It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATF rules that SB15 'arm brace' can legally be shouldered for pistols

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
The device in question is circled in red.



In the recent past couple years, "pistol" AK's, AR 15's, HK's, etc... have been flooding the market. (Some are even cheaper that than rifle counterparts nowdays!). They're literally AK's/AR 15's without a buttstock and a shorter barrel than their rifle versions. (Many AR pistols did have the buffer tube, but that didn't do too much good to shoulder). Long story short, these pistols were somewhat uncomfortable to shoot since there was no buttstock to shoulder, and have very short barrels.

Then, SIG came out with the SB15 arm brace, which created a few questions. Can you legally shoulder an arm brace without breaking SBR laws?

Anyone familiar with SBR's? (Short barrel rifles). The ATF says "A firearm that meets the definition of a SBR consists of a rifle that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length." If someone wants to purchase an SBR, they need to go through a bunch more paperwork and cash, compared to buying a regular rifle on the market whose barrel is over 16 inches.

Well, the ATF has been pretty busy lately. (A few days ago they banned 7n6, and now they come out with this).


www.thebangswitch.com...


The ATF defines firearms as either a pistol or a rifle and there really isn’t any grey area, at least in their minds. If they determine a device is a pistol, that means you can physically fire it any way you desire as there isn’t an illegal way to hold or shoot a handgun (yet). The BATF has explicitly stated that the SB15 does not change the classification of the host firearm from a pistol into a rifle and it’s perfectly legal to install and use it as you see fit — including firing it from the shoulder.



This is the factory configuration of the SB15. Removing the velcro strap, filling the U shaped opening at the bottom or other alterations may be illegal according to sources. Only a ruling from the BATF will clear such questions up.



I’ve been of the opinion that Sig knew exactly how we would wind up using the SB15 on our pistols but until now they’ve urged gun writers not to talk about it for fear of provoking the BATF into reversing their decision. Now that someone outside of Sig has contacted the BATF and gotten a determination letter, they’re asking writers to share this information with the community as they see it as being beneficial… and I agree, it is.


The letter to the police officer emailed by the ATF is also shown at the linked page.
edit on 5-4-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
I'm actually very surprised to hear this ruling. I thought that they would use the same false logic with this as they do with every other ruling. Whats that, you want to cut the barrel down on your shotgun so that you can use it easier in your house for self defense? ILLEGAL! You say you want more than 10 rounds in a magazine? NOT GONNA HAPPEN!

Maybe they are finally taking their head out of their ###.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by andr3w68
 





I'm actually very surprised to hear this ruling. I thought that they would use the same false logic with this as they do with every other ruling.


Im very surprised at this to. I was expecting the ATF to lay the hammer down on this and say something along the lines of "this makes the gun an SBR".

Even though the SB15 brace was specifically mentioned in the ATF letter, the ATF does say "such accessories such as the SIG Stability Brace...", which leaves the door open for other braces that can be allowed to be fired from shoulder such as the SB 47 Draco brace.

Example video below.




posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


This is good news. In the past I would never have considered purchasing an AR type pistol simply due to the usablity factor of the weapon. This changes everything in regards to those types weapons.

Can't believe the ATF OK'd this but it's good.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Just some more information about what the ATF has previously said about these braces



Late last year, the ATF sent out a similar letter in regards to these braces, and said basically the same as what was said in the OP (it wasn't written too well, and left some speculation). This latest letter however, is much more clear than the one from last year in the video above.

ETA - Oh yea...that muzzle flash on these pistols in the video....
edit on 5-4-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


Gotta love those pretty flashes.

Tell me one thing.

Does the second amendment not say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Does that not mean that by them having tanks and jets, but not allowing us to purchase them, breaks this amendment in and of itself. I know Im not about to try to stop an M1A1 with an AR15. Hell, not even a Barrett has a chance head to head.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


That video is great. If you ever use one of the babies in a close in firefight you won't need to worry about hitting the bad guy. The muzzle flash is going to drive them clean out of the building.


Personally I like the flash, shows you're serious. I've got a Mauser that does the same thing and anything within 500 yards is gonna be toast. Course you've got to move positions after each shot.

As far as these add-on's for AR pistols go these are going to make it a lot easier to carry them while increasing accuracy.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


Now, hold on just one moment.

I am assuming first of all, that the particular legal ramifications of ownership of one of these weapons, depends firstly on state laws, and then after that, on the federal laws which apply across the board. Is that accurate?

Second of all, if I saw one of the featured weapons, I would assume it was an SBR, due to its small size, the presence of a stock on the weapon, and the general design characteristics, not to mention the fact that this object looks nothing like a pistol, of any kind I ever heard of.

I am not a firearms user, but I would like to think that if I was at a bank, and someone rolled up on the place with a bunch of guns, that I would be able to describe the weapons to the police later, without making a tit of myself. So, would someone please explain to me, why these objects are called pistols?



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   

TrueBrit
reply to post by buni11687
 


Now, hold on just one moment.

I am assuming first of all, that the particular legal ramifications of ownership of one of these weapons, depends firstly on state laws, and then after that, on the federal laws which apply across the board. Is that accurate?

Second of all, if I saw one of the featured weapons, I would assume it was an SBR, due to its small size, the presence of a stock on the weapon, and the general design characteristics, not to mention the fact that this object looks nothing like a pistol, of any kind I ever heard of.

I am not a firearms user, but I would like to think that if I was at a bank, and someone rolled up on the place with a bunch of guns, that I would be able to describe the weapons to the police later, without making a tit of myself. So, would someone please explain to me, why these objects are called pistols?


Well, these "pistols" are a relatively new area of firearms here. The ATF says these guns are pistols, so that's how the feds will treat these as. As for state by state, I don't really know if any state has banned these, or reclassified these from pistols yet. Even an anti-gun state like California still allows these pistols, (but they have crazy magazine capacity limits, and I think it's almost impossible to acquire an SBR there to) so I don't believe there's any state that doesn't allow these guns....yet. (Im not all too familiar with other states laws, so I may be wrong).

For your second paragraph, I completely agree. I would automatically assume SBR to. This ATF decision surprises me.

As for the third paragraph......long story short, the ATF isn't really known to make a lot of sense.
edit on 5-4-2014 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 05:13 AM
link   
For anyone outside of America who doesn't quite understand how this could possibly be a pistol, the ticket is to understand that US gun laws are NOT based on logic, rational thought, or reality. Sometimes the stupidity of the law helps gun owners, like in this case, but usually their stupidity hinders gun owners.

You see, when people clamor for more gun laws, we are against those laws because we already see how stupid and illogical the current gun laws are. If they have proven they cannot make reasonable, informed, logical gun laws, why would any person want them to make even more?

So next time, instead of thinking how stupid americans are to refuse more gun laws, think that maybe Americans are actually making an intelligent decision because they know more laws means more bull crap like this.

Us gun owners know that laws are not the answer, because they accomplish nothing but to hinder good, normal, law abiding gun owners. That is the true and plain reality, until you accept that you'll never understand guns in America. Make it nearly impossible to legally obtain fully automatic weapons? OK, we'll just buy bump fire stocks that accomplish 99% of the same thing. Want to make it difficult to legally get an SRB? OK, we'll just make an "arm strap" that functions 99% like a stock. Want to make detachable magazines illegal? OK, well just put a bullet button on the gun, so it's "technically" not detachable, but in reality can be detached and swapped 99% as quick as a normal magazine. Want to make "high capacity" magazines illegal? OK, well just sell magazines with spacers, reducing capacity for sale, which can be easily removed to restore full capacity.

All these laws and regulations are purely masturbatory. They make liberals and fools feel good, but they accomplish nothing.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


The only US gun legislature which makes sense, is the second amendment in my opinion. All the messing about since then has done, has limited peoples right to enforce their freedom, and defend themselves. As a person who lives without such rights as afforded by that element of your constitution, all I can say is that I hope that the citizens of the United States are aware of just how lucky they are in that regard, and vote in such a way as to protect that element of the constitution.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
dont they make faster burning rounds for these? at least some with less powder?? I've wanted one for a long time but i might skip it if you cant get that flash under control....



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


I am dumbfounded on how these can be called anything but a butt stock. I have yet to see in any of the videos above it being used correctly "I assume it is supposed to be strapped to your forearm?". Don't get me wrong here, I see this as a win for the good guys, being legal gun owners. I just feel like this has to be an over sight by BATF and soon reversed once someone with half a brain realizes what they have done.

For the record I am very pro fire arm and own many myself, and will always fight for my right to maintain my possessions. Check my sig if there are any further doubts. I put that up years ago when the "Assault Rifle" ban was the topic of the day.

If anyone can enlighten me I would surely appreciate it.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
SO I have a brilliant idea to put a SPAS 12 type hook on an AR stock,it could be called an ARMREST. It would serve another unique purpose too but I'd need to figure THAT out with a refined execution of the object.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
This is why NFA SBR rules are so ridiculous.

If there is a part of the NFA that needs to go its that. How is this different than putting on an actual stock?



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
This is why NFA SBR rules are so ridiculous.

If there is a part of the NFA that needs to go its that. How is this different than putting on an actual stock?


The SBR rules and the suppressor regulations need to go.

Suppressors should be treated just like a long gun. Fill out a form, instant background check, and walk out same day.



posted on Dec, 11 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
I just feel like this has to be an over sight by BATF and soon reversed once someone with half a brain realizes what they have done.



The field agents and the tech branch know exactly how the "arm brace" is being used.

The fact is: they don't care. The legal wording makes the arm brace too much of a grey area and it's a battle they don't care to fight in court.

Sig is already fighting the ATF over their muzzle brake that ATF has decided is a silencer so the ATF knows exactly what will happen if they change their mind about the arm brace.



posted on Dec, 14 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Wow SOMEBODY is liking that brace...www.thetruthaboutguns.com...< br />
AN 8 INCH BARRELLED SHOTGUN that is NOT NFA,I really don't know HOW but HEY Keltec put out a carbine that folds in 1/2 at 17in.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I've heard several say it's now illegal to shoulder one of these... It's legal to own and buy.... Just illegal to shoulder it.... Murica..




top topics



 
4

log in

join