Ammo For Sale

« « New surgeon general to focus on expanding prohibited persons? | Home | Narrative » »

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?

11 Responses to “The trouble with regulating things”

  1. Matthew Carberry Says:

    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.

  2. John Hardin Says:

    The classification of the firearm changes based on how you hold it?

  3. Cargosquid Says:

    So…. is THIS the “shoulder thing that goes up?”

  4. Mike Says:

    Would one of these be worth money in a pre ban way if the ATF decided they were going to ban them?

  5. mikee Says:

    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…

  6. KM Says:

    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?”

  7. Sigivald Says:

    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.

  8. Matthew Carberry Says:


    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.

  9. Linoge Says:

    Glad I snagged another SIG brace when I had the chance.

  10. emdfl Says:

    “Is the ATF blah blah, blah…?” Why, yes they are because THAT’S. WHAT. THEY. DO.

  11. Crotalus Says:

    Sounds a lot like entrapment to me.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges