ATF reclassifies SigBrace... you might want to read this if you have a Sig Brace

[Solus]

Now we need some Powerful Magnets. one worn as a shoulder pad and the other, with the reverse pole, on the buffer tube.

They need to be designed so that a "pocket" is formed with the shoulder pad setup and the buffer tube is held there without drifting.

They need to be strong enough so that a firm, solid position is possible without the two magnets touching.

Likely to be pretty impractical but might be fun to see BATFE's response.   Probably outlawing protrusions over a certain length at the rear of the pistol. ...  Then you just make the shoulder pad with a long projection forward...and watch the fun again.

[Solus]

Was thinking how illogical this is...

So if you put the pistol to your shoulder suing the brace as a shoulder stock, you need to get it approved as a SBR.   

But put a longer barrel on it so it is a regular rifle when held against your shoulder, it becomes illegal when you remove it from your shoulder?  or something? 

What it needs is a Selector Switch with the settings:   Pistol, SBR, Rifle

[MikeBjerum]

Profitability must by high with this thing. Going to court against a government agency isn't cheap. Then again neither is that brace. $130.00+ for a plastic molded product.

I'm sure this is about more than the brace.  That is what the case will focus on, but if an appointed agency with no accountability can get by with this there is no stopping them.  The Courts are the only peaceful way to stop tyranny in this case at this time.  We need Pres. GWB to come back and inform BATF they are off base like he did with OSHA over stopping the shipment of ammunition.

[billt]

The ATF reverses their position more than a soccer mom trying to squeeze a SUV into a parking space at Wal-Mart. This happened with the "Hellfire" trigger group, and a lot of other things. What happens is at first they don't see it as a problem, (translated...popular), so they allow it with, "A Letter Of Approval". Then as soon as it is they, "take a second look". This is more apt to happen with devices looking for a way around an existing ATF law already on the books. The Sig Brace looking and acting like a SBR stock, and the Hellfire making a gun full auto that isn't.

If they then ban whatever it is, it gets real expensive for the company to fight them. Remember, the ATF has the taxpayer paying their legal expenses. They will appeal and appeal until the Plaintiff runs out of money. Just like the cigarette manufacturers did in the 70's, when they were sued for causing cancer. I'm not trying to insinuate any of this is right. It's just the way it is with our current legal system.

[tombogan03884]

Thompson Center beat them twice, once on the 45/410 Contender barrel, and again on the Contender carbine.

[Sponsor]

[billt]

There really wasn't anything to "beat". If you're caught with a pistol barrel on a shoulder stock rifle receiver, you are in violation. What they, (the courts), ruled, is you can possess both, and it's perfectly legal. But if you assemble them to create a SBR, you are then in violation.

Sandra Day O'Conner, gave a good interpretation by claiming that most people who own a shotgun, also own a hacksaw. That in itself does not make them in possession of a sawed off shotgun.

[Big Frank]

I heard that if you had a stock on a Contender pistol frame, even if it didn't have any barrel on it, you had to be in possession of a carbine barrel first. I'm not sure if that's right or not.

[PegLeg45]

Was thinking how illogical this is...

So if you put the pistol to your shoulder suing the brace as a shoulder stock, you need to get it approved as a SBR.   

But put a longer barrel on it so it is a regular rifle when held against your shoulder, it becomes illegal when you remove it from your shoulder?  or something? 

What it needs is a Selector Switch with the settings:   Pistol, SBR, Rifle

It all depends on how the serial numbered receiver is classified when the form 4473 is written up.

List it as a rifle, then barrel length must be 16" or longer or it is a SBR...and OAL length has to be minimum of 26" (I think).

List it as a pistol, then barrel length can be any length (again, I think) BUT it CAN NOT have a shoulder stock, or be shouldered.
Now, I was told at a gun shop once that a "pistol" with a barrel longer than 16" could have a shoulder stock (??).

Maybe someone can clarify.... I'm to lazy today to look it up on the ATF site.

I'll have to go to the NFA board and see if it is there.

[les snyder]

the basic premise that I understood when I built my "pistol"

to be a SBR, it first has to be a rifle... therefore, a new from manufacturer lower receiver, marked on the ATF4473 as "other" and listed as receiver (not a rifle) can be made into a legal "pistol"

any receiver extension (buffer tube)(rifle or carbine or aftermarket pistol) could be used as long as a butt stock could not readily be attached

a rubber end cap could be added, and was not considered a stock

[alfsauve]

I believe how it was first manufactured is one of the keys.  If it was first a pistol, then you can convert it to a rifle and back no problem.    But if it was first manufactured as a rifle then you can't convert to a pistol, at least not without paperwork and approval.

AR lowers should be sold as "other" and you perform the final manufacturing step.  So, for all lowers I buy regardless of my final intent, I'm going to first put a pistol buffer tube and a short barrel upper on it.  Take pictures and document that I "manufactured" it as a pistol.    Then I'm free to do either a pistol or rifle config.      To avoid the SBR entanglement, I just have to make sure you never put a short barreled upper on a lower with a stock and that I have no easy way of adding a stock to my pistol buffer.   (No officer, that ergonomically shaped piece of 2x4 and 1-1/4" drill bit in my bug-out bag has absolutely nothing to do with my AR pistol.)

The problem B A T F & E has created is in defining what exactly is a "stock".