Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns New backup gun

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: