ATF new rulings?

Discussion in 'General Firearms Discussion' started by lcback, Jan 17, 2015.

  1. Apparently the ATF is changing their position on the AR-15 pistol arm braces. Claiming if you shoulder it you are required to get the tax stamp and paper work.

    I'm on my phone so I can't get the link, but the NRA-ILA and Jerry miculek Facebook pages both posted it.

    Be careful shooting it at your range in public boys. Hate to see someone get locked up for something so pathetic.
  2. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    No wonder I've seen a crap ton of braces on armslist lately......

  3. FlashBang

    FlashBang I Stand With Talon Lifetime Supporter

    Who is going to lock you up?? In all my day of being at ranges I have never seen an BATFE agent there checking stamps. The BATFE are the only ones with authority to ask for and see the stamps.

  4. FlashBang

    FlashBang I Stand With Talon Lifetime Supporter

    Let me guess.... they are asking lots of money for them. :rolleyes:
    The ATF simply stated what the rule/law is, and has been, regarding them, nothing has changed. This is just more FUD being thrown around.

  5. Any range I've ever been to it would be very unlikely that anyone would turn someone in for doing this.

    Not likely that one would even get turned in for having a full auto. They would assume that it was registered.

    Mortar or bazooka? I'd stay away from a public range as someone might get upset about ruining the turf and/or target holding frames. But, that's just me.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2015
  6. Bull

    Bull Just a Man Supporting Member

    Bout a buck fity
  7. bscar

    bscar Supporting Member

    Probably got tired of people constantly calling and asking about the brace, even though they put a letter in with every brace sold regarding the law.

    Tree fiddy!
  8. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Last time at the range a feller two lanes over was printing 1 inch groups at 100 yards with an AR "pistol" a bipod and a "brace".
    We got chatting for a bit and he agreed is the dumbest thing the ATF approved.

    It's designed for you to eat soup.....

  9. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Frankly, I'm shocked that they ever, even briefly, held a position of "people misusing it doesn't change the intended function."

    I also find it someone notable that the ruling comes after the 2014 Congressional election, but still in the current administration, just at the very tail end. Seems just a little bit too convenient to me.

    Peace favor your sword,
  10. What surprised me the most was them allowing it to begin with. Then going back on what they said at the very beginning of the year? does it have to do with popularity? it wasn't a big deal until it became popular?
  11. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

  12. Rerun

    Rerun Supporting Member

    Definitely take this to court!

    It's like when the BATF reclassified Calico firearms as 'Machineguns" because their spherical magazines allowed 50 and 100 rounds to be carried ready to fire.

    The Calico Firearms were semi-auto ( although they did sell fully automatic firearms as well).

  13. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Yes, take it to court. But the manufacturer, not by some end-customer.

    I agree. However, here's what I see. The whole story about the Sig "Brace" being specifically intended to be a strap-on brace for one-hand-shooting is a complete and utter LIE. Here is what I believe happened. Sig was looking for a way to make a "legal" no-stamp SBR and they rightly figured that they could make a stock which also dually functions as a strap-on-brace and then claim <wink wink> that the brace was it's only function. But if that were true, then there is no need for it to have other design elements that make it also suited as a buttstock. Sig was deliberately trying to loophole and everyone damn well knew it.

    The ATF should have red-flagged it from the beginning, but they couldn't because half the public would be up in arms over the ATF "mistreating" vets and amputees. I would be among them, to be honest. So they let it go. They had to, I suspect. I think that the current admin backchanneled an order to the ATF to ignore it and hope that not very many people would catch on because of the political repercussions to the Democrats if they didn't allow it. But it got "out of hand." The ATF couldn't completely reverse its stance on allowing amputees to use it so they had to come up with a plan B. This is it. And it sucks.

    I don't think that it will survive a court challenge because, despite what the ATF claims, you don't "redesign" something by how you use it. Beating someone to death with a telephone handset doesn't "redesign" it as a weapon.

    That said, the ATF may still be able to find a way, if they're clever. Intent of the user has often been a factor leading to the determination of a crime. There is a long history in the U.S. of laws against the intent to "go forth armed" so there is precedent for the use of "intent." As an example, possessing a lock on a chain while riding a bicycle is normal and perfectly legal. However, walk around downtown, no bike, with a chain and lock in your pocket, and you risk running afoul of anti-Slugshot/Blackjack laws. You probably won't get arrested for it, but you'll most likely get up-charged for the "weapon" if you get arrested for something else. Why? The intent. So, if the ATF can figure out a way to link the intent to use an "arm brace" as an SBR, then they may have something.

    What I think will happen is that they'll go to court over this "redesign" language and get smacked down. Then they'll tweak their statement to focus on intent and that'll stand. The end result will be the same, "if we catch you using a Sig Brace as an SBR, we'll arrest you; are you feeling lucky?"

    Peace favor your sword,

  14. Just like the 'oil filter adapters" You can buy one on ebay for $50 and it be "legal". But the ATF find you with one beside an fire arm and you are f*cked

    Everyone says "they wont see me with it anyway" then they realize they are messing with possible FEDERAL prison and loss of ALL rights, and re-consider.
  15. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Well.....but a can of insect repellent.
    It will have a warning on it ( paraphrasing ):

    ' It is illegal to use this product other then intended '

    Think the ATF is going for something similar.
  16. There is no need to go to court about this thing. The device can still be used a brace. The brace can be made, sold, etc. So nothing changed. There are better things to go to court over.

    I'd forgotten about these braces and I'm going to get one. Timely of the ATF to advertise these braces to the public.

    I have no intention of doing anything that isn't legal with it. And you can take that to bank!!

    From the newest letter:

    "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."

    "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."
  17. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Which is what they should have done in the first place instead of issuing "we can't stop people from misusing products" statement.

    That said, I think the law is BS anyway and should be repealed or, at the very least, incrementally loosened, just like CC laws have been. I think that there may be a chance of it. If we start with SBR & SBS laws, we may have a shot.

    Peace favor your sword,
  18. How often do you think ATF agents come to a John Q. Public's house? It almost never happens.
  19. i agree, but how willing are you to bet your familys well being on that?

    Would i like a couple? sure! would it be fun? SURE, Would they see me? probably not i shoot in my back yard,

    Am i willing to risk leaving my children, and wife behind for some fun!? hell no.
  20. If the desire stems only for the reason of having fun, it sure wouldn't be worth the risk. But if one thinks there is need for one, then the risk may be worth it.

    Have you known of anyone who has been arrested and fined/jailed for only processing one? For the 10,000's of them that have been sold if they were arresting people for it, we'd be hearing about it.