm brace to your shoulder, it’s legal.

    • Jeff Smith

      It appears that the video I was referring to has been deleted.

  • Doug Burger

    Firearms, not politics. All of you posting about laws enacted by politicians, or regulations supposedly enFORCED by bureaucrats nominally under the control of the Politician-in-Chief, or casting aspersions upon the Constitutionality of the NFA, or communicating lack of confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities of the BATFE are noncompliant.

  • Grindstone50k

    So many here quick to eat their own when we all know this was inevitable regardless.

  • Avid Fan

    This is ridiculous. This whole “I’m so cool shooting my unstocked stocked non SBR SBR.” In the history of sh*t that is lame, this takes the lame cake. I fully support changing these nonsensical laws. But to try such a lame workaround and get your hand smacked so publicly is priceless. If you want to put a short upper on your AR lower go ahead, or saw off the barrel of grand pap’s old duck gun, do your best. But don’t complain when you get caught. When your “buddy” or his buddy who can’t afford to do the same thing calls Johnny Law on you, fess up and take it on the chin. But just stop with the oil filter “patch traps” and all the other BS. The only way you can win is to change the law. Until then, get over yourselves, trim your beards and go back to your regular, uncool, long barreled “M4.”

  • A sad day for gun enthusiasts but not an entirely unexpected one

  • Sn SM

    “You have a right to use something for which it wasn’t designed? Good
    luck with that.

    No one is stopping you from submitting SBR paperwork
    just like we have all along.”

    The SBR badge lickers need to get a clue. A LOT of us either WILL NOT or CANNOT
    do the insulting and costly paperwork you think is so wonderful. Many of us are all to
    aware of what happens when firearms get “registered”…they get confiscated. This is
    also about deprivation of the use of legal property by government fiat.

    • Bill

      What “registered” weapons were confiscated?

  • Vitor Roma

    That what you get for trying to be a “good citizen” asking bureaucrats for guidance. Licking the balls of the state will only arouse it to f*ck you;

    • Taylor TX

      I find it odd people felt they needed further clarification as every sig brace comes with an ATF compliance letter.

  • uisconfruzed

    I’m glad I just went ahead and got my stupid stamp.

  • Mike Price

    They can’t regulate how you use it. Still legal brace to put on the gun. Until they say it cannot be used on a gun, they are wasting their time with a letter.

  • amie704

    Ha ha! I thought it was faddish too.

  • Mike Price

    I’m now hearing that this “new letter” is pertaining to the new Sig arm brace that really does look like a stock.

  • Franciscomv

    I’m not from the US, so this is just my opinion as somebody who follows American gun rights debates because they usually affect my own country’s legislation as well (people here constantly use the US as an example).

    Personally, I think that if the ATF set a precedent with its original letter about the SIG brace, it’s not stupid for other users and manufacturers to send more letters on the subject (albeit, some of them were poorly worded). That’s how individual rulings usually become universal, or how lawyers find grounds to have laws/regulations revised by the competent institutions.

    Having read the ATF’s open letter, I think the problem is that “redesign” isn’t clearly defined and so they can apply it in a very broad sense. Also, the way they quote previous letters in order to revoke their own previous letters on the arm brace doesn’t seem entirely right.

  • Mike Price

    Well, here’s another point I want to make. We keep electing in liberal judges that uphold all these ATF government “rules” not “laws” then ATF will get their way.

  • Posted for further edification. At least this letter has someone’s name on it.

    • RealitiCzech

      A beautiful example of ATF schizophrenia. The exact same guy signed the letter up top.
      It’s more than just different answers from different people, it’s different answers from the same people.

  • Will P.

    But you are not altering the gun in anyway. The ruling is more like telling me you can smoke this one brand of cigarettes in your nose all day(similar to the brace, akward and uncomfortable) , but when you try to smoke that same brand cigarette with your mouth it’s illegal contraband.
    Let’s just go ahead an make some more crazy ass NFA laws! From now on pistols can only be shot on Tues, and Thurs! Any other day of the week if you shoot them they are considered an NFA item and requires a tax stamp! That is about how much sense this ruling makes. But I’m sure the antis will pick up on this now and freak out because now many people are not just carrying around “Assault Pistols” the BATF said they’re now “Super Deadly Explosive Cosmic Assault Rifles”

    • ARCNA442

      Actually, from what I understand of the laws, there is already a strong case for considering Glocks and many other pistols SBR’s. The NFA defines a pistol as “designed to be gripped by one hand,” and any pistol with checkering on the front of trigger guard would seem to fail that definition.

  • aweds1

    Capricious, politically driven “rule making” by Executive Departments is bad all around. This is just the latest example of how to make law abiding citizens into felons by changing their mind…

  • Dan

    Rule #1 of doing something stupid and/or possibly illegal. If you wouldn’t do it in front of law enforcement , You don’t film yourself doing it! I am so glad when i was in my stupid years we didn’t have youtube or cellphone cameras.

    • n0truscotsman

      I would have had a multitude of felonies on my record by the time i was 18 XD

      • Dan

        Yep, I am guessing the consequences of some of my actions then would have resulted in me not able to own firearms and thus not needing to even worry about the ATF’s ruling on the brace. I did however became much more of a upstanding responsible adult since purchasing my first firearm.

  • Dan

    Ok sorry everyone if I come across completely idiotic I am still on my morning pain meds, what if we designed an object that attached to the shooter or incorporated it into a vest so it is technically a garment and it just so happens the buffer tube of the pistol fits in a little recessed area on your vest protrusion? Are you redesigning the pistol or just a perpetrator of a fashion design

  • iksnilol

    You mean the ATF saw people on the internet going “HAHAHA, you can bypass SBR laws with this “arm brace”? It is like they have internet and are keeping themselves somewhat updated.

    Was only a question of time due to peoples stupidity.

  • iksnilol

    Well, in Norway suppressors are a go while short barrels aren’t. Meanwhile in Bosnia short barrels are a go (minimum 30 cm barrel and 30 cm rest of gun) while suppressors aren’t. Short barreled guns are usually regulated due to their pistol-like nature (easily concealed).

    • SB

      Of course you bring up a good point about them being regulated “due to their pistol-like nature (easily concealed)”. However, in the united states Pistols are NOT regulated in such a way at the federal level. Therefore, there is no logical reason that a “short” barrel long-gun should be regulated because it might be used “like a pistol” when pistols themselves are unregulated federally.

      I would be willing to bet that the United States is the ONLY country that regulates short barrel long-guns more strictly than handguns!

      • iksnilol

        Nope to the last. In Norway pistols are legal short barreled rifles/shotguns are not. Many places where pistols are legal, short barreled gats are illegal. Though there is some funny cases like in Bosnia, where getting a legal pistol (registered as a war trophy or competition pistol only) is a bit of work while a “SBR” is easy (minimum length is 30+30 cm, 30 cm barrel, 30 cm rest). I put SBR in quotes since anything shorter is still illegal, and 60 cm (24 inch is pretty short).

  • iksnilol

    Ergo you don’t need a license to carry it. Since you don’t need a license to carry a salad stirrer.

    Smooth thinking there.

  • Geremy Tibbles

    Have fun enforcing that.

  • Michael Bergeron

    No using a buffer tube against your shoulder would “redesign” the pistol as an SBR pursuant to this ruling, shouldering any part of the weapon makes it an SBR.

  • USMC03Vet

    No fun allowed.

    – ATF

  • Anonymoose

    Welp, there goes all SB15, SBX, and SB47 sales! Time to start filling out Form 1s, I guess…

  • Apparently so–

  • Dr. Daniel Jackson

    The last time I checked the Second Amendment didn’t give us any restriction on our weapons.So the ATF can sit and spin for all I care,I’ll enjoy my non-ATF approved SBR and avoid complying with the ATF’s unconstitutional gun laws.I can’t believe how so many people comply with the restrictions on our most important Amendment yet clain they are pro Second Amendment,don’t just talk the talk,you got to walk the walk as well.

    • Cal S.

      Let’s see: AR pistol ($980). Sig Brace ($160). Going to jail after getting caught shouldering it and committing a felony that suspends your rights to own a firearm for the rest of your life: Priceless.

      Or: Cheap new/used AK ($379.99). Tapco side-folding stock ($49.99). Yeah, I’m going to go with the second option, personally.

      • Dr. Daniel Jackson

        You can be a fool and let an out of control government control you if you want but I don’t bow to tyranny.There is no way I’ll be caught,if end up ever using it I’ll simply swap out the pistol upper for the rifle upper and they will be none the wiser.With current police response times I’ll have plenty of time to do so.

        • Cal S.

          Ok, Mr. Perfect. I love your arrogance.

          But, if you seem to feel that you ‘need’ your reduced-effectiveness weapon so badly you’re willing to lie to police and risk the reality coming out under investigation (which can be fun to explain to a prosecuter), then go ahead. Me? I’ll just stick to side-folders or bullpups. You know, weapons that have full capability.

          Oh, and don’t twist your foolishness and recklessness into a “Well, you must not support 2A!” Yeah, take a hike, troll.

          • Dr. Daniel Jackson

            You keep on blowing the ATF and our gun laws will just get worse,no you don’t support the 2A if you support ANY GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS ON IT.

          • Cal S.

            Typical response, should have anticipated it. What are you, 12? You know, where you still think you can caps-lock people to death?

            It’s time you learn that someone can support 2A while at the same time holding the personal opinion that doesn’t see the point behind certain weapons with obviously diminished capacity.

          • Dr. Daniel Jackson

            Wow you are actually way dumber than I originally thought,especially assuming I would use an SBR outside my house.The only time I would use a SBR outside the house would be when the rest of the sheeple finally realize that 1776 needs to happen again.Btw a shorter rifle is much better as home defense weapon than a standard length rifle or shotgun,but had you realized that you would be the one with the up votes not me.

          • Cal S.

            So, you’re so proud of your SBR that you’ll run and hide it after you use it. Cool story, bro. In which case, depending on which way the investigation takes (But muh castle doctrine! Doesn’t stop prosecutors from trying anyway), having your house searched and finding a fired pistol upper with no registration paperwork. Plan on burying it?
            I’d love to hear your thoughts on explaining tampering of evidence to a prosecutor who just struck gold. Especially if the perpetrator survives his wounds to testify to that effect. “I’ll make sure he’s dead!” Ok, have fun with the ensuing murder rap…

            But, you’re so much smarter than me, I’m sure you’ve got it all worked out. Maybe you even conduct weekly drills or something so all the little pieces line up.

            It’s interesting how your comments all have exactly 8 upvotes. Is that how many alias accounts you have?

      • Blake

        Personally I never understood the infatuation with rifle-caliber carbines with barrels shorter than 16″ (I suppose 300 AAC BLK might be an exception, & maybe .30 carbine). Pistol-caliber carbines however, work great with about 10″ of bbl.

        OTOH, I would really like to be able to use a suppressor without having to jump through hoops & wait a really long time.

        BTW some states have draconian regulations forbidding the use of modern sights or optics while hunting with a muzzleloader. An enterprising hunter sued his state of residence under the Americans with Disabilities act on the grounds that he could no longer see his iron sights well enough to be able to hunt, & therefore the state was effectively banning him from hunting. Several states now have a “disabled muzzleloader scope permit” (yet another case of firearms legislation being stranger than fiction) as a result of this case.

        • Cal S.

          I completely agree. My Sub-2000 has much the same ballistics as a 7″ AR pistol, with comparable OAL. The only thing it doesn’t have is the same magazine flexibility.

          That’s rather bizarre about the optics. I don’t even have a response for that, except what you said about being stranger than fiction. Indeed.

          • Blake

            If a group of concerned citizens got together & sued the gov’t on the grounds of the “suppressor tax”, delays, & paperwork being far too ornerous on people with hearing disabilities, we might get somewhere. Maybe.

            I’d certainly throw my hat in the ring.

  • Deqwanne Jackson

    I like the NFA laws. It separates the real buyers/collectors from the wanna-be Call of Duty poseurs.

    Not willing to wait 6 months and pay $200 extra? You did not want it that bad anyways then.

  • Ian Thorne

    To you it’s lame, to some it’s all they can have. Come on down off your high horse their buddy and try thinking of people other than yourself.

  • Deqwanne Jackson

    The firearm blog deleted my post. I guess you don’t believe in the 1st Amendment, only the 2nd? Cowards..

    • You 1st Amendment rights do not apply here. The 1A protects you from the gov’t, and TFB is not the gov’t. They are a private entity that can shut you up on their own site all they like. Deal with it.

  • sapper

    It just says if your intent is to fire it from the shoulder than it is illegal. Its not illegal, just don’t intend to fire it from the shoulder. If it accidentally happens its ok.

  • skusmc

    But if you are holding it with more than one hand, according to federal regulations, you are actually not operating “it like a pistol”, and apparently to Acting Chief Kingery you’ve just “redesigned” it to an AOW.

    See the point he’s trying to make here, or did you completely miss it again?

  • John Smith

    Buy em’ while they are cheap….once sold out they may not be available…a collectors item for sure…

  • Dan

    Ok Mr. Badass you won’t comply with their restrictions but you will swap out uppers when they come for you? So what your saying is you’re a bad ass only when no one is looking? Because you were a true 2A supporter you would email the Head of the ATF a video of you shouldering your sig brace telling him to F off, but you won’t you’ll troll the forums spouting just how hard you are.

    • Dr. Daniel Jackson

      I never said I used a sig brace,I use a standard stock on my SBR.

      • Dan

        My mistake, then send him a video showing him your SBR that is not ATF approved

      • Bill

        But you’re just being a troll, right, like you said above?

  • Dan

    Holy hell I lol’d so hard at “bump-_ _ _ _ing their pistol”

  • Michael Wilson

    I think that the ATF, should be put on notice. No tax on firearms you have a right to bear.

  • Michael Wilson

    The hell with the ATF, suppressors should be made at machine shops all over america and sold in the black market for 5 dollars. An SBR is a firearm that you have a right to bear and it is taxxed already, you cannot tax it twice.

  • Deqwanne Jackson

    The Firearms Blog keeps deleting my comments. LOL!! The 1st Amendment does not apply to me! Only the 2nd is OK.

  • Dan Atwater

    How does this affect disabled people? The SIG brace is still legal, provided one doesn’t shoulder a pistol with it.

    • supergun

      Exactly

    • Tassiebush

      1. The constant showing off just made the ATF reconsider whether arm braces are even lawful and this could have resulted in a ban and it may still result in one if people keep portraying it as an SBR loophole.
      2. The loophole itself would have been useful to some disabled people who would need a compact psuedo SBR and now they need to come up with cash for the tax stamp (low income generally accompanies disability).
      3. As Random Disabled Person also pointed out it may create more impediments/requirements for buying arm braces if this matter keeps getting attention.
      4. I think the biggest most valid point is that the disabled have had something uniquely useful to them put on the line by others who have heaps of other options if the argument doesn’t work out. To some folks the availability of an arm brace would be the difference between being able to shoot their chosen firearm or not being able to.

      I think the SBR rules are about as rediculous as it gets but bad legislation needs to be defeated by carefully directed political and legal action. Not boasting and chest beating with little to back it up. It wasn’t long ago that the USA had all those mag restrictions, assault weapon bans etc. the awesome gun rights you guys enjoy are pretty unique and need to be guarded intelligently.

    • What he said. They didn’t ban the damn thing.

      • ARluv

        So why is the title of the story Sig Brace a No Go? You’d think a website like this would be up in arms about this and promoting the product as opposed to declaring its end? I’ve got a feeling this is going to make the sales double.

        • I have a feeling you are wrong.

      • grunion

        But they are thinking about it. Anytime our government starts “Thinking” about something, I get concerned.

        • Deadeye95

          You don’t “know” that they are thinking about it….read the letters above and stop putting stupid ideas in the heads of overworked government workers who have much more important things to worry about. This is something that they could simply just ban and forget it but they did not…So, you and the other morons that think like you should just go back to libville and just rot away.

          • grunion

            I’m not sure what warranted your attack, I merely pointed out how ridiculous most regulations generated by ATF are in fact. As far as libville and rotting away, it merely boils down to your attitude. Guys like you make guys like me look bad. Stop it!
            For the record, I am conservative to the point of Libertarianism.

        • No, they aren’t.

  • Cedar_92

    Come on guys , it’s for the children.

  • Don Ward

    It’s a rifle. It’s a rifle with a short barrel. Just like a Buntline Special is a pistol with a long barrel. Water is wet. And and the 49ers have a choker for a quarterback. Some things just are.

  • Ah SIG braces weigh practically nothing—-

  • Dr. Daniel Jackson

    It is only self-incriminating myself if I were to post without the proper protections such as using a proxy browser, IP Address Randomizer,and public wifi both of which I use when ever I use the internet among other safety protocols then good luck ever finding me,I’ve been using non-ATF approved SBR’s since I got out of Iraq in 2004.

    • Bill

      You just digitally confessed to a federal felony, and apparently have forgotten that the NSA can locate a single cell phone anywhere in the world.

      Prisons are full of the stupid ones who run their mouths. Cops don’t rely on luck when they have investigative skills and technology. I can only hope your doctorate, if you actually have one, is in something harmless, like philosophy or english literature, and you aren’t an MD.

      • Dr. Daniel Jackson

        Yes which means nothing if I don’t own a cell phone does it?
        I don’t own a cell phone for that very reason,I don’t like the idea that I can be tracked anywhere I go,sure sometimes it would be more convenient to have one but,to know I’m not being tracked ever is worth it.

        Also you apparently haven’t realized my username is not my real name Dr, Daniel Jackson is just a character from a show and a movie I like.My avatar is of the same guy.I would never use my real name on the internet ever,I don’t even use facebook or have twitter or anyother form of social media.If my friend in the CIA cant track me I doubt that the NSA can.

        I don’t even keep the SBR in the house I’m living in,they would have to find the other house I own that I store it in and they would have to find out what state it is in.

        • Bill

          Prisons are full of guys just like you: “smarter” than the cops and who’ll “never get caught.” Nice job painting that big, bright target on yourself, with your attitude I bet your going to be a real popular commodity on some cellblock. Good luck.

          • Dr. Daniel Jackson

            I’ve been making comments like these on the internet for years if they haven’t caught me in over 8 years then they won’t ever be they obviously have more important things to do.Not to mention the 2A doesn’t say anything about SBR’s I could get off on that alone,like a friend of mine in Texas did.

          • Bill

            You’re hilarious. Some bored ATF agent will stumble over this, and with all the clues you’ve been blabbering, decide to make you a special project. If you are going to break the law, just shut up, it’s how smart criminals get away with it.

          • Dr. Daniel Jackson

            I’ve left no clues that actually lead anywhere,so to that I say good luck to ATF they don’t even know I own any guns I only buy my guns from face to face deals so they could even lookup purchase histories on me.
            I think it is funny that you think the government is all knowing like some sort of god,you must fear them very much.It would be impossible to track me by anything I’ve said on this board.All they know is that I have a friend in Texas which may or may not be where said friend lives,I have plenty of friends out of state.

          • Bill

            Keep going if you insist, it keeps getting funnier. I’m not afraid of the government at all, but I’m not the one who may or may not have come back from Iraq in 1984, who may or may not have 2 houses, who may or may not keep an illegal SBR Somewhere Else, who may or may not have illegal firearms, who may or may not have a friend in Texas who faced criminal charges over a NFA violation. One of the main reasons I’m not afraid of the government is I’m not an idiot. Along with the 2nd, you also have the 5th, why not use it?

            This whole issue and responses like this is why some of the public think gun owners are nuts. At least one of them really may be.

          • Dr. Daniel Jackson

            It amazes me how I can say anything on the internet that people would normally question in real life,but on the internet it is immediately believe I can’t believe I was able to string you along this far,do you usually believe anything somebody says on internet,it seems you are one of a few people who actually thought what I was saying was legit the people who liked my comments obviously understood my comments were in jest.Had I actually made any illegal firearm I would have burried it deep somewhere and written down the gps coordinates I would not leave it in house where it could be found easily.I hope you will learn from this to take anything said over the internet with a grain of salt.Have a good rest of your day I know I will I got a few good laughs out of all this.

          • Bill

            So you don’t have an illegal SBR, didn’t serve in Iraq, don’t have two houses, and have no friends anywhere? THAT I believe. All that tough-guy bloviating was just in jest? That’s another thing about criminals – they can rationalize, justify and excuse everything they do, plus they can’t keep their stories straight.

            This just get better and better. Or have you been skipping your meds? Your typing and punctuation is starting to break down…..

            I’m going to design an amusement park for guys like you, with attractions like “Escape from the FEMA Concentration Camp” and the “Vote From the Rooftops” roller coaster where you shoot at targets while on the go, and custom tin-foil hat booths. Plus lots of Freedom Fries.

          • Dr. Daniel Jackson

            You clearly don’t understand what trolling is,based on that alone I will assume you are relatively new to the internet.Learn how to detect a troll its obvious I was when I mentioned Ip Adress Randomizer,that I had a friend in the cia,and that I don’t own a cellphone.(all my replies have been from my phone)Obviously if I had an illegal sbr the atf would have already tracked me down,they can find anyone pretty quickly.(think seconds not minutes)

  • I think it’s pretty clever how the ATF uses this whole letter thing as a tool a fear. Why leave the comfort of your office to actually find and prosecute people when the people happily come to your doorstep, begging for your wisdom, ready and willing to spread your gospel far and wide? Heh.

    The ATF can opine and/or “rule” on all manner of things all they like. They’re opinion on the law carries about as much legal weight as a private practice attorney’s opinion on the same. It’s just an opinion. These letters are an entertaining glimpse into the mind of a law enforcement agency I guess, but they aren’t the law. No different than if a traffic cop tells you that the rims on your donk are illegal. He can say whatever he wants all day long. But until he actually *acts* on it, it’s meaningless hyperbole.

  • Doc Rader

    Weird. It’s the same link we posted in the article… 🙂

  • Cal S.

    Yeah, I’m not ashamed to say I comply with laws, or restrictions that can get me into serious trouble. I don’t feel like throwing my life and rights away because I wanted a gun the government said was too short. You can fall on that sword for us.

    Instead, prudence would tell you to fight it legally through candidates, action groups (NRA-ILA, USCCA, RMGO, FRFC, etc), and demonstrations where you have nothing to lose (except some pocket change and time) and everything to gain.

    Now, Mr. YOLO, I’ll let you decide which is the better path to take.

    • Dr. Daniel Jackson

      The one our founding fathers would have taken would not be to comply with the rules of tyranny or are you so quick to forget how we became a free nation?I’m not afraid of the government If they come for me in same strange fantasy world other than this real one they will not be taking me anywhere unlike you who would surrender your guns and beg for mercy if they were going door to door confiscating peoples guns.I would rather die standing for my rights then know I helped let an already out of control government get even more out of control and reach Hitler levels without resistance.

      • Cal S.

        You’ve already established from your own words that you’d hide the fruits of your proudly-owned illegal firearm at the first sign of trouble, and yet you persist in lecturing me.

        And pretend to know what I’d do if things went sideways. You know me so well, do you?

        Astounding.

  • Tassiebush

    haha you wrote fleshlight!

  • Deqwanne Jackson

    Sig brace is garbage anyways.

  • iksnilol

    I know, in Norway the barrel minimum is also 40 cm. But tell me how it isn’t fair to compare a 14 inch barrel with a 12 inch barrel? Also, you need to check how they measure length. In some countries they measure length in the shortest fireable configuration (muzzle attachments off, stock folded). Since just because they don’t care about barrel length doesn’t mean they don’t care about overall length.

  • DIR911911 .

    congratulations, gun owners getting more restriction on gun owners. doing what the gun control people would have never even thought of. like out of control teacher’s pets calling the atf and daring them to restrict it, happy now.

  • aweds1

    I think we’re missing the forest for the trees. In this instance it’s the SIG brace but, really, this is the result of the ability of any agency being able to write their own rules and interpretations based on who is in the White House. Anyone has the potential of becoming an instant criminal by someone changing their mind! “Oh, my bad! Don’t do what we said before.” Where is the line? How do we know that any regulation applicable to firearms will not be instantly changed? We’re still waiting on the rule regarding 41P. Given what the ATF just did, how do we think that’s going to go?

    It’s whim. How can you live by whim? Here, it’s the ATF. In other instances it’s been the EPA for carbon emissions, CAFE rules for vehicles, or manipulating the “mandates” for Obamacare. How many other examples can you think of right now? I think gun owners are simply more sensitive to this phenomenon given the severity of breaking one of the capricious gun rules, but this applies to so much more.

  • Phaideaux

    “an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)”

    Wait, does this mean that both that crazy zip .22 and the Kriss Vector aren’t handguns? Because they both don’t have grips below the bore.

  • Bill

    What cases in California and New York? I’m asking for actual facts, not anecdotes or internet rumors.

    Those countries you cited aren’t protected by the US Constitution, and I don’t pretend to know what rights to keep and bear arms they had to begin with. Don’t forget Japan when you cite countries with restrictive gun laws.

  • Bill

    How old are you? Old enough to remember what it was like before the Heller decision, the AWB sunset, the market flood or ARs, or when very, very few states had CCW provisions? You think the Second is in trouble? The “good old days” weren’t.

  • nathan bellah

    So would the attachment of an AFG on an AR pistol be intent to shoot with 2 hands?

  • skusmc

    I’ve literally never seen so many straw man arguments in a single paragraph. Internet record me thinks.

  • Tassiebush

    Are gun owners as a group too thin skinned to be able to cope with critiques of how our actions influence policy decisions and laws? It’s part of learning from mistakes. I backed what Random Disabled Person said cos he sounds like an overlooked voice in all of this. For sure the primary blame lies with the stupid legislation which certainly makes no sense but it’s valid enough to say it isn’t or wasn’t the right time or place to pick a fight and the longer it was left the better the outcome would likely have been. The ATF always had the upper hand in this and seemed to be turning a blind eye to it but unsurprisingly it has closed a loophole after continued attention was brought to it.

  • gunslinger

    i make a device and my customers “modify” it for an illegal means? and then i’m responsible for it?

    or is this just saying that when used as intended, the arm brace is fine, but the moment someone fires it while using it as a “stock” the user then committed a crime by making a SBR?

    • Bill

      No and yes. Crowbars are legal to manufacture, own and possess, and to use for crowbar things. The second you use one to break into someone’s home, you become a criminal and it becomes a criminal tool or instrument used in the commission of a crime and illegal. The manufacturer is free and clear, until they add “breaking into other peoples houses to steal their stuff” as a use for their product.

  • echelon

    Alright Sig. Get your lawyers ready and let the lawsuits begin!!!

  • avconsumer2

    Oh. Well that’s kind of awesome then. In that vein, if I put an actual stock on my AR-15 pistol, and simply don’t use it as a stock but as a… “visual intimidation device”, I’ve “redeisgned” it and it’s actually legal. Thanks ATF! I get it now! ffs

  • RexScarlet

    so, what if someone bought a registered “Pistol” lower that came with a Sig Brace, and wants to keep everything legal?
    .
    Can we; redesign lower to take a legal 16″ barrel upper and put a regular “stock” on it?

    • Phil Hsueh

      If that’s the case the owner doesn’t need to do anything except not shoulder it. The new letter doesn’t make the brace illegal, it just makes shouldering a pistol with a brace illegal.

  • Curious_G

    The title of the article is misleading (at best) – the brace is still legal; you just can’t shoulder it (you were never supposed to anyway).

  • Dan

    I think the difference between then and now is that gun owners are able to connect and talk about what the 2A really means and what we need to do to protect it and advance it. Before the internet we had to rely on gunshop/show range banter and firearm publications. People new to guns didn’t know about suppressors or Modern sporting rifles, I remember getting dirty looks at the range when I brought an AR and a Mossberg persuader. Those type of firearms were evil to traditional gun owners and that still persists. We fight not only against total anti gun people but against ourselves. Thankfully that is changing little by little and if the tacticool crap brings in people by all means put rails on your rails, the more people the louder our voice.

    • Dan

      Ah crap this was actually a reply to Bill below

  • guest

    Oh stop it with the crocodile tears.
    I told from day 1 this was entrapment, and people did not listen. They were too busy celebrating what they thought was a loophole, but was a noose instead.
    Stupid is as stupid does.

    Yeah, I did suggest doing something about it. NOT BUYING IT.

    And “community”? Since when is a loose collection of selfish, stupid, self-entrapping people a “community”? If it is, I would like to know where it is located and how not to join it and how to keep away from it as far as possible.

  • Cymond

    … and forfeited the many advantages of a pistol.
    For example, I like the idea of a pistol for car-carry during travel.

  • ICEE444

    Fkn ATF and all those idiots who kept asking.

  • ICEE444

    Fkn ATF and all those idiots who kept asking.

  • Don

    Wow… What a rant… Wake up, it’s a free market out there. Did you honestly think that once Sig got theirs approved nobody would follow? Like everyone said above, the BATF hasn’t outlawed the brace. Those that are physically handicapped can still use it like it was intended for. You’re just angry because your new stock just cost you an additional couple hundred dollars, just pay the extra coin and use it as you wish.

  • Don

    Wow… What a rant… Wake up, it’s a free market out there. Did you honestly think that once Sig got theirs approved nobody would follow? Like everyone said above, the BATF hasn’t outlawed the brace. Those that are physically handicapped can still use it like it was intended for. You’re just angry because your new stock just cost you an additional couple hundred dollars, just pay the extra coin and use it as you wish.

    • grunion

      Sorry if I offended you and I am well aware of free markets and their functions. If you are OK with incremental loss of liberty, that is your choice. I adhere to the philosophy that the Constitution is like a chain with each link supporting the others. So, if I sounded over zealous, it is only because I feel strongly about the watering down of and continued attacks on our 1ST, 2ND and 4TH Amendments. One goes, they all go. I address the issue of it being considered, an affront to the citizens and the Constitution. Nothing more.

  • Obie

    Frankly, I don’t understand why this is so controversial. If intent is to use the brace as a shoulder stock, you have created a short barrel rifle. Intent is evidenced by using the brace in that manner. It’s really not that complicated.

  • Obie

    I doubt anyone would disagree with you on the stupidity of the NFA. But you have the play the game within the parameters (i.e., the laws) that currently exist.

  • Rick A

    It is an opinion, and serves no purpose other than intimidation, unless unforced.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    I’ll give you $1000 to get the NFA repealed. Let me know when you’re done and I’ll send a check.

    • Tothe

      One would think that the 2nd Amendment would be sufficient grounds for repeal.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        One would think so. But until the courts agree…

        • Tothe

          If your rights depend on government recognition to exist, you have no rights.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Let me know how that works for you in the federal pen.

          • Tothe

            Are you making the moral argument that violating a bad law is still somehow WRONG, or are you making a practical argument that violating a bad law will result in aggressive enforcement of that bad law?

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            The practical result is you will go to jail, and will be in the headlines as a “gun nut making terrorist weapons.”
            I fail to see how that will be of any benefit to repealing the NFA.

          • no_tubes

            Grow a pair, will ya’!

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Certainly, tough guy. Which provisions of the NFA are you currently ignoring? I need an example, if you want me to follow it.

          • Tothe

            Follow your own path. Question obedience to arbitrary edicts. realize that when you choose to follow those edicts, you are doing so under threat and duress rather than due to any real moral argument.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Yes, I believe I said exactly that.
            If I were to violate the NFA, I certainly wouldn’t blab it on the internet.
            Until the law is repealed, it does not cause me moral duress to comply, compared to say, a proscription on someone practicing their religion. Should the need arise I did need unregistered SBRs or FA for some sort of revolution, the law would be no hindrance.
            I will continue to attempt to fight it in the public forum, but blatant violation will be spun as something more, and would only land said violator in jail, and tar all of us with whichever epithet the press chose.

          • Tothe

            Abolitionists went to jail for breaking laws. Breaking bad laws may have consequences when bad people enforce them, but that grants no legitimacy to the bad laws or their enforcers. If enough people stopped pretending arbitrary laws were legitimate, we would all be better off. Indeed, one must choose one’s battles, and wisdom in making a cost/benefit analysis is essential. But we must stop pretending bad laws have any legitimacy. We must find examples of laws that turn innocent people into criminals, whether people are breaking those laws at the moment or not, because the laws are always in a state of flux as new laws and new regulations flow constantly. After all, if a 1911 is declared illegal tomorrow, will a 1911 suddenly become evil too?

          • no_tubes

            My point is that if we all stopped acting like a bunch of kicked dogs, NFA could be made irrelevant.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Fine. Please explain how to stop acting like a bunch of kicked dogs, which you seem to admit you’re doing yourself.
            What do you propose that will get it repealed? Ignore it and go to jail and wait for the jails to be so full they have to repeal it? How is that working for pot legalization and tax reform? Kill federal agents? I think that’s frowned on. Contact Congress and vote for pro 2A people? I do that.
            I need an example of what you think will work, because I’m not a mind reader.

          • no_tubes

            Figure it out.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    The Street Sweeper was added to the NFA by Act of Congress.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    So, a side mounted grip would be okay?

  • Hank Seiter

    Hmmm, this “ruling” represents a stupid, convoluted reasoning though there is a certain fascist bureaucratic “logic” to it all. Why is it always on the law-abiding, constitutionally literate gun owners to “play the game” or “comply” with federal regulations which are CLEARLY an infringement of the Second Amendment? Are we men or are we cattle kowtowing to the excesses of clear bureaucratic fascism which is always seeking ways to deprive us of our unalienable right to defend ourselves against criminals and tyrants (domestic or foreign) in ANY way we see fit has moral beings?

    And for a very few of you, please spare me the false “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” meme because you can indeed shout fire but you’ll have to pay the legal consequences of people injured or killed by said action … the operative thought being … when speech is abused to hurt others. And shouldn’t one shout “fire” if there is indeed a fire in the theater? So, this “argument” is completely false on its very face.

    Think about it, in the same light of our right to free speech (for sake of argument, all handheld firearms of ALL configurations), one should only get punished for speech (gun) violations when said speech (firearms) is/are illegally and offensively used to kill or maim innocents. The mere possession of any smallarm of any configuration should not be a crime any more than my possession of the power of free speech should be a crime. Of course one can and should shout “fire in a crowded theater” when there is indeed a fire! Oh what a tangled web anti-gunners weave …. The fact that 99.98% of all firearms reside safely in the hands of law-abiding, moral citizens undercuts any need for a ban on “bad firearms” (e.g. full-auto, select-fire, short-barreled rifle, high-capacity pistol, etc).

    Under the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment (which protects all thoughts and speech), laws shouldn’t limit the kind of firearms one has, but rather the actual damage it may cause (slander/libel, instigating unlawful riots, mass panic leading to death/injury/dismemberment, etc) to the detriment of society when actually abused. However, in the case of firearms the feds are limiting the KINDS of firearms a person can own and making it a crime to possess them when indeed the crime shouldn’t be the mere possession of full-automatic firearms but rather abusing them by their unjustified use in killing or maiming others who pose no threat to you or your family.

    The whole Class III scam is just another bureaucratic money-making scheme by the feds who know the truth of which I speak and yet we have been conditioned to benignly “play the game” with such infringements. Of course the alternative is to be true to our conscience and the actual historical intent of the Second Amendment or go to jail as a political prisoner. So, since we’re reasonable human beings, we understand compliance with fascist, unconstitutional law ends up being in our own best interest (not being arrested, fined and imprisoned for acting as if the Second Amendment actually meant what it said) and this is precisely the type of behavior the feds are counting on in their acts of “legal” though unconstitutional intimidation which such outrages can only increase given the nature of Leviathan government and fascist bureaucratic encroachments.
    And for those that take a more milquetoast approach to the Second Amendment, please don’t go down that leftist/Marxist path of argumentatively confusing Second Amendment “arms” (as in smallarms … pistols, rifles, shotguns) with armaments (mortars, artillery, explosive destructive devices like IEDs, battleships, nuclear weapons, etc.) No, it’s very clear from a reading of founding opinion and original intent the Second Amendment does not guarantee the individual citizen the right to “keep and bear” battleships (how do you “bear” a battleship?), artillery (ditto), mortars, nuclear weapons, anti-tank devices, or IEDs. This kind of false equivalence style of argument is so typical of leftists, fascists and sheeple.

    And to the really clueless gun owner/hunter, the Second Amendment wasn’t devised to merely guarantee the right of hunters or country clubs, but rather to establish a country of free men and women. If this wasn’t the case, and in the light of having been bamboozled thus far, then it won’t be long before the BATFE redesignates the .22 pistol as an “assassin’s weapon”, the scoped hunting rifle as a “sniper rifle” and the ubiquitous shotgun as a “street sweeper.” Think about it.

    Just sayin’ though I know I’m mostly speaking to the choir here.

  • Dragonheart

    So what changed? Anyone in their right mind would know if you make it shoulder fired it is no longer a pistol. Sometimes the best thing to do is just keep your mouth shut.

  • Guido FL

    Would you sir want to challenge this ruling in court ?

    • Alex

      Yes…99.99% that it never makes it to court because no DA on the planet would accuse you of shooting a pistol from the shoulder….and if they did, I’d love to see the jury that accuses anyone of something so stupid…yes…yes…and yes again…I’d challenge this.

  • Robert Michael Jr Cottell

    Reminds me of the “don’t call ahead” rule for CCW.

  • Guido FL

    I have been appalled at the amount of morons on You Tube, Gun magazines, and other publications like Shot Guns News posing while shouldering this brace. Perhaps these shining stars thought that the ATF Nazis were asleep ? Hot flash, Big Brother doesn’t sleep and is not stupid. Now the ATF has let the silly walk into their trap.
    To all the intellects who challenge this ruling I say take it to court or get caught shouldering the brace and see what happens. And I hope you have $200,000 for legal fees. Big Brothers has the legal power to jail you as well.

    • Alex

      I have been appauled at the amount of morons who really think big brother is going to take you to court for simply shouldering a pistol. Especially when there are products like Slide Fire that actually simulate full auto fire. Furthermore, if you are actually accused of shouldering a pistol…and I mean simply shouldering the pistol…not robbing a bank and shouldering a pistol…any attorney including a public defender which is 100% free would get you out. And again and always…what DA is going to put you in jail for this…do you actually believe what you write???

  • grunion

    You wasted a huge amount of time and thought. The BATF is in and has been in violation of the Second Amendment since their start. The Second Amendment allows Americans to have guns, any gun that suits the purpose of the buyer is legal under our Constitution. Rather than bend over backward to appease and comply with our rogue government, get onboard with the movement to slash TABF funding and have all regulations reviewed and assure compliance with the rights enumerated in our Constitution and not just a policy dreamed up and enforced by people who choose to ignore the foundation of our Nation. The disabled should be free to make any modification necessary to insure safety. These guys are sniffing around a place that will take their noses.

  • grunion

    Fine, we can make our own molds and build all we want. BTAF is a bloated bureaucracy living on borrowed time. The only worse government entity is the IRS and its time is running out as well. Good riddance. Don’t Tread on ME, Come and Take It and God bless America.

  • grunion

    Kinda reminds me of the Slide Fire issue. Original design was for the disabled to be able to use an AR but it also turns it into a wild firing but nonetheless, fully auto weapon. They don’t like that at all.

    • Alex

      Only difference is that Slide Fire isn’t in the eye of the ATF and the Sig Brace is…

  • Tothe

    Remember, the laws are only there to protect you, even though there are so many of them, and they are so arbitrarily created, and so arbitrarily enforced. They keep you SAFE by making you spend more money on things, and serving as an excuse to hurt you should any official change his mind. It’s perfectly moral for a thing to be OK one day, and not OK the next.

  • Tothe

    Why should people have to pay an extortionist in order to own inanimate objects based on arbitrary decrees in the first place?

  • Tothe

    Why do you think this tax stamp is legitimate in the first place?

  • A guy named Joe

    I will say this with a zeal and a slender maybe even the leftist clowns will take notice. Gun owners are our worst enemy. WE ARE OUR WORST ENEMY. Google Akins, and many other devices that was created with the ATF’s blessing and then someone keeps writing a letter to get the drinking water all dirty. I was a victim myself when Olympic Arms was updating owners of registered receiver AR15’s to modern setups. Oly was within its legal rights just like Ruger was replacing AC556 setups that were damaged until YOU GUESS IT. Someone whined and got sand in their mangina. Someone whined, why can’t Colt do that, why can’t “INSERT whatever AR receiver maker that was making receivers in the 80’s”….than ATF put a stop to it. Reminds me of the time I went shooting at Angeles Shooting range in LA County. I brought my Steyr AUG which was registered and other registered California stuff. Someone whines to the Range nazi and even the sheriff came to verify my registration paperwork. Guy that reported me in was next to me and he moves because he expects for me to be arrested. After no arrest, he comes back and snickers ” I really thought you were gonna be arrested with that gangster gun you got”….At the end of the day, we are our worst enemy. Not the ATF, not the leftist clowns. Just US……

  • chocolate chip ice

    Me and my homies were gonna rob a bank. We got a bunch of these to get around them NFA laws. I guess we ain’t robbing that bank now…bummer.

  • Steve_7

    The European Firearms Directive sets the minimum barrel length for a “long firearm” as 30 cm, anything below that is a “short firearm” and subject to “individual authorization”. So over the years most EU states have starting using that definition. GB for example banned any firearm with a barrel below that length in 1997.

  • bfreeordie

    The most salient point I’ve read from anyone on the brace discussion. A point so logical it could actually move legislation.
    Please continue sharing it, I know I will.

  • Deadeye95

    Another moronic liberal heard from……………How absolutely stupid can you be, MR ?

  • grunion

    Among other serious emotional issues.

  • grunion

    Your right! What the hell ever happened with that. There were some clear perpetrators and evidence but nothing ever was resolved…That I heard about.

  • Mike Price

    I might add that this never was a go for use as a shoulder stock. Why are people hounding the ATF for a refined explanation on it, They are not going to say it is ok to use as shoulder stock. It’s legal to put on the gun. You can use it any way you want. Sideways, upside down, they don’t care. Technically putting an angle grip on an AR pistol forearm should violate there rules as you are changing the design of the forearm and adding a grip. What difference does it make if the grip is 45 degree angle or 90 degree angle. It’s still a grip and you can use two hands to hold the gun.

  • ghost930

    So let me get this straight. A Slidefire stock which essentially turns your rifle into a select fire weapon capable of what is for all effect and purpose an automatic firearm or close facsimile thereof is okay. But having a semi-auto rifle with a 14 inch barrel is a no go???????? What do these guys do, throw darts at a board to figure out what rules and regulations to enact? For these guys to call themselves the “Firearms Technology Division” is laughable at best and criminal at worst.

  • itsmefool

    One thing’s for sure…he can write! Of course, I don’t have that much time to read his tome.

  • skusmc

    Actually, the Sig brace is not, in it’s current capacity, designed to be used as a stock as well as an arm brace. You, nor the BATFE get to magically ascribe intent onto people just because you don’t like what they are doing, comrade.

    “If the law was being interpreted directly and without mercy by the ATF”

    The BATFE’s job is not to interpret the law, and that’s where your confusion comes from. They are there to enforce the letter of the law, which they are not doing. That’s why they’ve bumbled and been contradictory with this from the outset; the letter of the law is clearly against them here. And is someone is smart enough to push it into court, no, there is no way they will win with the asinine argument that using a product differently is “redesigning” it.

    • Paul Epstein

      I’m not ‘magically’ ascribing intent- there is a REASON that the sig brace looks the way it does, and that is not to make it a better functioning brace. SIG knows exactly what is up, what they officially intended when describing the product to the ATF and what it is patently obvious they are selling it for are two different things.

      And yes, the ATF’s job is to determine whether the law in question applies in a given instance, the same as any other regulatory agency, who are given that authority by congress. To state otherwise is the height of ignorance, and in your case, willful ignorance.

      Whomever takes the issue to court against the ATF will lose. If you’re so confident, then challenge them. If you’re not willing to do that, it’s because on at least some level, you realize that your position is ridiculous.

      • skusmc

        Basically everything you said is wrong. You nor the BATFE get to invent laws because you think something looks like a stock. An AR15 looks like an M16 too. Good thing your rationale isn’t actually applied in the real practice of law. An no, I don’t have to challenge it because Sig is, and they will easily win provided the BATFE don’t do the sensible thing and revise their “you magically redesigned the brace without physically altering it” opinion first

        • Paul Epstein

          SIG won’t, because it will only get their entire product banned, I absolutely garauntee they will not say a peep about this because unlike you, they’re savvy enough to realize when the ATF is trying to be reasonable and will take advantage of it.

          And you’ve misunderstood my argument to a shocking degree if you think I’m just talking about what it appears to be as opposed to what it genuinely is- the sig brace has several features that are not even slightly necessary for the function as an arm brace, but specifically enable the usage of the device as a stock. That will damn them in a court of law, they will not only be facing fines but there is likely jail time involved. Doubly so because, in case you had not realized it, the courts are going to view the ATF the same way they view cops, and give them the benefit of the doubt whenever a solid argument can be made.

          So there will not be a lawsuit against the ATF from Sig. Or you. Because it would be a colossal losing proposition from the start. NO ONE is going to sue the ATF to overturn this opinion- it is literally the best that is going to happen without an act of congress.

          • skusmc

            Well, we’ll see. Sig has already responded to it and said they’re exploring their legal options, as did the inventor Alex Bosco. I hope you understand that IF you are right, and I don’t think you are, then this is precedent as others have said here for the BATFE to simply say that anyone who shoots a pistol with two hands has “redesigned” it into an AOW. It’s literally the exact same thing from a legal standpoint.

            That’s how laws work. It’s in what the actual words are, not if something “looks” like a stock or is black or scary looking or whatever. IF the simple act of shouldering a brace magically “redesigns” it into a stock, as the BATFE are hilariously arguing, then shooting a pistol with two hands “redesigns” it into an AOW. The legal precedent is identical.

          • Paul Epstein

            Sig is exploring their legal options mainly because they’re worried someone else will take it to court and they’ll find themselves with an inventory full of unregistered SBRs. They’re not going to sue, because their lawyers will have already told them that’s a dumb idea.

            AOW specifically places pistols with rifled barrels off limits, but a pistol is defined as being designed to be fired with one hand only. Once you add a vertical foregrip, you have made a modification, you have changed how the gun is supposed to be used, and they can argue, successfully, that once your gun is no longer falling under the legal definition of pistol it has to be designed as some other type of firearm- and the only one which fits the strict definitions is an AOW. Whereas you seem intent on calling that silly, the fact that the BATFE is not prosecuting such cases says to me that they are TRYING to be reasonable and allow people interesting stuff without setting precedent that they’re going to have to later walk back, as they’ve had to do here.

            And because you are literally that dense, the ‘designing’ isn’t when you put it to your shoulder, it’s when you or a manufacturer modify a gun, by attaching the sig brace, with the intention of the end user shouldering it- which is precisely what people are doing with their sig brace, and unlike most cases regarding intent, the BATFE will have plenty of evidence you intended to do it because there is video and or pictures of you shouldering it and not using it as it was supposedly designed (because they wouldn’t otherwise be prosecuting).

            The actual words of the law, without interpretation, mean the Sig brace is, in a large number of cases, creating weapons intended to be fired from the shoulder that have a rifled barrel less than 16″. Because of that, the BATFE has literally only two choices- charge someone with an unregistered SBR only when they have sufficient evidence to show that the intent was to shoulder the gun all along (and warn others, like they just did, not to repeat that act), OR categorize literally all of the devices as creating an SBS whether the end user actually shoulders them or not, because it’s nearly impossible to demonstrate someone has no intention of doing something in the future.

            You seem to think they have a third option, which is continue a policy which was strictly speaking in violation of the law. Before, they could argue they hadn’t seen any intention of using these devices as shoulder stocks; that’s no longer the case. That continuation of bad policy can’t, and won’t, happen. And the courts, based on the letter of the law as passed, are either going to agree with whatever interpretation of the device (as opposed to the law) the BATFE would like to put forward- or they’re going to force that second choice regardless of what the BATFE is trying to do.

          • skusmc

            Almost everything you’ve said so far is wrong. Yes, putting the Sig brace to your shoulder is “redesigning” it according to the Acting Chiefs letter. Its right there in the text. You seem to simply typing your opinion on everything without reading up on it first.

          • Tothe

            The difference between us saying something, and a BATF goon saying something: We won’t use what we type as an excuse to rob, kidnap, or murder other people.

  • Anon. E Maus

    Might as well just challenge the SBR definition as a whole.

  • Sicklesteel

    So….the bottom line here is that you had better not get caught putting that on your shoulder to fire it around a Fed or an informed local or state storm trooper? That about it?

    ….chuckling……wonder if there will be police undercover at the range looking to make examples of folks?….probably will be.

    • Alex

      Yeah…because there are so many federal agents with time to wait for someone at the range to shoulder a pistol….whatever.

  • Bob

    Just to nit-pick the nit-witted BATFEIEIO a bit further, does the offense occur when the device is shouldered or when fired from that position?

  • Mike Price

    Ok, my brother did some searching on this brace deal. Read this….

  • Dave Jacobs

    Just look here, and think! Had so many who had their own ideas of how to use this helpful assistance product for their ‘weak arm/ hand handicap’, without such a handicap, for a method to bypass existing law regarding short barrel firearms restrictions the BATF appears to have been using a blind eye on the use to some extent. It was only after you
    who had their own ideas of the illegal use brought it up that they were
    forced into clarifying the official position on the use.

    To read all the comments it is easy to see that most all are from those who are seeking ways to circumvent paying the tax to allow use of a
    restrictive type product in law. Had all kept their traps shut any use by a disabled person would, most likely, been ignored by the BATF.

    I am in full agreement with Random Disabled Person, and with Tassiebush on this. Whereas, I am also legally a disabled person, I
    am able to use my arm, and hand sufficiently to handle a handgun without the need of such a brace. However, a friend of mine is not, and needs many such things to help him to shoot any firearm, which he does enjoy very much. Myself, I am one who formerly fired Pro, and like to have my hand and arm strong enough to be almost as stable as a nail keg support. I prefer a heavy ‘bull’ barrel on my rifles, and pistols. I can shoot either right, or left handed with either type firearm, and pride myself for a professional ability in doing so. (I only wish my eyes these days were as good as they used to be.)

    So, forget opening your traps on such things, and use a proper and
    legal channel to make change as this method of personal ideas and opinions never works. It only serves to cause more restrictive rules and laws, which then also causes us to use the proper channels in law we should have used in the first place instead of the way we have here.

    It would seem that none here have ever heard what I learned in my law school days. “To hell with the law; Get the facts! Laws can be
    changed, but the facts cannot.” AND, then to actually know that to speak your personal opinions does more to support the laws you would wish to change since it is not the proper venue. The venting of your frustrations, the voicing of ignorant misconceptions, and wildly given personal opinions is not the way to make any change in law.

    As a former associate of Maj. Geo. Nonte in business, I am also not
    in agreement with many of the rules of law that are in the domain of the BATF. Many today should be changed, or even some removed completely. I for one would like to see an organization that is designed just for this process to act. However, that would take one with a good legal staff, and the funding by a lot of support. All I have ever seen is no more than just the type of hype in these open forums and blogs that do more to support such rules of law that should be corrected than to provide any avenue for needed change.

    There is no ‘sensible’ rebuttal for what I have written here as to do so merely proves my points of fact. The mention of possible ADHD in the post by Random Disabled Person is also probably deserved by all those who continue to offer any type of rebuttal on this. You probably should be classed as one who should not have a firearm. Your mind is just not able to ‘see the light’.

    Congratulations to Random Disabled Person and to Tassiebush for their contribution. At least all of their ‘ducks are in a row.’

  • Bill

    With all the hue and cry about the recent ATF reversal regarding the SIG SB15 brace, everyone seems to think that this will all be quietly decided in court, with an abundance of briefcases and a dearth of casualties. My take is somewhat different, and revolves around the upcoming tragedy that this so-called reinterpretation will almost certainly engender.

    Imagine if you will someone we’ll call Joe Citizen. He probably a college grad, with a home, family and profession. He votes, goes to church, volunteers for jury duty and flies the flag 365 days a year. He also only owns one gun, an AR pistol. Sometime in the past year, Joe has purchased an SB15 and installed it on said pistol, and as far as he is concerned all is well. He has no idea that as of last Friday, his brace is now illegal to shoulder; he hasn’t been surfing the net on a daily basis for any policy revisions or the like, and why should he? After all, the letter that came with the SB15 gives it the ATF stamp of approval, and if they say it’s so, it’s so. Now imagine that tomorrow he takes his AR to a public range and someone contacts the ATF after seeing him innocently touch the brace to his upper body. Mr. Citizen is now an instant and utterly unsuspecting felon and will most certainly have the full might of the US government brought down on his befuddled head. If there is one thing that those in power love almost as much as those in the media, it’s setting an example, and at the far end of everything that happens next, regardless of whether or not he is cleared and whether or not the law is reinterpreted yet again, he will either be ruined in every way or dead. As an added bonus, if he is a military vet, he will most likely be the recipient of combat wounds, valorous decorations or both, and the spectacle of seeing him buried with full military honors after dying in such a pointless manner will be played over and over and over again on every channel and internet forum until long after the cows have come home. When-not if-all this happens, the fallout will make Ruby Ridge look like a picnic.

    Remember, you heard it here first.

  • Mike Price

    I’m waiting to see when they bust somebody for shouldering an arm brace. It’s isn’t going to happen. They wouldn’t win a case on it with the letter they have put out. They have all these people in articles, video’s on youtube using them that way. Why aren’t they busting them?? Does anybody know of a case of somebody being arrested for putting a vertical grip on the pistol? By their rules you shouldn’t be able to put an angle grip on a AR pistol forearm tube. Your changing the design of the gun with a grip on a pistol.

  • Mike Price

    How about the new “brace” out that is nothing more than a thin butt stock you hold against your arm that has been approved. Another one that is closer to a butt stock in looks and function now approved.

  • ese hombre

    Yep, the BATF gaves us a bone to chew on. Instead of quietly taking and enjoying the bone what did we do? We grabbed the bone and ran through the house jumping on the furniture, knocking lamps over and items off the table. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.

  • YS

    So, if I’m firing my rifle from the hip (not shouldered), I’m redesigning the rifle?

  • mmike762jhp

    But with a tax stamp, you also give the FBI and BATFE your address, fingerprints, and a photo of yourself; all things that many good, law-abiding people are not comfortable giving to the federal government, and rightfully so.

  • glockstr

    They will tell us what we can and cannot do as long as we allow it. Time to abolish and defund the ATF.

  • Jeff Hendo Henderson

    So my question is this: If I use the brace as a shoulder stock at my local gun range, will I be carted off to federal “big boy, ass-pounding” jail?

    • Alex

      I think it’s funny that people actually believe anyone is going to haul you to prison for simply firing a pistol from the shoulder. The question is, what were you doing in order to get a federal agent to take notice of you while you were shouldering the Brace. I’ve spoken to a few ATF agents in the past week for an FFL renewal and when I asked them if they knew anything about this new letter, there response was, “What’s a brace?” And before anyone says, “Well I dont want to be the test case”….my response is, I’d love to be the test case for simply shouldering a brace while punching paper at the range.

  • Tothe

    Like switchblade knives, it’s Hollywood fiction combined with a few yellow journalism firestorms and legislators eager to use the ol’ “SOMETHING MUST BE DONE SO WE WILL BAN ALL THE THINGS TO DO SOMETHING” policy.

  • Sicklesteel

    OK….smiling at you….I’ll buy the first beer if that ever were to happen. …be well….