ATF and stabilizing braces

[Trigger Time]

I think you should be required to wear a handicapped placard around your neck if you need a "stabilizing brace" to shoot a firearm. I put these devices in the same category as vertical forearms on carbines and shotguns - why on Earth do you need THAT? Just more "tactical fashion accessory of the week".

Obama says your checks in the mail

 

[Jeremy1066]

I think you should be required to wear a handicapped placard around your neck if you need a "stabilizing brace" to shoot a firearm. I put these devices in the same category as vertical forearms on carbines and shotguns - why on Earth do you need THAT? Just more "tactical fashion accessory of the week".

Master Snorko, you're very welcome. So do you think a "stabilizing brace" is something you might "need" to be proficient? Please feel free to make your own decision.

Have you read any of this thread or others pertaining to this conversation? Let me guess....you are also for universal background checks.....right?

 

[Roadie]

As a fairly new gun owner, (compared to most here)... it amazes me how many Rights some gun owners are willing to give up, just because those Rights do not apply to them personally.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

 

[Jeremy1066]

As a fairly new gun owner, (compared to most here)... it amazes me how many Rights some gun owners are willing to give up, just because those Rights do not apply to them personally.

Well said. I guess that's why you're a mod

Drail (if that's your real name), if you would have read the thread(s) pertaining to this, you would realize (maybe) that it has absolutely nothing to do with the "Sig brace" and everything to do with personal freedom. I think the number of people that have the Sig brace and use it as designed is probably less than 5% (number pulled out of my derrière). The point is, the ATF first said that shouldering a pistol with the Sig brace attached does not change the classification of the pistol. Now, they are saying the shouldering a pistol with the Sig brace is a violation of NFA and changes the classification from pistol to SBR (and a $200 tax stamp) just by changing the way the weapon is held. Does this make sense to you?

 

[DanVoils]

Wouldn't it be awesome if every. single. handgun. owner wrote the Tech Branch a letter asking them if holding a HAND gun with two handS also equals a "design change"?

I mean, if they were designed to be fired with two hands, wouldn't they then be called a HANDS gun?

I probably shouldn't mention a tooth brush should be called a teeth brush then should I?

 

[HoughMade]

I think you should be required to wear a handicapped placard around your neck if you need a "stabilizing brace" to shoot a firearm. I put these devices in the same category as vertical forearms on carbines and shotguns - why on Earth do you need THAT? Just more "tactical fashion accessory of the week".

Therefore it should be outlawed?

 

[Beowulf]

There is a new brace called "the blade" that got approved, it doesn't even have a strap or anything just looks like a thin stock. How did that get approved and now ATF is changing rules on the dig brace?

It didn't get approved quite the same way. If I recall, their ATF letter stated that it couldn't be shouldered (much like the most recent Sig letter did). So, same stupid logic from the ATF.

 

[Tactically Fat]

I probably shouldn't mention a tooth brush should be called a teeth brush then should I?

It was invented in Kentucky.

It was named the tooth brush for a reason.

 

[THE BIG SITT]

It was invented in Kentucky.

It was named the tooth brush for a reason.

 

[Excalibur]

The difference is that the shock blade wasn't approved the same way as the brace or others that came before it like the Thorsden. It no way does the NFA actually state what the ATF is stating on what redesign means. What the NFA does say is very specific and does not including the brace and as previously stated, the brace is designed as is for a different purpose but like the naked buffer tube, shouldering it has no meaning to the NFA because neither are stocks in any legal sense. Just like extra long fancy muzzle brakes aren't silencers.

 

[CathyInBlue]

So, what if I added a shoulder pad to my jacket specificly for making a nice, firm pocket for the end of the buffer tube to rest in? Would shouldering that buffer tube in that pocket on that jacket make the rifle/jacket combo an NFA item?

 

[jwh20]

So, what if I added a shoulder pad to my jacket specificly for making a nice, firm pocket for the end of the buffer tube to rest in? Would shouldering that buffer tube in that pocket on that jacket make the rifle/jacket combo an NFA item?

I've thought about that same thing. So the question is does the NFA and the ATF cover clothing? It seems like a real stretch to me but then we get back to that pesky intent thing in their new determination letter. So if you add a special assembly to your jacket that you intend to use as a stock, does that make a pistol into an SBR/NFA item? By the current ATF's screwed-up reasoning, probably YES.

Could they convict you in court? Probably not. Could they bankrupt you or otherwise ruin your life over this? Probably!

 

[calcot7]

Wow! ......What a great idea! Now we wait to see which sportswear manufacturer comes out with the first one of its kind.

So, what if I added a shoulder pad to my jacket specificly for making a nice, firm pocket for the end of the buffer tube to rest in? Would shouldering that buffer tube in that pocket on that jacket make the rifle/jacket combo an NFA item?

 

[calcot7]

I've thought about that same thing. So the question is does the NFA and the ATF cover clothing? It seems like a real stretch to me but then we get back to that pesky intent thing in their new determination letter. So if you add a special assembly to your jacket that you intend to use as a stock, does that make a pistol into an SBR/NFA item? By the current ATF's screwed-up reasoning, probably YES.

Could they convict you in court? Probably not. Could they bankrupt you or otherwise ruin your life over this? Probably!

No it will make that item of clothing into an SBR or AOW.

 

[JeffINGunner]

Kind of like the shoestring, metal ring machine gun thing...

 

[Lebowski]

Somebody call the ATF!!!!

 

[Trigger Time]

So ATF classifies pistols as under 26" OAL (overall length) and a "firearm" as a gun that has no stock but has an OAL of 26" or longer.
So if you put a Sig Brace or a shockwave brace onto a "firearm; OAL 26" or greater, no stock" which now by atf definition does NOT now have the 2 hand requirement and is NOT a pistol, the shoulder firing of the "firearm" is legal?

Prove me wrong

 

[Vigilant]

Prove me wrong

Preferably on video, that you upload to YT, forwarding a copy to the resident SAC of the ATFE enforcement office! Just to stir the pot!

 

[Trigger Time]

Preferably on video, that you upload to YT, forwarding a copy to the resident SAC of the ATFE enforcement office! Just to stir the pot!

I'm just asking here for sake of argument. For one I don't post YouTube anything. Also it's not stirring the pot if its legal to do this.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm just asking here for sake of argument. For one I don't post YouTube anything. Also it's not stirring the pot if its legal to do this.

You're looking for a sucker to test this theory out, aren't you?

Kut (says "not it")