Sig pistol brace and shotguns, this could be interesting - ATF Letter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpyderMan2k4

Firearms only need to be over 26 inches long.

---

As long as you don't conceal one on your person. If you do, it becomes an AOW. And, I think that is BATFE's reasoning for treating "firearms" differently from "pistols" that have "stocks that aren't stocks" that are actually used to fire the weapon from the shoulder. "Firearms" don't fit into any GCA or NFA definition, so when concealed on the person, they become an AOW, assuming they don't fit into one of the AOW exemptions. I assume BATFE's reasoning is that a "firearm's" nature can change based on its use in the AOW sense, so why wouldn't firing it from the shoulder also change it into an SBS? I think this is incorrect based on the differing definitions of an AOW and SBS. AOWs need only be capable of being concealed on the person, but SBS are supposed to be intended to be fired from the shoulder. I would think the prior letter holding that "misuse" of a brace by firing from the shoulder does not change the intent of the product would apply equally to the definition of an SBS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshs

As long as you don't conceal one on your person. If you do, it becomes an AOW. And, I think that is BATFE's reasoning for treating "firearms" differently from "pistols" that have "stocks that aren't stocks" that are actually used to fire the weapon from the shoulder. "Firearms" don't fit into any GCA or NFA definition, so when concealed on the person, they become an AOW, assuming they don't fit into one of the AOW exemptions. I assume BATFE's reasoning is that a "firearm's" nature can change based on its use in the AOW sense, so why wouldn't firing it from the shoulder also change it into an SBS? I think this is incorrect based on the differing definitions of an AOW and SBS. AOWs need only be capable of being concealed on the person, but SBS are supposed to be intended to be fired from the shoulder. I would think the prior letter holding that "misuse" of a brace by firing from the shoulder does not change the intent of the product would apply equally to the definition of an SBS.

---

All this strikes me as not much different than debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Obviously the NFA as written has long outlived any usefulness it ever had (which was probably little to none), gun design has move on but the statute hasn't.

As Tam points out, all these arcane restrictions were based upon a prohibition on handguns that didn't pass. Instead of creating more and more rules and layers of rules to the point that they have become close to incomprehensible, the ATF should recommend that Congress eliminate the short-barrel rules entirely, and then take a look at the rules on suppressors as well to see if they make any current sense.

In saying that, I don't mean to imply that I support any of the NFA--I think the whole thing is unconstitutional and a waste of time--but even those who support this sort of regulation should (in theory) be in favor of sensible and easy-to interpret laws rather than this type of mess. Of course, they won't do that because the anti-gun folks would like to make our laws as burdensome and open to strange interpretations as possible in order to dissuade people from owning guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caleb

...don't poke the lion if you don't have the juice to fight it. For example, Sig has the juice to take on the ATF whether it's over the SB15 or their 9 inch long 9mm "muzzle brake." Some joker's shop in BFE? Probably not.

---

This is an interesting aspect I hadn't considered.

Assuming for a moment that the ATF decided to reverse their previous stance on the SB15 as applied to AR pistols, what do people speculate would be Sig's most likely move?

• Fight a legal battle? Is this even possible without an SB15 owner first being charged with a crime?
• Redesign the brace? Then if that one runs into trouble, redesign again, ad nauseam?
• Wipe hands and walk away? Tell owners to just remove the SB15?

The SB15 has blown up in popularity, practically creating an entire market unto itself. They have to be seeing good returns on it, and I'm sure a number of AR manufacturers appreciate a wider variety of their uppers being purchased by the general public. Seems like a good chunk of change to just walk away from, but I also don't know what options are at their disposal.

(Again, I'm just entertaining the hypothetical here. I don't mean to fan any flames by suggesting this is inevitable: I'm just wondering what would happen if it did.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byron

This is an interesting aspect I hadn't considered.

Assuming for a moment that the ATF decided to reverse their previous stance on the SB15 as applied to AR pistols, what do people speculate would be Sig's most likely move?

• Fight a legal battle? Is this even possible without an SB15 owner first being charged with a crime?
• Redesign the brace? Then if that one runs into trouble, redesign again, ad nauseam?
• Wipe hands and walk away? Tell owners to just remove the SB15?

The SB15 has blown up in popularity, practically creating an entire market unto itself. They have to be seeing good returns on it, and I'm sure a number of AR manufacturers appreciate a wider variety of their uppers being purchased by the general public. Seems like a good chunk of change to just walk away from, but I also don't know what options are at their disposal.

(Again, I'm just entertaining the hypothetical here. I don't mean to fan any flames by suggesting this is inevitable: I'm just wondering what would happen if it did.)

---

Considering that Sig is currently fighting BATFE over the classification of a muzzle brake, I would assume they would fight over their extremely popular brace. I also think they would have standing based on the determination that the brace = SBR/SBS without any consumers being charged because they would be injured by the determination, their injury would be directly caused by the determination, and the a court with appropriate jurisdiction could redress the injury by finding that the determination is not a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Unfortunately, challenging agency interpretations of statutes the agency is charged to enforce is very difficult due to a doctrine that gives a lot of deference to the agency.

Thanks, Josh. I hadn't been following the muzzle brake issue, but just did some reading to catch up. I see what you mean about bringing suit over injury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshs

Considering that Sig is currently fighting BATFE over the classification of a muzzle brake, I would assume they would fight over their extremely popular brace. I also think they would have standing based on the determination that the brace = SBR/SBS without any consumers being charged because they would be injured by the determination, their injury would be directly caused by the determination, and the a court with appropriate jurisdiction could redress the injury by finding that the determination is not a reasonable interpretation of the statute. Unfortunately, challenging agency interpretations of statutes the agency is charged to enforce is very difficult due to a doctrine that gives a lot of deference to the agency.

---

The agency gets a lot of deference--but not if it changes its mind on a criminal law matter. For example, if in the future the ATF says a pistol AR with a Sig brace is a SBR, and brings criminal charges against someone, and if that someone had purchased the AR before the ATF changed its mind, I think a federal court would look on the prosecution very skeptically.

That being said, I wouldn't want to be the person charged because not only might I be put on trial and have to pay a fortune in legal fees, but I might have to serve a jail sentence before an appeals court decided that no deference was due under those circumstances.

Letters such as these ATF letters are not formal rules and IIRC cannot be relied on as a defense to prosecution by anyone other than the person who asked for and received the letter - if that defense is even available to them.

In any event, the law is what it is. Agencies' opinion of what the law means can be persuasive, but is non-binding on the courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TR675

Letters such as these ATF letters are not formal rules and IIRC cannot be relied on as a defense to prosecution by anyone other than the person who asked for and received the letter - if that defense is even available to them.

---

I'm pretty sure they work like IRS opinion letters since ATF started issuing them when it was still in Treasury. An IRS letter can be relied upon by the person who received it, although that ends once they receive notice of a change in the law (such as an official ruling).

That's my understanding, but I'm not an authority on the issue. I think it's the way some of our state gov't agencies work as well.

Ruh roh


http://www.shootingsportsretailer.co...the-sig-brace/