SIG Makes Statement on the BATFE Pistol Brace Controversy

SB15

A few days ago the BATFE sent out a letter stating that it was not legal to use an arm brace, such as the SIG SAUER Pistol Stabilizing Brace, as a stock. SIG have responded with this statement …

A Statement Regarding the SIG SAUER® Pistol Stabilizing Brace.

NEWINGTON, N.H. (January 21, 2015)—SIG SAUER, Inc., has issued the following statement about the recent opinion by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in regard to the SB15 and SBX pistol stabilizing braces.

“As reaffirmed in an Open Letter by ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division dated January 16, 2015, the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) is legal to own, legal to purchase, and legal to install on a pistol. SIG SAUER® believes that the PSB improves the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols, and offers the product both as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols.

“The Open Letter goes further to rescind a previous private letter regarding the ‘intent’ of the user of the pistol stabilizing brace. In the letter of January 16, 2015, ATF opines that a person’s actual use of the product as a shoulder stock can change the legal classification of the product. However, the Open Letter explicitly states: “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.”

“We question ATF’s reversal in position that the classification of the brace may be altered by its use. We are reviewing the legal precedents and justification for this position, and will address our concerns with ATF in the near future.

“We will vigorously defend the classification of all of our products and our consumers’ right to use them in accordance with the law. If we find that the open letter opinion is outside the scope of the law, we will seek further review.”



Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • Gales

    Go Sig!!!!!

  • Jack Morris

    Well, yeah. It’s currently against the law to “shoulder” fire a “pistol” of any kind without the proper tax stamp. The real elephant in the room is this: is it actually “illegal” to ignore unconstitutional laws? If our constitution is the law of the land, then the NFA is bad law and should be treated as such.

    • Christian Hedegaard-Schou

      No law makes it illegal to shoulder-fire a pistol.

      Pistols CAN be defined as short-barreled rifles in certain circumstances (after which it is no longer appropriate to call them pistols, as they are now rifles), but it has NEVER been illegal to shoulder-fire a pistol.

      • Jack Morris

        Semantics. Shoulder firing a pistol requires a stock to be attached or retrofitted, which as you pointed out turns it into an SBR. The original intention of my post still stands though.

        • Vhyrus

          No, it is not semantics. If you put the buffer of an AR pistol against your body is it now suddenly a rifle? Two weeks ago it wasn’t, but now according to the ATF it is. If you use two hands to hold your Glock 19 is it now an AOW? Two weeks ago it was not, but now if you follow the same logic the ATF uses on the sig brace then it is. The law states that something must be designed as a rifle (or a pistol) to be a rifle or a pistol. Now the ATF is saying that it must be USED as a rifle or a pistol to be one, regardless of design. Two weeks ago, you could have theoretically put the back of your Glock 19 or Ruger redhawk against your shoulder and fired it. Now it would be considered as making an SBR.

          • The two handed grip on a pistol isn’t an applicable example, because the *statutory* definition defines a “grip” in terms if the physical characteristic of the pistol. Use as many hands as you like – Octo-Monkey could hold it with eight, and the pistol would only have one grip.

            Add a second grip (as statutorily defined), and it doesn’t matter if you only have one arm and never even touch the forward grip – it’s still an AOW.

        • notinfringed

          You can easily shoulder many of the “mare’s leg” style handguns on the market. They’ve always been that way, and have never caused an issue.

          The ATF’s problem is not with shouldering a pistol. Their problem is looking like an idiot after the popularity of the Sig Brace. People weren’t getting SBR tax stamps because of both the cost and the extra requirements (notification to cross state lines, time of processing, registration). The entire case made it clear just how useless the NFA is, and we were pointing it out, as we should.

          The new ruling redefines the word “redesign” in order to make this “logic.” To clear up the current logic, shouldering a pistol makes it a SBR, two handing a pistol makes it an AoW, and one handing a rifle with a pistol grip (like the standard AR15) is making a pistol out of a rifle.

          This logic is a far cry from what the logic was before it.

          • Don Ward

            Pretty much this.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            What if I tuck it under my arm, or rest it against my bicep?

          • Cymond

            What if I rest it against my cheek, or press it against my sternum?

            ATF will probably drum up some obfuscating language to say “that’s illegal”, but the law specifically says “shoulder” so anywhere else you press it should be legal.

          • -J Johnson

            No different than what ATF did with the Akins Accelerator. That was just easier since they were picking a fight with a small manufacturer without the means to pursue a costly legal battle.

          • Marty Ewer

            It needs to be said that Bill Akins and Tom Bowers misinterpreted the opinion letter they received from Tech Branch. Unlike the Sig brace, ATF didn’t reverse their opinion in that case.

          • Exactly. Akins *never* actually received a “determination” on his Akins Accelerator before marketing it widely as a legal machinegun conversion that bypassed the NFA.

            Read the actual letter. ATF said they couldn’t test the prototype because they couldn’t get it to work, but presuming it didn’t do anything illegal, it wouldn’t b illegal.

            That isn’t a “determination”; it’s a bunch of administrative throat clearing saying, ” I dunno, and can’t answer the question without a working example to test.”

            Net semantic content: zero.

            Akins took that as 100% approval, and ran with it.

          • LetsTryLibertyAgain

            The issue is appearances. A left wing nut job isn’t going to get his panties in a bunch if a lever action cowboy gun with an old fashioned wooden stock is shoulder fired, but if you shoulder fire a scary black assault weapon such as an AR pistol… you might be a domestic terrorist. It’s always about the looks with these people. It’s all about how it makes them feel. They’re driven by emotions and feelings. Facts (such as FBI crime statistics by firearm type) bounce off them like a 22 LR bullet bounces off an AR500 plate.

          • So true.. all libtards are worried about scary looking weapons that make them FEEL scared

          • Cleophus

            Thank you! I thought I was the only one to see this MASSIVE bullshit by the BATFE, (don’t let these doofusses try to cool themselves up by using a 3 letter acronym). They are, and always will be, the retarded step child of federal law enforcement.

          • Mark Are

            Just think how many of us they could put in a cage for 10 years if they started gathering us up for two handing a pistol. Fools run the US. Ban the ATF, learn about the power of the jury and tell them to go ef off.

    • RSG

      It’s also illegal, read felony, to fire your handgun with two hands, just FYI.

      • B as in B and S as in S

        • FourString

          I think he pines for the cap and ball days

      • Wrong. See above.

    • what about Thompson/Center Arms?? They made a exception for them only??

      • Under the T/C *court* ruling (which ATF only admitted was generally bind a couple of years ago), you *could* apply the same process to an AR.

        Problem is, once you shouldered the brace (under this latest ATF ruling), it would “auto-magically” become a “stock”. So, *just like the T/C*, you would have to mount a 16″ barreled upper bedore shouldering the brace for the first time, remove the brace before reinstalling the pistol upper, and install the 16″ upper each and every time before reinstalling the brace.

    • Mike Price

      You can shoulder fire any pistol with brace or spring tube from what this letter states from ATF.

      • BryanS

        Technically, Joe can. You and I have to get our own letter.

        • Mike Price

          I’m not worrying about it.

  • Grindstone50k

    Will this law continued to be dictated by letters or will someone finally bring it to court?

    • The ATF isn’t making laws. They’re offering an (often solicited) opinion that says if you do X, they’ll do Y. Until they actually *act* on their opinion and can convince a judge that their opinion is correct, that’s all it is; an opinion. Go get an opinion letter for your personal attorney. It’ll carry just as much legal weight as the ATFs (little to none). Pff.

      A traffic cop can blather on all day long that he thinks your truck balls are illegal. Until he acts on it and convinces a judge he’s right, it’s just blathering.

      • Grindstone50k

        The ATF isn’t making laws, except they are.

    • Yeah, Sig is almost certainly going to sue, once they have gotten all their ducks in a row (including figuring out all the legal precedents and arguments ATF might whip and and are ready to *immediately* counter them in court in the next breath.)

      Just like they did the last time ATF pissed them off.

  • pun&gun

    Says a lot about our country that a foreign arms manufacturer is doing more to fight for our rights than our own government.

    • Sam Schifo

      Or any domestic manufacturers for that matter.

      • Marty Ewer

        “any” is a strong word. 😉

      • I think It’s built in the US, but I know what you mean

    • flyingburgers

      Yeah, it’s all for your rights, out of the patriotism of the company, and nothing to do with charging $125 for a chunk of plastic.

      • JeffH

        Jealous or envious?

        • flyingburgers

          Neither, just pointing out the motivation. Such is the way the world works.

          • JeffH

            IOW, I was correct!

          • flyingburgers

            Not at all. Don’t be so full of yourself. All I’m saying is that “regulatory affairs” is part of the $100 markup of the brace and is of course borne by the consumers.

          • JeffH

            bzzzz bzzzzzz bzzzzzz bzzzzzzzzz says the jealous one !

          • Bill

            Not exactly true. If a company thinks something it’s going to market is not going to sell like hotcakes, it doesn’t take the risk, period (at least not if it wants to protect its bottom line). SIg knew where the brace idea could lead, which is why they bought the design. When the Crime Bill passed, a reporter asked a person at H&K how much the law was going to cost the company, and that person replied “Nothing-it’s going to cost the consumer.” Consumers wanted large mags, Uncle Sugar said no, and consumers paid for all the ridiculous redesigns in order to get any mags at all. If the SIG brace were somehow reworked (not redesigned-all you have to do to do that is put it against your shoulder, wink, wink) the cost would be reflected in an even higher price. I love mine, don’t get me wrong-I currently have a rifle upper on my erstwhile pistol lower while I watch and wait-but I had no illusions when I bought it.

          • mickey_meador

            “Nothing-it’s going to cost the consumer.”
            Bingo! That capitalism works. Costs (fuel, material, wages, legal expense, advertising……..) are passed to consumers and stockholders or owners. Big Government Socialist politicians view any profit as something to be minimized and excessively taxed.

          • JeffH

            Au Contraire, not true. The product doesn’t sell, is rejected by the consumer, the company loses on the research, development, marketing and sales. It’s that simple!

      • HSR47

        And your point is what, exactly?

        That the profit motive is leading a company to fight government actions that reduce their bottom line? How is that a bad thing?

      • Brat Hunter

        Spoken like a true Spoiled Brat.

      • Freedom’s Flag

        It’s not about RIGHTS you ninny: it’s about FREEDOM.

        Move out of the house already!

    • Anonymoose

      Sig Sauer is fully American, though. They import a few specialty products, but the corporate leadership and ownership of SIG SAUER is all American and nearly all of their stuff is built in the US nowadays.

    • Pop Tart Shooter

      Hey, you can bite a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun and get suspended from school…cause it was…redesigned…into…a…gun?

      USE DOES NOT EQUAL DESIGN!

      I can’t believe we have people this STUPID in our bureaucracy…but then it wouldn’t be a bureaucracy now would it.

      • Curious_G

        Cause =/= because

        • AlDeLarge

          ’cause ≈ because

          • Curious_G

            Not in the English language.

          • AlDeLarge

            Apostrophe Use: Contractions And Omissions

            Apostrophes can show an omission of letters, whether as part of a contraction or when showing dialect or accent.

            I’m = I am
            Where’s = where is
            Who’s = who is
            It’s = it is, or it has (N.B. This is the contraction, not the possessive.)
            Isn’t = is not
            Couldn’t = could not
            Who’d = who would
            Aren’t = are not
            ****** ‘Cause = because ******
            Ain’t = is not, are not
            D’you = do you
            Hallowe’en = Hallow evening
            Jo’burg = Johannesburg

            grammarly(dot)com

          • Guest

            Look up “apostrophe” and “contraction.” Apparently I’m not allowed to do it for you here.

          • Guest

            Look up “dense” and “moron”.

        • Julian

          Even worse that the social just warior… the Grammar/Punctuation Nazi.

    • go4it

      Perhaps our latest administration *is* the real enemy …………..

  • Best of luck to Sig’s legal department

    • John Fletcher Kilgour

      It does not look to me like Sig’s legal department is doing anything! All they did was issue a statement that confirms that the ATF is correct, i.e., the braces are designed for one handed shooting. The Sig statement is a bunch of words thrown together that collectively say “we had to say something, so here is something, but don’t bet the house on us doing anything of substance over this issue, well, except issue strongly worded wimpy statements.”

      • MR

        Sig suing the ATF to allow its customers to use a Sig Brace as a stock would be like Reebok suing the ATF to allow its customers to use its shoestrings to make machineguns.

        • ARluv

          You totally don’t get it. It would be like reebok suing the ATF to allow its customers to use let’s say their basketball line of sneakers to play any other sport they want….and the ATF is telling reebok that you can buy basketball sneakers and own them and sell them legally. Just don’t plan on playing any other sport other than basketball. Because if you do, you don’t risk a simple slap on the wrist…you risk 10 years in a federal prison. But hey…if you’re ok with the ATF telling you how you can and can’t shoot a legally owned product then I guess we’re ok? Not….

      • Funny, this is pretty much what they did over their previous disagreement with ATF, where ATF claimed a permanently fixed muzzle brake that makes the gun *louder* was actually a “silencer”.

        Only a fool reveals all of their hand while their legal experts dig up as airtight a case as possible *before* filing.

  • Roger V. Tranfaglia

    HEY!… BATFE….GET OVER YOURSELVES! Don’t you guys have something MORE IMPORTANT to worry about…..like TERRIOSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Dan

      Bro quit yelling my fiance is sleeping

      • Roger V. Tranfaglia

        dude…sorry….[whisper]

        • Dave The Great

          Roger, your reply to Dan’s reply made my day 🙂

    • Mark Are

      No their job is to try to get people to inform on groups like Aryan nations and if they don’t shoot their kids in the back and their wives in the head. Oh and their family do too. Just can’t have that sawed off shotgun! After all, there is a $200 tax stamp you are beating them out of. EVERYTHING the ATF does should at the most be civil. Not criminal ever.

  • 10MMGee20

    For me the NFA SBR is dead gone to hell. All my AR’s Roni’s, Mini’s & Mirco’s will be fitted with the evil sig type stabilizing brace, and all will be shot from the shoulder, Felon I am!

    • Andrew R

      Way to go, putting that out there on a public forum.

      • Abram

        Grow some balls, and stow the cynicism. You think the 2A just fell from the sky?

    • Mark Are

      Except the true meaning of a felon according to the Founding Fathers was commission of a HEINOUS crime. How heinous is firing a pistol with a stock on it from your shoulder? NADA. If I’m on your jury I will hang it or convince the rest of the jurors to walk out and look at the black dressed transvestite on the bench and say NOT GUILTY SO SAY WE. Now kiss our …es.

  • Marty Ewer

    The virtual complete lack of Sig braces at the SHOT Show indeed says something about the spineless nature of many vendors displaying at the show. I counted only two Sig braces on display outside of Sig’s booth–and Sig had a representative guarding each and every sample against misuse, and discussing the “letter.” Except for DSA. I applaud DSA. They had Sig braces on all their pistols on display. I shared a couple of beers with DSA reps there at their booth and discussed options for getting Shockwave Blade pistol stabilizers on their pistols going forward. 🙂

    • cawpin

      What are you talking about? I was at SHOT for the last half of today and quickly walked around to get a feel for the layout and I saw at least 10 of them at various booths. They are everywhere.

      • Marty Ewer

        What you say is true. I saw at least six at Sig’s booth, two at CZ-USA, three at DSA, and two random others. That’s at least 13 spread over 600,000+ square feet. 😉

    • LawDog

      Marty…”sheer dearth” couldn’t be further from the the truth. I’ve been at SHOT since Monday. There are more braces on pistols than you can shake a stick at. They are everywhere, not with just SIG. Sig alone had at least 20 braces on display. CZ, POF, PWS, IWI, and Century as well. It’s been cool to see other firearms manufacturers (besides Sig) stand their ground and promote their products with the brace.

  • Ethan

    Go buy a brace people! We will not be scared into submission by some bureaucrat’s nasty-gram!

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    This is the same BATFE that said in a policy letter that a shoe string is an automatic weapon. After much public ridicule, they issued another policy letter saying that a shoe string is not an automatic weapon. If not for the infringements and the way the BATFE bullies Americans because we don’t want to be prosecuted for some nonsense law that’s unconstitutional and spend years in prison, this stupidity would be funny. We need to keep pointing out how nonsensical these rules are, and how it’s impossible to comply with the BATFE’s guessing that you have “constructive intent” if you own a pistol and some rifle parts that could be used to make a short barrel rifle.

    The problem is these administrative rules. As if the gun laws that Congress passes aren’t bad enough, we now have all of these rules that are made up by unelected bureaucrats at the BATFE. They violate our Constitution, and are so internally inconsistent and ever changing that they’re impossible for the average gun owner to obey.

    We need to repeal the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1934 National Firearms Act, and replace them with constitutional laws. The second amendment in our Bill of Rights should not permit any federal gun laws. The states could pass gun laws, but they’d need to be consistent with not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

    Suppressors, SBRs, full auto… all should be legal.

    • noguncontrol

      Amen!!!

      • John Fletcher Kilgour

        Find me 50 Republican U.S. senators who will vote for the kind of modifications of the NFA and GCA that people are talking about. And, find me 250 Republican members of the House of Representatives who will back it. Never mind trying to find the 2/3 of House and Senate to over ride Barack’s veto, you can not even find a simple majority of each house of Congress to support ANY changes in the NFA and GCA laws even though the Republicans now control both House and Senate. So let’s get real and stop talking about a legislative solution because that is not going to happen. As for a Judicial solution, forget that too. The courts will only want to know one thing: Did the ATF act in accordance with the requirements of the NFA and GCA? And, the answer (even though we wish it were not the case) is YES.

    • Cleophus

      I agree with everything except the last sentence. I believe we should repeal the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1934 National Firearms Act and replace them with……..NOTHING!

    • Mark Are

      ABSOLUTELY. The Founding Fathers wanted the people to have possession of any weapon that the military can carry on their person. So that would also include Stinger missiles. Which of course are great for taking down Apache attack helicopters, who might be ATTACKING US! They felt that a standing army was a direct threat against the liberty of the people. ALL gun control laws are illegal because they make crimes out of possession of something rather than a crime out of something that damages someone else. NO VICTIM, NO CRIME. Remember that if you are ever on a jury.

    • UnpluggedAndAwake

      I believe in the original intent of the Constitution. Based on this, the Federal Government cannot restrict the rights of citizens to keep or bear arms – period. Now we don’t want people walking around with shoulder fired nukes, but the proper means of restricting such absurdity is to amend the Constitution.

      Now, the State Governments do have the right to restrict arms, speech, and everything else. The idea being that if you don’t like the your State’s laws, you vote with your feet and move. This was the original intent – when State’s rights meant something.

      The Federal Government has NO right to impose arms restrictions – at all. Of course we are so far from the original intent now that none of this matters.

  • RSG

    This suit will be joined immediately by Century, IWI, CZ and many others. I’m POSITIVE that the NRA won’t be able to avoid participation as well. The entire industry has invested building new firearms, accessories, etc, based on the BATFE’s initial findings.

    • John Fletcher Kilgour

      What suit are you talking about? Sig did not say it was filing suit. In fact, Sig said a bunch of nothing. They said they are looking into it and will see if the ATF is following the law. Oh, well, that’s surely got to be scary as all get out to the ATF ! No one is filing any suits.

      • RSG

        You think this is happening in a vacuum without precedent? Aren’t you aware of Sig’s recent suit against the ATF over their muzzle brake? How this is following the same template? Sig sent a similar letter asking for reconsideration. After the BATFE stayed the course, Sig immediately filed suit. This will be similar. Except others will join and help fund the suit. But judging by your reply, I’ve got you figured out. You’re a bootlick who bent down down to the Feds after jumping through hoops to register your ridiculous SBR, right? What’s funny is that you think we are envious of you, but the fact is we are all really laughing at folks like you.

        • Cymond

          RSG, I don’t see anything that implies John is a bootlick, or supportive of the ATF at all.
          And while other companies may support a hypothetical lawsuit financially or by filing amicus briefs, I don’t see how they could actually join the suit as co-plaintiffs since this decision wasn’t directly against them or their products.

          • Any company that markets, or was actually getting ready to market, similar product, has standing. Any comoany that resells such products, or was actually planning on it, will have standing. Any organization that represents a group that is adversely affected will have standing.

            Just as they have regularly done in previous gun suits.

  • undeRGRound

    More Like $13,531.04¢ if you index it against Gold being $20/oz just a year before that…

    @hipsociety:disqus

  • SickandTired

    First the Guvmint say it’s alright, then the Guvmint say no it ain’t alright! Yep, that sounds like our Guvmint, clear as Sh!t!

    • Mark Are

      That’s gooberment. Get you spelling correct.

  • john Everett Walker

    Like beretta dn glock, SIG Sauer has become an immigrant rather than a foreigner At least in part, they nave become naturalized.

  • Timothy Dale Inwood

    We live in an era where the President ignores the rule of law on more level than I have time to list. He has encouraged a foreign invasion, has an illegal alien sitting as his guest with the Congress to listen to him do his state of the union rant… and we worry about some unelected bureaucrat, on their own out of the blue, not even a member of congress making law on their own over something as silly as this. And the Government wonders why so many people have contempt for the Government and its silly laws these days.

  • randy

    Sort of like…. (it is only an oil filter…until u screw it on to the end of a barrel and shoot through it) nor longer a legal to own oil filter any more…..not that hard to see how miss use could change if is legal or not..

    • JQP

      sort of, but not. Installing/reconfiguring is very different than simply touching something to your shoulder. always been two very different things in regards to ATF decisions.

  • Mister Thomas

    SIG is an awesome company that makes great products AND helps to fight for our rights. THANK YOU !!!

  • Harold

    If one drives a car into a wall and it explodes is it now a bomb and not a car?

    If one ties a length of monofilament to the end of a double barrel shotgun (O/U) is it now a fishing pole?

    • Mark Are

      Yes, and yes. Of course the car is a bomb and of course the shotgun is a fishing pole. Are you stupid? LOL!

  • Tim Pearce

    I know it’s easier to just post a comment on sites like this, but, everyone, contact your representatives and senators and ask them to repeal the NFA, or at least the nonsensical parts regarding “concealable” firearms (SBS, SBR, AOW, some DD). I just sent out three letters, today, to mine.

    • John Fletcher Kilgour

      Let me know how that works out for you. I’d be very happy if the NFA got repealed, but that is not going to happen. I doubt that you can find one single elected Republican Senator or member of the House of Representatives who would publicly state support for taking SBRs or silencers out of the NFA law. Find me one, just one and I’ll admit I am wrong. Then, find me the other 50 Senators and 218+ members of the House that you’ll need to actually pass that law.

      • notinfringed

        Can’t find one if you don’t try. At the very least, write a letter about this issue to your Congressmen. It doesn’t take long. I sent out three emails today on the issue, one to each of mine. I also sent out emails to my State Congress pushing for Federal Nullification again.

        If no one is willing to try, nothing will ever get done. Demand progress on our rights for your vote, and if you don’t get progress, vote for someone else.

  • jeffrey melton

    Kinda hard to play the game if the government keeps changing the rules.

  • John Fletcher Kilgour

    So, in other words, Sig is saying nothing of any use or importance.
    Oh, and Sig is reaffirming that the braces are for stability with one handed shooting of their firearms, i.e., exactly what the ATF is saying.

    Basically Sig says “we will look into this and if we think we should look further, we will look into it.” I’m sure the ATF is quaking in their flip-flops over this “strongly worded wet noodle” that Sig has hurled down at them.

    • LawDog

      It’s been less than a week since ATF’s open letter came out. What exactly were you expecting Sig to say? To quote their press release:

      “We question ATF’s reversal in position that the classification of the brace may be altered by its use. We are reviewing the legal precedents and justification for this position, and will address our concerns with ATF in the near future. We will vigorously defend the classification of all of our products…”

      Sig is not going to show their hand in their first press release. Their approach will be pragmatic and logical…the exact opposite of the ATF’s approach.

    • Cymond

      “Oh, and Sig is reaffirming that the braces are for stability with one handed shooting of their firearms, i.e., exactly what the ATF is saying.”

      Yeah, of course Sig is going to say that, that’s the entire argument that made the SB-15 legal to put on a pistol in the first place! If they said “The brace is designed to work well as a stock so you can shoulder the gun” that would be the true definition of “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder”.

  • Mike Price

    Here is interesting letter pertaining to what ATF replied back to sheriffs department inquiry on use of brace as shoulder stock.

    • notinfringed

      Yes, that is the letter that the Open Letter is revoking.

      It’s humorous. The NFA was put into place eighty years ago. For 80 years, “plain English” meant that features, not use, defined a weapon. Nine months later, use “redesigns” a weapon according to “plain English.” I guess it took them 81 years to actually figure out what the “intent” was in their eyes.

  • Mike Price

    Everybody wants the ATF to say you can use it like a stock or say it’s legal to use it that way and but they are not going to say it, but it is implied with both of their letters.

  • Matthew

    I think we are so caught up in arguing the definition of regulation that they change on a dime anyway. We forget the restriction on sbr and silencers is unconstitutional and needs to go. Then there wouldn’t be an argument here.

  • brian

    Its pretty messed up that We The People, you know The Republic! Have no representation or recourse against a bunch of UNELECTED Bureaucratic Dictionary Rewriters that somehow have the ablilty to make up an interpretation that’s turns US “people” into Felons by just writing a letter!!!!! No actual legislation….A freaking letter people! NFA is bullshit! Its 2015 not 1934….time for us to stand up and fight back against this letter writing by getting something done about the obscurity we know as the people controlling NFA of 1934! We need a “National Freedom Act!!!!” .and we need to shut down all this letter writing bullshit and replace it with something that actually involves Our Elected REPRESENTATIVES… You know…..US!

    Oh BATFE BTW…”redesigned” isn’t in the NFA anywhere and redesigning requires a physical alteration not a movement made by a user!!! So please just stop trying to control The Republic (US the people) and this supposed “Beacon of Freedom” for the rest of the world.

  • Mark Are

    Why is this even an issue? What difference should it make how the brace is used as long as the gun isn’t used to murder someone or commit an act of aggression? Fools run this country.

  • Aaron Brooks

    ATF’s assertion is that intentionally using a product differently than directed changes the classification. By this ‘logic’ Jerry Miculek changed his revolver into an NFA firearm by firing it upside down – after all this causes the grip to extend above the bore instead of below it, violating the definition of a pistol.

  • badman400

    Abolish the (non elected agency aka) ATF!!!

  • supergun

    The arm brace really can not be used as a stock. It is to short to aim. Of all the problems we got, we have to deal with this stupidity.

  • Tothe

    Between SIG and Defense Distributed, the BATFE is being revealed as more absurd and obsolete every day.

  • Vic Hyatt

    The letter in question was in regards to one guy, who stated he wanted to use the pistol and brace as a SBR. In other words he told them he wanted to use it as a sbr to side step the tax. Its all about your intent.

  • lomaxima

    Can I add straps to a stock with a barrel less than 16″, not shoulder the stock and it becomes a brace. Time to write the ATF a letter and find out.

  • Tothe

    How does it make sense to declare any inanimate objects a “crime” in the first place? Who is the victim when you shoulder an arm brace, or for that matter have a short-barreled rifle without paying the State’s indulgence?

  • We didn’t write the statement SIG did:-)

    • AlDeLarge

      Pop Tart Shooter wrote the comment we’re talking about 😉

  • J.W. Fry

    EVERY ARTICLE on this blog should include a David-Letterman-type TopTen reasons why the BATFE SHOULD .N.O.T. EVEN EXIST.

  • Curious_G

    None of those uses apply to the above. “Cause” is not a contraction, apostrophe or not. ‘Cause’ is an entirely separate word with a separate meaning. Use of an apostrophe to capture “dialect”, e.g. improper use, does not make it correct. I feel bad for our youth.

  • Al

    No firearms law at present defines the term “redesign” unlike the other terms in the letter that they cited which are in existing laws. RURDY4ITNEWS did a research on the letter and on the 2 laws that were used in the letter. For ATF to enforce anything, it first has to be a law. Not something that they just pull out of a hat. No legislation, no law.