The implications of that story seem overblown in the firearm blogosphere. There's been a good discussion here:Originally Posted by Cacafuego
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14048
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
The implications of that story seem overblown in the firearm blogosphere. There's been a good discussion here:
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14048
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
"If you run into an a**hole in the morning, you ran into an a**hole. If you run into a**holes all day, you're the a**hole." - Raylan Givens
Oops. That makes sense, that AR pistol is legal vs SBS. I've always suspected that the ATF person who issued the legalizing opinion was off the reservation, though, and that the ATF would love to walk it back if they can find an excuse
More Sig Brace news this morning - http://gunssavelives.net/gun-industr...ce-is-illegal/
Now the ATF is saying shouldering the brace like a stock IS illegal (so much for regulating the intent of design and not regulating how it is used...).
I pretty much knew this was going to happen. It will be interesting to see what happens next. I am hoping Sig will take the ATF to task over this issue, but I have my doubts about this. I suspect the BATF(U) will be getting more dramatic over the next couple of years...
-Rob
They're not just saying that... they're saying that shouldering the brace like a stock constitutes the making of a rifle (which on a pistol build would mean making an SBR). [Page 2, paragraphs 5 & 7]
Soooo.... if you build a SB15 pistol, and only ever fire it as a pistol brace, you're fine. But the second someone shoulders it, a rifle has been made? What if your buddy picks up your pistol at the range and shoulders it? Who just illegally created the SBR? Is it now an illegal SBR forever? Even if your friend is found to be the maker of said illegal SBR, when you take this magical firearm home does it remain an illegal SBR?
Also, why is this really different from shouldering a bare receiver extension (or one with cane tips or foam covers or whatever)? It wasn't 'designed' to be fired from the shoulder. You fire it from the shoulder. Did you just make an illegal SBR? Historically the ATF has said no.
These questions are obviously more rhetorical in nature. I realize I'm preaching to the choir.
Edited to add: I wonder if any of the YouTube celebrity gun-folk will take down the videos of them firing SB15 builds from the shoulder. Even CZ-USA features Colion Noir's video for their Scorpion EVO3 showing the SB15 from the shoulder on a pistol build on their official product page. Wonder if that will be changed.
Last edited by Byron; 12-26-2014 at 12:10 PM.
"If you run into an a**hole in the morning, you ran into an a**hole. If you run into a**holes all day, you're the a**hole." - Raylan Givens
So what now? We basically have two different ATF "opinion" letter that completely contradict each other? How will this play out for some poor schmuck who gets popped by the local po po for shouldering his SB15 pistol?
Not unexpected. But, BATFE's interpretation of the rules seems like a bit of a stretch to me.
I don't think it's reasonable to claim that an end user's use or misuse of a product constitutes "designing or redesigning" it. "Making or remaking" is slightly more plausible, maybe, but not much. Comes down to statutory interpretation, but I don't think that misuse, alone, can fit within the ordinary meaning of those terms. At least that's how I would argue it if I were involved in the test case. Which I won't be.
Not the first time this has happened. The NFA is just all kinds of full of neat gray areas.
Believe it or not, that is precisely what will need to happen here in order to move to "what's next". What's next is a lawsuit, but I am not sure it can happen, until someone is actually charged with a crime for shouldering the brace.
These problems are the exact reason the statutory standard is "designed and intended" to be fired from the shoulder and not "capable of" being fired from the shoulder. There are parts of federal gun law that use the more restrictive capability standard, so congress knew how to say "capable of" when they wanted to.
If they said that a person who builds a pistol using a brace with the intent of firing it from the shoulder is making an SBR, I think that would be a more defensible read of the statute, but saying that later use can change the nature of the firearm isn't a plausible interpretation of the statute.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2
So who wants to be the test case? In the end the courts will need to interpret the law regardless of ATF opinions.
Reply With Quote