Just a hair better than an LCP or J frame, non NFA:

Looks obviously shoulder-mounted and the barrel appears to be 11". How is it non-NFA?

Backup of what?

Not shoulder mounted, the lower part of the "buttstock" wrap around the side of the forearm for support.

Who manufactures the wraparound stock? Is this configuration considered a pistol?

That's a receiver extension (designed to be rested on the cheek, not the shoulder, when fired), not a shoulder stock, thus it's classified as a handgun, not an SBR. There is controversy as to whether or not it's legal to use your shoulder to support that receiver extension, however. Strictly speaking, it seems perfectly legal, since classification is what makes something NFA or not, not how you choose to shoot it. I can, for example, rest the butt of a Model 29 S&W revolver against my shoulder when I shoot it without it becoming an NFA item. That's because it's classified as a handgun, not an SBR. Same with the firearm in the starting post of this thread. The legal definition of a shoulder stock is that it's designed to be shouldered, without regard for whether or not it's possible to shoulder it.

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

It made by Shockwave, called the Blade. It is considered a pistol.

Backup to my HK P30....well, technically, my P30 is the back up to this.

I was aware of all that and the last I heard you could get in deep [bleep] by shouldering one. The reason I asked was the look of the one depicted is different from the braces I've seen.

It looks like a nice setup. I hope you enjoy it with no trouble from the hoodlums running our country.

Yeah, the only time someone will see me doing it is if I had to use it...in which case I dont care. Technically, you can still use it for cheek weld, just cant touch you shoulder.

While the ATF cant make the law and thus there view of the "pistol braces" is just opinion.....I dont want to be the guy to have to prove it in court.

The ones coming out of Sig (with their arm brace attached at the factory) come with a copy of a letter from the ATF stating that how you shoot it doesn't alter its designation as a non-NFA firearm. The letter even gives the example of shouldering it as not altering its designation.

Youre probably used to seeing this one:

Which the ATF later recanted its statement and issued an opinion letter saying it does now make the gun an NFA item if shouldered.

Pay particular attention to the last full paragraph of the letter included with the Sig, which is stowed in the grip compartment.

I tried a AR Pistol with the "Blade" on it yesterday at my local gun store. And while it looked cool, I found it to be very uncomfortable. could be just me, though.

Nope. A recanting has to specifically refer back to the original letter, stating that a rule has been altered or reversed. The second letter doesn't do that, but merely expresses a differing opinion on the part of someone in the same office. Since there is no statement published to the general public by that office addressing this matter, one may rely on either letter, or ignore them both completely, relying instead on the law as written, which only prohibits shoulder stocks, and doesn't specify which ways one may shoot their non-NFA firearms. The ATF has already classified the Sigs as non-NFA, even with the arm braces installed at the factory, which is why store personnel don't get arrested for selling them absent NFA paperwork. There is no precedent in the law for a manner of shooting an unaltered firearm altering its NFA/non-NFA designation.

Which is why I said opinion, but Im not going to be the guinea pig to see which way the court leans.

Its not comfortable by normal standards, but my current state or residence doesnt allow NFA items so this is as close as I can get.

Who makes it? How much?

Company called Shockwave, 40 bucks I think, another 20 for the KAK tube

"Shockwave"... sounds like a fitting name.... I'll bet that puppy is Loud.... cheek weld shooting without very good hearing protection would likely be hmmm, unpleasant.

The sudden sight of it might just scare a bad guy to death thought

Is it fun to shoot?

There's a lot of dangerous information in this thread.

The ATF most certainly did refer to their earlier letter and they made it very clear that if you shoulder a stabilizing device you have created an unregistered SBR.

That's stupid and nearly impossible to enforce. But it's also stupid to give erroneous legal advice on the Internet.

https://www.atf.gov/file/11816/download

The actual law hinges on what a "shoulder stock" is.

In this thread, among knowledgeable gun enthusiasts, there was confusion about what the brace was because it looks like a shoulder stock. So it looks like a shoulder stock, and you use it like a shoulder stock.

Does anyone here want to try to convince a jury that the thing that looks like a shoulder stock and you used just like a shoulder stock, ISN'T a shoulder stock? Good luck with that.

The jury will see it for what it is, a failed and ridiculous attempt at acquiring an SBR without the hassle and expense of an ATF stamp.

I hate that the law exists as it is and I would never enforce it. But it is what it is. And people need to fully comprehend exactly what the law is, how their actions will be perceived and how those two things will affect them before they decide what course of action to take.

I'd love to throw up a big middle finger to the ATF and live life with an unregistered SBR slung over my shoulder. But that wouldn't be fair to my wife and kids who are depending on me to be there for them. So $200 (or in my case a 16" barrel) are worth being able to watch my kids grow up.

Not giving advice. Merely arguing my position. Opinions in personal letters don't establish laws. Laws must be promulgated to be enforceable. The first opinion letter, however, had the advantage of being consistent with the law as it's written. The second letter has no such advantage. Nor does it make any legal sense. There is no legal precedent whereby the method of firing an unaltered firearm can alter its classification.

We don't need to convince anyone of that fact. The ATF already signed off on the fact that it's not an NFA firearm, thus legal sales to the public under the category of handgun, thus the ATF already designated the brace as a non-shoulder stock.

I'm speaking specifically of those handguns made by Sig with their particular brace installed at the factory.

This is my take as well. While its enough to make me cautious of how I employ this gun in front of others, it not enough for me not to own one or use it how I see fit should the need arise.

I could rally give 2 sh*ts what 2 different ATF analysts have said, its just their opinion. Im sure at some time in the future this play out in court but it wont be me on the hook. I know the ins and outs and pitfalls. I'll play by the rules in public. Its a purpose built gun and serves it purpose perfectly and legally.

Yeah, if im shooting without earpro, i'll take the unpleasantness over the alternative

Of course its fun. More importantly, very handy in a vehicle and indoors.

Warpig, I think your approach is reasonable. I generally take that approach myself.

PS Sig is currently in the process of bringing suit against the ATF for letter number 2. They seek to require them to support the statement with law, which they won't be able to do.

Looks like a "backpack gun" to me.

Cool not-rifle.




Travis

Sig makes it. The one in the opening post is a civilian legal version of the current Swiss Military rifle.

Close but not quite. The current Swiss rifle is the 551 series, this this is a 556 series, the primary difference being the magzine. AR type vs STANAG.

The 551A1 would be a better example.

hahaha

Yes, I knew that the mags were different in that the American version took AR mags. As I recall, they go for somewhere in the range of $1500.00, right?

Sig Challenges ATF Letter No. 2

like anything else, just depends on where you look. I paid 899.00 for my rifle and jsut under a 1k for the pistol. Sig has since moved away from the 556 and is pushing the 556xi which will disappear soon with the MCX/MPX and 516 release.

I dont believe they actually challenged anything to date, they said they might int he future.

Just be careful, BATFE is starting to lose their sense of humor on the "shooting brace"; I fully expect in the next year they'll declare them to no longer be a "brace" and just label them a buttstock. I'm sure they're working with their legal department right now to try to define what constitutes a stock vs. what's a spring tube vs. what's a "brace" (if they even allow a brace anymore). So keep your ear to the ground, it's expected they'll invalidate all the letters they sent out and declare all the braces a stock.

They have already said anyone seen shooting a "pistol" equipped with a "brace" to be in violation of the law.

But your 556 is DAMN cool!!!

They never said that. he whole point of the brace was to assist in shooting the pistol. Thats still true as of today.

1. Im not sure how a brace, already declared brace, because it braces the gun, can become a stock overnight, unless it was designed to be fired form the shoulder, which a brace is not.

2. I'll get some popcorn for the ensuing discrimination lawsuit from disabled people all over the country.

My thought exactly. You beat me to it.

Well then you're not familiar with how many times the BATFE has reversed their rulings on things at a whim.

Rarely does the AFT call it a "change" but rather a "clarification". But I have seen where neither word was used and you were just told your previously legal weapon is now an NFA item.

Here's a couple of things on the issue
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/atf-change-minds-brace-people-kept-sending-letters/

http://guns.buzz/2015/01/17/atf-rev...s-making-thousands-of-gun-owners-felons/

Well good luck with that suit, I'm sure you can follow it closely from your cell, or while out on bail.

Read the links I provided.

How many arrests have there been for safely using unaltered firearms at the range ... firearms unaltered from factory distribution and lawful retail sale, as a result of an ATF alteration in interpretation of law?

I don't know, but if they change their ruling and you do get arrested, they won't ask if you used safely and unaltered. I personally wouldn't want to risk anything to likelihood.

Generally when ATF reverses one of their positions, an arrest follows. There have men makers of 80% receivers where ATF changed their position and then made an arrest.

I wouldn't leave anything to trusting ATF to be reasonable about something.

That would seem a key question to answer before prattling on further. It's possible I could be struck down by lightning as soon as I walk out my front door, but I take that chance every day. Governments commit tyrannical and lawless acts all the time, but I don't live my life in constant anticipation of it.

Gotta be totally honest here, but please keep in mind I live in America and most people do not...

I have probably seen at least 5 different pistol/Sig braced AR's at our local range. Everybody shooting them like rifles. Nobody GAFF.




Travis

Same here. Even if someone did, prove it was on my shoulder and not a 1/4in off. Find a LEO that cares and a DA that will prosecute a NOT law. I play the game as to not be a guinea pig but the ATFs opinion would stop me from using it how I see fit if the need should arise.

One last point if I may. This is only an observation.

The percentage of LE personnel that I have met, that have a working knowledge of the NFA is right around ZERO.

The number of ATF Agents I have encountered in the field, in town, etc. is exactly ZERO. I own suppressors and they are used almost daily. I have never, once, ever been concerned about being checked or questioned about them. They're legally purchased items, I know they're legally purchased items, anybody I associate (wife, good friends) with is on my trust, so they can legally possess them, and I never give them a second thought. Ever.




Travis

I assume you meant to say the ATF's opinion wouldn't stop you from using it how you see fit should the need arise.

Indeed, my brain works faster than my hand it appears.

I can't say how it would be interpreted by the NFA. But I know of one instance where the ATF didn't play by the rules.

A fellow I know of on another forum built a semi-auto FN FAL. The trigger group was malfunctioning and it would occasionally double or triple.

ATF officer at the range arrested him for having an unlicensed machine gun even though it was plainly obvious that it contained none of the full auto parts and that the receiver wasn't machined to accept them.

A big attorney fee got him out of it after a day in court. But he got put through a significant process.

Doesnt really matter if it had full auto parts in it. What matters is if its capable of doing it. Not saying the dude should have been arrested but he should've stopped firing it until it was fixed.

That's actually happened several times. There was a guy in Sacramento who took his AR out for the first time. Brand new, unfired rifle. Shot it a few times and it kept doubling. There was an ATF agent at the range at the time and he was arrested. I never heard how it all shook down, but I do know he had to at least pay for a lawyer.

Ya'll can do as you please.

Apples and oranges. There's actually clear legislation against the possession of a full auto firearm absent a tax stamp. Absence of intent is a defense, but that's for the judge or jury to decide. The case of firearms that are ATF-Classified as handguns, unaltered from original factory and retail-sale condition, are an entirely different matter. There is no legal precedent for such a classification being altered by anything to do with the method chosen for firing it, absent any physical alteration of the firearm.

I believe the latest "clarification" by the ATF stated the words "used as intended" and specifically stated that if altered from its original intentions and fired from the shoulder becomes illegal as its now a defacto SBR.

I doubt anyone who observes you firing the gun will care but i wouldnt be posting pics so a rat can turn me in either.

If I use my fountain pen to perform an emergency tracheotomy on a choking restaurant patron, does my pen become medical equipment subject to Federal regulations on surgical implements?

TRR do you even own a pistol with an arm brace? Have you even read the ATF letter. You keep spewing that the ATF declared them legal for any use which as is usual from you is BS. They said and i again reiterate they are "legal for use as designed, firing from the shoulder makes it an SBR".

We all know your a kook but we atleast figured as a public educator you would take things on a whole and not pick and choose sections.

Please tell me how the ATF allowed them to be fired from the shoulder. Here the the original ATF classification for the brace that you fail to recognize:

In the classification letter of November 26, 2012, ATF noted that a “shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol’s handgrip-then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. Thus configured, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.” When strapped to the wrist and used as designed, it is clear the device does not allow the firearm to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, ATF concluded that, pursuant to the information provided, “the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder.” In making the classification ATF determined that the objective design characteristics of the stabilizing brace supported the stated intent. - See more at: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/01/16/sig-brace-no-go-per-atf/#sthash.yjk8ImaP.dpuf

The most recent calrification of the rules:

“The pistol stabilizing brace was neither ‘designed’ nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item,” the January 17 ATF letter says. “Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.”


So NOWHERE has the ATF EVER stated you could kegally shoulder fire a pistol wuth stabilizing brace sans tax stamp.

“Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol … must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the [National Firearms Act],”

Do us a favor and only comment on things you know like 1911's in the showers and imaginary gangsters chasing you.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Your some kind of a special moron. You spew legal advice yet have no law license or degree. Your a flat danger to all gun owners who may heed your advice.

Gun lawyers themselves have said for years that shoulder firing them makes them an infacto SBR.

I own both a Sig brace and a Shockwave ad have actually paid my money to talk to some rather large gun rights lawyers on this very topic and all 3 said in effect "nope thats an SBR".

You claim the ATF letters dont revoke the previois copied despite being clearly stated on their website that all contradictory letters are revoke.

You should get your money back. I assume you wont mind posting the names of these lawyers so I can call and speak with them?

No problem, Second Amenent Foundation out of Bellevue WA.

Dont need any money back as they are one of the most succesful fun rights groups/lawyers in the US.

They were very clear that the wording of the inital letter i received with my Sig Brace stated its use was legal "as designed". The initial design approval letter from the ATF states its legal as a brace only.

Sometime later the ATF stated in a few individual letters that shoulder firing didnt constitute SBR. A short time later they recanted with their latest letter of clarification stating all other letters were void and that shoulder firing constitues an SBR under the NFA.

The NFA basically defines a buttstock as the part of the stock located behind the breech mechanism of a firearm for the purpose of firing from the shoulder.

The FAQ of the NFA specifically states:

If a person has a pistol and an attachable shoulder stock, does this constitute possession of an NFA firearm?

Yes, unless the barrel of the pistol is at least 16 inches in length (and the overall length of the firearm with stock attached is at least 26 inches). However, certain stocked handguns, such as original semiautomatic Mauser “Broomhandles” and Lugers, have been removed from the purview of the NFA as collectors’ items.

[26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11]

The ATF only issues clarifications, the NFA opinion on this is muddy at best.

To each their own but people i pay for defense of my gun rights say don't do it so i will heed their advice and use them only as a brace or cheek rest.

Has anyone here said anything to the contrary?

Nobody attached a shoulder stock, we attached a brace as defined by the ATF>

Last time I checked you can still shoulder a buffer tube, has the ATF ruled that shouldering a buffer tube makes it a stock and is now an NFA item?

Putting a buffer tube on my shoulder doesnt make it a stock, putting a brace on my shoulder doesnt make it a stock. AS I said several time in this post, if challenged, the ATF would lose, it just wont be me that does it.

Your missing the key point here which is that the brace has never been classified a stock.

Yes TRR has repeatedly stated that shouldering a Shockwave or Sig brace did not constitute an SBR per the NFA and this was legal.

Sir I do not believe i missed anything.

The NFA defines a buttstock as the part intended to be fired from the shoulder. If you put the brace on the gun and willing choose to fire the weapon from the shoulder you have altered its intended use and under the NFA made an SBR.

Per the Second Amendement Foundation the design is as a brace and it is licensed as such, not as an adjunct to be placed against the shoulder.

Any rational person can look at either design and see that they have clear cut similarities to a desinged buttstock. If someones caught and thusly charged for shoulder firing that weapon i highly doubt they will win their case.

Like i said im an advocate for both products in their use , i own both and use them legally, but posting people can legally shoulder fire them is assinine.

Cars are designed andlicensed to be driven on the road. You use one as a battering ram (as other then designed) and bet your ass you will be charged for such. Same with the brace, use it as it wadnt intended and your likely to lose.

Yes and no. The ATF has never that i am aware of or can find issued any statements that shoulder firing via buffer tube is legal.

And again it comes down to the ATF stating their use is legal "as desined". They were not allegedly designed to be shoulder fired, they were not presented for approval to the ATF to be shoulder fired and the few letters saying they could be were clearly redacted by the latest letter.

Again the as designed part is the key per gun rights lawyers i spoke to before my purchases. Theyr were clear that use outside of the design can and will deemed illegal.

Again noone is likely to give 2 shvitts if you do shoulder fire it but im doubting it will be long before some assclown posts a pic on their Facebook doing just that and gets charged.

Advocating a use that clearly skirts a long term federal law is reckless at best and not worth the risk to myself, my family,my job or finances.

Well my pure SPECULATION on the subject was that I expect ATF will at some point REVERSE their stance, and just label all the arm braces a shoulder stock. It hasn't happened yet, but I expect it will. ATF has reversed their position on various things over the years and I kinda see the writing on the wall with this one. I hope I'm wrong, because it's a slick "loophole". I've always thought the SBR law was BS.

I had to do some digging through old files but here is a copy of an ATF letter that i was sent when i asked a lawyer this very question (I'm sure its all over the net as well) His advice to me was that the ATF stance on this issue was very clear in this letter and that he himself saw no legal way around this interpretation.

Yes, it's quite absurd in itself. What could the rationale even be, seeing that handguns are legal and rifles are legal, absent any federal taxes. Why should something of a middle length be discouraged from ownership by a felony charge? Seems completely arbitrary.

Couple of things and I'll go back into lurk mode.

1-It's silly to argue about this because nobody is going to change anyone else's mind. One group sees things as they are, the other sees things as they should be. And never the twain shall meet.

2-Nick Leghorn, who wrote this article for TTAG, is an idiot+P. I corresponded extensively with him about his articles on the Sig brace and finally contacted the editor after he refused to redact some of his arguments. Even after the ATF re-clarified their reclarification, proving that he was wrong, Leghorn left his wrong advice on the site. And that advice wasn't just wrong, it was bordering on criminal negligence IMO.



3-Just a random observation.... If I told my kids "don't have a rifle with a short barrel" and they created a pistol--Then put what looked exactly like a rifle stock on their pistol--Then started using their "pistol" with what looked exactly like a rifle stock to shoot their "pistol" just like a rifle--

I'd ground them. And whatever the ATF equivalent of grounding is, that's what's going to happen with this mess.

That's how the entire Sig brace thing has always struck me....A couple of kids that found a loophole to keep their cool toy. And that'll never work in the long run.

You mean Foghorn Leghorn?

Just a warning: The ATF earlier this year has ventured into new territory, declaring that the method by which one chooses to discharge a firearm may independently change its classification, even without any physical alteration to the firearm. As a consequence of this new ATF guideline, the mere touching of a second hand to your handgun when firing it will independently transform said handgun into an illegal NFA item under the classification of Any Other Weapon.

Formerly, a design change was required for this transformation to take place, specifically the attachment of a vertical fore-grip, but the new theory adopted by the ATF earlier this year is that method of use is now sufficient to alter the classification of a firearm all by itself.

The rationale for prohibiting a vertical fore-grip being attached to a handgun was that it redesigned a handgun into a firearm intended to be used with two hands. With the new guideline, however, actually firing a handgun with two hands is all that's needed to change its classification to an AOW (Any Other Weapon), even absent the addition of a vertical fore-grip.

Be careful out there, folks. Only use one hand when firing your handguns. It's not worth risking jail time over.

This is the legal way:



This is now illegal due to transforming the handgun into an AOW, which is an NFA firearm: