Legal Brief's Insight Into The Sig Brace And The ATF Might Be Wrong?

Nicholas C
by Nicholas C

Adam Kraut, a 2A lawyer with Prince Law Offices, has been crushing it with Jon Patton of The Gun Collective in their legal side of shows dubbed The Legal Brief. In their most recent video, Adam goes over the legality of making a firearm with an arm brace. While a lot of the content is something we have heard in some form or another, Adam brings up an very interesting opinion. Note that he and I said “opinion”. It is his opinion that the ATF is incorrect in their narrow focus of redesigning and intent. Adam brings up an example where someone buys an pistol that was made from factory with an arm brace. Take which ever gun you can think of. Sig MPX, Sig AR pistols, plus a whole array of other pistols with factory braces. Now that you have a factory made pistol with factory installed brace you have not redesigned the brace since you did not make it or install the brace. If you shouldered this factory made weapon you haven’t redesigned it, you simply misused it. Since the ATF is particular on the definition of the vocabulary they use, Adam’s point does make sense. However in the video he states that the ATF does not agree and a court may or may not agree. Hence why there are lawyers to argue the point. While Adam’s opinion is just that, it is an educated opinion and one from a 2A lawyer. It is certainly food for thought.

Nicholas C
Nicholas C

More by Nicholas C

Join the conversation
2 of 59 comments
  • AirborneSoldier AirborneSoldier on Aug 09, 2016

    Glad he likes to shoot, but how many court cases of what type has he won.

  • The Davidtollah The Davidtollah on Aug 09, 2016

    I've said before the whole idea of "redesigning" something by use is utter nonsense. If you took an illegal part (like a vertical foregrip on a pistol) could you "redesign" it into a legal part by using it only in a legal way (such as by using it as a monopod, not a foregrip)? What if you installed a full auto sear in a firearm, but only used the firearm in semiautomatic mode? Obviously, the argument that an illegal part can be "redesigned" by use into a legal part is ridiculous, but it is the converse of the ATF's position (making it equally stupid).