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

[Lester Polfus]

ATF's letter says it is a GCA firearm but not an NFA firearm...which doesn't make sense given the AOW language above. Basically the letter looks internally inconsistent to me.

I thought the same thing, and I guess that would be an interesting argument for a lawyer to make, at the tune of $200 an hour.

I think this whole SIG Brace thing is going to blow up on somebody someday. ATF can change their mind with little consequence, and everybody who bought one will be faced with the choice of either taking it off, and making the gun a pistol, or registering it as a SBR. I'm guessing some Anti will start screaming about the "loophole" that allows people to own "unregistered machineguns" or somebody will commit a mass shooting with one, and the party will be over.

Some of the other language in that letter is interesting. If I owned one, I'd be super careful that nobody took a picture or youtube video of me shooting it with the stock accidentally touching my shoulder.

The response about touching the shoulder seems to contradict the letter here:

http://www.gunsandammo.com/gun-culture/atf-response-firing-ar-15-pistols-shoulder-sig-pistol-brace/

[TR675]

^^^I agree with you.

The entire NFA/GCA is internally inconsistent and just plain poorly drafted - or maybe it just looks that way because there aren't many limits on human ingenuity and even an expert trying to categorize the universe of firearms is going to have a problem, and the drafters weren't experts. In any event, given that the statutes and regulations are, IMO, a mess, and that ATF doesn't seem to bother to try to keep its letter rulings consistent, and that a lot of folks like to try to skirt around the edges where agency regulatory interpretation can result in criminal liability in an unfriendly political climate...well, duckem and dodgems like the Sigbrace make me a wee bit queasy.

ETA: The second letter Lester posted is Ex. 2 (Ex. 1 being the first letter in the thread) for why dinking around with this stuff is iffy, at best...those opinion letters are nonbinding. I can't tell you how many ATF letters are running around out there that directly contradict each other.

ETA-ETA: so I don't have time to research the issue but apparently I do have time to write up a bunch of mildly-informed posts. Ok, I'm out now.

[LittleLebowski]

I don't have anything good to say about the knucklehead that started this little debacle.

[Tamara]

So I'm in the middle of something and don't have time to really research the issue, but off the top of my head I don't understand why a "shotgun" pistol with a Sigbrace attached would not be classified as a destructive device (defined as a weapon with a bore of more than 1/2 inch in diameter, except for "shotguns," which are defined as smooth bore weapons designed to be fired from the shoulder and used for sporting purposes) or as an Any Other Weapon. Am I off base here?

Like I wrote elsewhere about a workaround (a longer receiver extension from MI) that would allow a VFG on a 10.5" AR pistol without making it an AOW by bringing the OAL out over 26":

Here's how it is with shotguns (and part of the reason there's a blank for "other" on 4473s now.)
If a pump shotgun with a pistol grip that has *never* had a buttstock on it is sold, it is not a shotgun. A shotgun, per federal law, is "a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder". A PGO shotgun is not. However it is also manifestly not a handgun because it is not "designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand". It is not a short-barreled shotgun because it was not "any weapon made from a shotgun (whether by alteration, modification or otherwise)" and it is not an AOW because "The term “any other weapon” means any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person..."
Therefore they exist in a sort of limbo, in that they are obviously firearms by law, but don't fit any specific legal subcategory (like bare receivers that have not been made into a gun yet) hence, "other".

The THEORY (which has not been tested in court; I wouldn't be surprised if MI has submitted something to Tech Branch though) behind what is being done here is exploiting the same loophole. Is this a rifle? No, because it is not "designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder". Is it a pistol? No, because with the second grip it is not "designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand". Is it an Any Other Weapon? No, because being over the magic 26" number it is no longer "capable of being concealed on the person..."

[Tamara]

^^^I agree with you.

The entire NFA/GCA is internally inconsistent and just plain poorly drafted - or maybe it just looks that way because...

...it originally included ALL HANDGUNS.

The whole barrel length/OAL thing makes more sense if you realize that it was supposed to criminalize all concealable firearms, but the National Revolver Association got handguns stricken from it at the last minute.

[HCM]

I think the difference is that an AR pistol is legal before the addition of the brace. Whereas the shotgun pictured above is not legal prior to the brace and would not be afterword.

So I'm in the middle of something and don't have time to really research the issue, but off the top of my head I don't understand why a "shotgun" pistol with a Sigbrace attached would not be classified as a destructive device (defined as a weapon with a bore of more than 1/2 inch in diameter, except for "shotguns," which are defined as smooth bore weapons designed to be fired from the shoulder and used for sporting purposes) or as an Any Other Weapon. Am I off base here?

The previously pictured weapon would be an AOW with or without the SIG Brace. If you added a rifled barrel to avoid the AOW issue, it would become a DD since the bore is over .50 cal. What if you used a .410 / 45 colt like the Taurus Judge - rifled barrel and under .50 cal?

Not trying to open up a whole new world of DERP but what about a Mossberg .410 pump with a rifled barrel, pistol grip, SIG brace and a chainsaw foregrip ....... with the SIG brace, would you need to get over 26"? or not? what if it came that way from the factory like a PGO shotgun ?

[Tamara]

The pictured shotgun would be an AOW with or without the SIG Brace

No. Not if the OAL is greater than 26" it would not.

[Tamara]

Given:

• How common SBRs and SBSs have become
• The established "common use" precedent in SCOTUS 2A jurisprudence
• The documented legislative history behind the law's structure

I don't see why we haven't been shopping for a sympathetic defendant to get the OAL/BBL length language stricken from the NFA while we still had a likely 5-4 outcome. Those provisions are obviously and documentably a vestige of the attempt to ban handguns and serve no good purpose except to get honest people jammed up for technical crimes with no malicious intent.

[Jeep]

Like I wrote elsewhere about a workaround (a longer receiver extension from MI) that would allow a VFG on a 10.5" AR pistol without making it an AOW by bringing the OAL out over 26":

That is the only explanation that I have seen that makes sense out of all of this. It is amazing, though, that people risk criminal prosecution based on laws like this that obviously were written by people with almost no understanding of what they were trying to regulate.

[Lester Polfus]

Given:

• How common SBRs and SBSs have become
• The established "common use" precedent in SCOTUS 2A jurisprudence
• The documented legislative history behind the law's structure

I don't see why we haven't been shopping for a sympathetic defendant to get the OAL/BBL length language stricken from the NFA while we still had a likely 5-4 outcome. Those provisions are obviously and documentably a vestige of the attempt to ban handguns and serve no good purpose except to get honest people jammed up for technical crimes with no malicious intent.

Because to become that sympathetic defendant you have to deal with a seriously screwed up agency that has no effective oversight and there is a non-trivial possibility that you might have your house burned down or children, or at least your dogs, shot?