Sig Brace ???

[Perplexed]

Someone mentioned it earlier; why not get a Tavor? You get the shrunken-down package and still remain legal. No NFA paperwork, simple to buy and sell, and you can use either 5.56 or, with the conversion kit, 9mm. Granted, it doesn't address the issue of the Sig brace and the underlying freedom of choice to use it or not, etc., but for those who don't want to be a test case, the Tavor is a viable alternative. Fun, too!

 

[Super Dave]

I am on the blade list too.

As an ar 15 .com guy wrote: the letter is not legal fact. It is an opinion.

This is from the link Neanderthal posted:

...............

"While an administrative agency, such as ATF, is permitted under the law to change positions in relation to a prior determination, under the Administrative Procedures Act, it must provide a reasoned explanation, which is noticeably absent, especially in light of ATF’s prior determinations, including that “placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of the weapon.”

 

[JD8]

Here's a pretty good article on it. http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/12/2...-arbitrary-determinations-over-the-sig-brace/

Excellent read, thanks for posting.

 

[inactive]

The million dollar point is that they state that a pistol is intended to be fired with one hand, which virtually no shooter does when engaging in any meaningful shooting exercise. So is holding a Glock with two hands make it a rifle? Does putting the grip on my shoulder and firing the weapon make a Glock a rifle? It's an asinine assertion to make.

While I see the dilemma of the ATF here, as clearly users firing a brace-equipped pistol have little to no intention of utilizing the part for single-handed shooting, I have no real sympathy 1) the short barreled rifle restrictions are ridiculous, and 2) if they are so adamant against improper use of the brace, why'd they approve it in the first place?

What a joke of agency. I'll install my CAA Saddle which per the ATF letter, is clearly used for a cheek weld and not any shouldering of the weapon

 

[uncle money bags]

The million dollar point is that they state that a pistol is intended to be fired with one hand, which virtually no shooter does when engaging in any meaningful shooting exercise. So is holding a Glock with two hands make it a rifle? Does putting the grip on my shoulder and firing the weapon make a Glock a rifle? It's an asinine assertion to make.

While I see the dilemma of the ATF here, as clearly users firing a brace-equipped pistol have little to no intention of utilizing the part for single-handed shooting, I have no real sympathy 1) the short barreled rifle restrictions are ridiculous, and 2) if they are so adamant against improper use of the brace, why'd they approve it in the first place?

What a joke of agency. I'll install my CAA Saddle which per the ATF letter, is clearly used for a cheek weld and not any shouldering of the weapon

I would take issue with the bold part.

 

[inactive]

I would take issue with the bold part.

You can, and that's fine. But given the choice of shooting with a two-handed purchase or a single hand, a two-handed grip stance is recommended in every instance I can think of. Be it Weaver, Isosceles, whatever... if you can get two hands on the gun if at all possible, it's recommended to do so.

 

[uncle money bags]

Maybe my intent was not clear. I believe practicing one handed drills is a very meaningful exercise for every shooter. Especially for anyone who intends to use a firearm in a defensive or offensive capacity.

 

[inactive]

I'd agree with that. Perhaps my original statement was a bit too black and white.

Cheers.

 

[Super Dave]

Back on target.....

As a pistol is intended to be fired with one hand, I'd love to watch ATF agents in training, following said definition, and pointing that out.

More so, I'd love to see it actually brought to congress. It was the normal way to shoot a pistol in 1934, with one hand. A lot has changed since then. Shooting styles, firearms, and so on.

If same sex marriage can be found legal under the constitution, why can't the NFA be found unconstitutional? I'll tell you why I think that is. Gun owners don't REALLY get out and protest the way certain other groups do. Until we actually REALLY stand up for our rights, nothing is going to get better. The NRA isn't going to do it. Lobbyists aren't. Lots and lots and lots of angry gun owners standing outside and screaming might. It worked for gay rights. Surely it would help for something as red blooded American as gun rights.

Getting most fat assed Americans that mostly just like to sit around and complain about it from the comforts of their home to actually do that is the real challenge.

What say you?

 

[ASP785]

Back on target.....

More so, I'd love to see it actually brought to congress. It was the normal way to shoot a pistol in 1934, with one hand. A lot has changed since then. Shooting styles, firearms, and so on.

If same sex marriage can be found legal under the constitution, why can't the NFA be found unconstitutional? I'll tell you why I think that is. Gun owners don't REALLY get out and protest the way certain other groups do. Until we actually REALLY stand up for our rights, nothing is going to get better. The NRA isn't going to do it. Lobbyists aren't. Lots and lots and lots of angry gun owners standing outside and screaming might. It worked for gay rights. Surely it would help for something as red blooded American as gun rights.

Getting most fat assed Americans that mostly just like to sit around and complain about it from the comforts of their home to actually do that is the real challenge.

What say you?

I have read this thread and believe the same thing. The bottom line is, we shouldn't even be burdened with arguing about this. SBR's and suppressors shouldn't be on the NFA. It will be a tough road, but if we screamed loud enough, we could get there.

Utilize the tactics that the anti's use and add back our rights, piece by piece. I think it should start with the removal of suppressors from the NFA and then work towards SBR's. Suppressors first, because of their use in hunting and reduction of noise pollution. It will be a tough sell to get machine guns off the registry.