The trouble with regulating things
Is that you may use them wrong.
Seems that a new stabilizer brace has come out and gotten the OK from ATF, just like the SB-15. But, like the Black Aces shotty, they were told shouldering it may make it an NFA item. So, presto-chango, it’s not NFA and then it is:
If an individual attaches the Stabilizer to his AR pistol, goes to the range, shoots it as the manufacturer intended and then hands it to his friend who shoulders it, did it just become an illegal short barreled rifle? Given what FTISB put in their determination letter it would seem that way. This begs the question, is ATF actually classifying the firearm based on what it is or how it MIGHT be used?
December 22nd, 2014 at 7:20 pm
The Sig brace works because it -looks- like an arm brace, it wraps the arm and is fatter and more cumbersome that a trad stock when “stowed”. These guys are making narrow shoulder stocks and saying “Well, you can kinda lean it to one side of your arm so -voila- ‘brace!'”
Not defending ATF but there’s a line where getting cute and acting innocent is both annoying and insulting to everyone involved’s intelligence.
December 23rd, 2014 at 12:39 am
The classification of the firearm changes based on how you hold it?
December 23rd, 2014 at 2:36 am
So…. is THIS the “shoulder thing that goes up?”
December 23rd, 2014 at 10:33 am
Would one of these be worth money in a pre ban way if the ATF decided they were going to ban them?
December 23rd, 2014 at 11:08 am
The ATF is trying to enforce an illogical set of rules.
And they are not trying very hard to avoid putting people in the position of possibly, unknowingly, becoming a felon.
Hey, then the ATF can SWAT you like they did the Branch Davidians!
And we thought the IRS abuses of political groups was bad…
December 23rd, 2014 at 1:11 pm
Citizen – “Is it OK to use it like this?”
BS Govt Agency – “Maybe.”
C – “Well how about like this?”
BGA – “Maybe.”
C – “Is there some place I can read how the rules and decisions are decided? You know, a set of standards?”
BGA – “BWAAHAHAHAHA!!”
December 23rd, 2014 at 2:19 pm
John: Yes, because the law talks about “A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder”. (27 CFR 479)
These items are on the border of “designed/intended” to be vs. “designed wink wink nudge nudge not to be but totally who’re you kidding anyway?”.
Blame the law, not the ATF, for this one.
They should just repeal that entire part of the NFA (or the whole thing); it’s completely incoherent since the original NFA handgun ban never got passed in 1934.
December 23rd, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Sigivald,
Exactly. I have no problem using the law against itself, but you don’t get to whine when you do it poorly and get called on it. SIG did it smart, these cats are doing it stupid.
December 23rd, 2014 at 9:33 pm
Glad I snagged another SIG brace when I had the chance.
December 23rd, 2014 at 9:43 pm
“Is the ATF blah blah, blah…?” Why, yes they are because THAT’S. WHAT. THEY. DO.
December 24th, 2014 at 12:36 pm
Sounds a lot like entrapment to me.