ATF and the Sig Brace
Unelected bureaucrats making laws:
Unelected bureaucrats making laws:
Some legal type guy does too.
Let’s get the obvious out of the way, it’s stupid. Saying that using it in a way other than intended “redesigns” is asinine. If I use the magazine well as a forward grip, I’m not redesigning it. Also, US Code defines a handgun:
(29) The term “handgun” means—
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand;
I guess if you’re using two hands to shoot (like you fucking should), you’ve just redesigned your Glock.
My guess is what really happened is the first letter was approved without appropriate supervision; or they didn’t realize the can of worms they were opening.
As for what to do, I’m keeping mine as a collectors item. I imagine there probably won’t be many more made.
As for what to do legally, I dunno. Perhaps a class action suit against ATF for relying on their initial letter?
Once again rescinding a prior ruling, ATF says shouldering a brace redesigns something and is a no no
Update: The market has spoken.
Here’s a suppressor with picatinny rails on it. Odd. Would the addition of a forward grip make the firearm or the suppressor an AOW? Quick, ask the ATF.
A ruling that says you can’t let someone use your CNC machine or mill to make a gun. Seems to be targeting 80% lowers:
Held further, a business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements of the GCA by allowing persons to perform manufacturing processes on blanks or incomplete firearms (including frames or receivers) using machinery, tools, or equipment under its dominion and control where that business controls access to, and use of, such machinery, tools, or equipment.
My understanding is that we all know it’s an SBR but we can’t call it that. Another determination letter.
NSFW!!! Hey, ATF, can you define shouldering? NSFW!!!
Another letter, over at arfcom. I’m not sure I follow, exactly. Seems they’re saying that you can make one but shouldering it modifies it to an SBR. They spell out that an AFG added to a pistol does not modify the pistol.
Seems to me that, logically, adding an AFG to a thing with a brace on it would pretty strongly show an intent to shoulder it.
But, it’s ATF and making sense is not required.
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?
Nothing new. They’ve done it quite a lot. But a judge is bringing the heat:
“Society does not win when the government stoops to the same level as the defendants it seeks to prosecute,” he wrote. “Especially when the government has acted solely to achieve a conviction for a made-up crime.”
Also, I liked this:
But for the undercover agent’s imagination in this case there would be no crime.
Firearms Technology Branch tells shotgun maker, Black Aces Tactical, that shouldering it may turn a gun into a short barreled shotgun. So, yes on rifles and not on shotguns?
Not many details but 64,280 pages of documents and it’s only partial indicates we need to get rid of some paper pushers.
Things I did not now. A reader emailed this a bit back and was taken to task in the comments. He has since sent an update:
So I sent you the basis for the post last year, and everyone called bullshit on it in the comments. I was with Dennis@Dragon last night and he told me that in TN when the FFL does a Background Check, they do it through TICS, which coordinates with NICS, but TICS also looks for outstanding warrants. If there is a warrant, they tell the dealer to stall the buyer while they contact the local PO PO.
So that is what I saw happen last year at the show, it’s not a NICS deal, but it is a TICS deal. It may be that way in some other states too.
Just wanted to give you an update!
So, not the NICS but rather Tennessee’s system.
How can I donate to fight this ‘NFA lawsuit’
I have too much skin in this game to let some idiots ruin it all. No outcome from this is good for me, or other collectors I know.
Yet we’ve let a bunch of trailer dwelling keyboard commandos put us in fear of even voicing our opinions! It’s like soviet russia!! We have to toe the party line in public and say that we’d like to see our collections value evaporate overnight – some of us with six figures and more of investments – just to be able to buy some new crappy Mac-10s for $500 a piece. If we say what we really think, the mob of yokels crucifies us.
God help us when every tom dick and harry at the range can show up and blast dirt. I worked hard in my medical career to be able to own nice things that not every jackass can have. What if people could walk into the dealership and buy the classic corvette I have for $5000? Is that fair, considering mine cost ten times that? Is that acceptable to even consider allowing as an outcome?!?!
This is unacceptable. First, is there a more private board for true NFA collectors where we can discuss these issues in private? Second, what can we do to fight this? Filing ‘amicus briefs’ from our side, etc?
The circular firing squad takes aim.
ETA: Apparently, a lot of people didn’t get the tongue in cheek nature of this and the linked subguns post, which was complicated by the board deleting it. The post was even said to have been written by Bill Gates. With it gone, you didn’t see that. Sorry about that.
To those who think I wrote that, lolwut?
Rather curious, given Holder’s pseudo-resignation that his top deputy has resigned after a fast and furious gun turned up in a Phoenix crime.
And here’s the info that the Justice Department won’t give congress.
It is within this context that I was surprised by a new question on the ATF Form 8 ((5320.11) Part II. This form is for the renewal of a Federal Firearms License I have circled it in the photo below. Having had my Curios & Relics FFL for going on 18 years, this will make my sixth renewal of my collector’s license. My last renewal was in 2011 and it did not have this question on it.
ATF using onerous regs to shut down gun dealers? Even those with a 99.9% rate of filling out paper work correctly.
Sig made a muzzle device that featured unenclosed baffles. ATF said it was a suppressor. A judge said to be a suppressor it had to actually suppress. Now, ATF is hitting the constructive possession angle, because you could enclose it.
Well, I have some PVC, wire mesh and some foam. I’m clearly in constructive possession.
So, someone took the ATF ruling that trusts aren’t people and applied to make a machine gun. ATF sent them an approved form 1. Apparently, ATF thinks this ruling only applies to some things and not others and called the guy asking him to send it back. Personally, I’d lawyer up and tell them to fuck off. I wouldn’t build the gun until talking to a good lawyer but definitely tell them to fuck off.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
blog advertising is good for you