Robocop1051 Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 I fuckin hate it when know-nothin cops write reports or booking sheets... those charges are all wrong. I truly hope the news fucked it up. The SBR charge was ill thought out. I would've nailed them with first with "home invasion" and "burglary"... always add "conspiracy" whenever you have 2 or more suspects... The hit them with "felon in possession of a firearm" and the felony enhancement of "armed with a firearm in commission of a felony"... All violations are felonies that are MUCH more likely to stick... Most of those are worth about 3-5 years, plus the enhancement. That's upto 25 years if served consecutively. Their only saving grace is, I'm sure these guys disabled their PRC required "bullet button" turning their pistol into an "unregistered AW".... NOT possession of an illegal "Assault Rifle"... which we all know has to have full auto fire. Upon closer inspection, it even looks like it may have been an 80% build. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted January 19, 2015 Report Share Posted January 19, 2015 ghost gun!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted January 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 DeLeon will be running his fucking mouth for sure now, if that damn thing was an 80%. $hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted January 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The Sig Brace Saga is over. ATF issued a new determination. http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2015/01/16/breaking-atf-closes-arm-brace-sbr-loophole/ "The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” This is the very reason why - when BATFE issues a letter to an individual - you don't write the Technology Branch and ask about YOUR specific situation. You shut your mouth, don't write in $hit, and roll with the determination that's been made. You don't write in, and start asking weird $hit, and hypothetical $hit, and ask Technology Branch to rule on it. I can say that it's DIRECTLY BECAUSE of that, they have issued this new determination. Those that wrote in afterwards... Stupid fuckers that didn't know how good they had it. You can't fix stupid, either. Here's the whole thing, directly from Max Kingery, ACTING Chief. OPEN LETTER ON THE REDESIGN OF “STABILIZING BRACES” The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received inquiries from the public concerning the proper use of devices recently marketed as “stabilizing braces.” These devices are described as “a shooter’s aid that is designed to improve the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols.” The device claims to enhance accuracy and reduce felt recoil when using an AR-style pistol. These items are intended to improve accuracy by using the operator’s forearm to provide stable support for the AR-type pistol. ATF has previously determined that attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to National Firearms Act (NFA) control. However, this classification is based upon the use of the device as designed. When the device is redesigned for use as a shoulder stock on a handgun with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length, the firearm is properly classified as a firearm under the NFA. The NFA, 26 USCS § 5845, defines “firearm,” in relevant part, as “a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length” and “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” That section defines both “rifle” and “shotgun” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder….” (Emphasis added). Pursuant to the plain language of the statute, ATF and its predecessor agency have long held that a pistol with a barrel less than 16 inches in length and an attached shoulder stock is a NFA “firearm.” For example, inRevenue Ruling 61-45, Luger and Mauser pistols “having a barrel of less than 16 inches in length with an attachable shoulder stock affixed” were each classified as a “short barrel rifle…within the purview of the National Firearms Act.” In classifying the originally submitted design, ATF considered the objective design of the item as well as the stated purpose of the item. In submitting this device for classification, the designer noted that The intent of the buffer tube forearm brace is to facilitate one handed firing of the AR15 pistol for those with limited strength or mobility due to a handicap. It also performs the function of sufficiently padding the buffer tube in order to reduce bruising to the forearm while firing with one hand. Sliding and securing the brace onto ones forearm and latching the Velcro straps, distributes the weight of the weapon evenly and assures a snug fit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to dangerously “muscle” this large pistol during the one handed aiming process, and recoil is dispersed significantly, resulting in more accurate shooting without compromising safety or comfort. 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. ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm. However, ATF has received numerous inquiries regarding alternate uses for this device, including use as a shoulder stock. Because the NFA defines both rifle and shotgun to include any “weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length. The GCA does not define the term “redesign” and therefore ATF applies the common meaning. “Redesign” is defined as “to alter the appearance or function of.” See e.g. Webster’s II New College Dictionary, Third Ed. (2005). This is not a novel interpretation. For example ATF has previously advised that an individual possesses a destructive device when possessing anti-personnel ammunition with an otherwise unregulated 37/38mm flare launcher. See ATF Ruling 95-3. Further, ATF has advised that even use of an unregulated flare and flare launcher as a weapon results in the making of a NFA weapon. Similarly, ATF has advised that, although otherwise unregulated, the use of certain nail guns as weapons may result in classification as an “any other weapon.” 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. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked. Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA. If you have any questions about the issues addressed in this letter, you may contact the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division at fire_tech@atf.gov or by phone at (304) 616-4300. Max M. Kingery Acting Chief Firearms Technology Criminal Branch Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division Edited January 20, 2015 by 98Z5V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzukiray Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Well, That just phucked me out of the 114 bucks I spent last week!! I am also assuming I can't file the Form 1 here in Commiefornia?? Ray. Edited January 20, 2015 by suzukiray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robocop1051 Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Well, That just phucked me out of the 114 bucks I spent last week!! I am also assuming I can't file the Form 1 here in Commiefornia?? Ray. Correct. No Form-1 for us "more civilized" folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtallen83 Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 I just don't see this bureaucrats definition of "redesigned" holding up in court..............as long as you have not altered the "brace". Where are those high priced NRA lawyers when you need them?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planeflyer21 Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 DeLeon will be running his fucking mouth for sure now, if that damn thing was an 80%. $hit. "These 80% invisible machineguns are 80 times more deadly than 80% of the nukulur arsenals owned by Russia and China, which is why they are called 80%." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 so....in other words....don't make a YouTube video shouldering your sig brace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 embedfail/ http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XNBbXAoWRz0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted January 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) ^^^ Embedded it, brother... <thumbsup> *...a short barrel on a rifle is like a curvaceous a$s..." <lmao> Edited January 20, 2015 by 98Z5V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibiwan Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 ...another decree from the ATF..... :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
survivalshop Posted January 20, 2015 Report Share Posted January 20, 2015 Soooo what if you put the bare receiver extension tube against your shoulder & fire it , same interpretation ? <dontknow> Your on a roll , 98 <thumbsup> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magwa Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Soooo what if you put the bare receiver extension tube against your shoulder & fire it , same interpretation ? <dontknow> Your on a roll , 98 <thumbsup> Exactly/.... or what if you take your rifle and shoot it one handed is it then a pistol? the whole thing smalls of bureaucracy this is not going away any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
98Z5V Posted January 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 There's gonna be some legal battles over this - and the BATFE isn't gonna win them... They're now telling people HOW they can shoot a firearm. Not gonna fly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
survivalshop Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 There's gonna be some legal battles over this - and the BATFE isn't gonna win them... They're now telling people HOW they can shoot a firearm. Not gonna fly... After dealing with the ATF for over twenty years as a dealer , that's hopeful thinking at best . The a$$holes in charge will just go along with the ATF & its hopeful the Court will go on the side of Logic . Unfortunately it will probably take an arrest & prosecution of someone, to bring all this out in the Courts, I do not Volunteer for that . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microgunner Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 ^ what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
392heminut Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Anybody here ever heard of 'Declaratory Relief'? Check out this article, it may be the next step in this mess and the ATF might get their peepee whacked! http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/next-step-atf-pistol-arm-brace-decision-declaratory-relief/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.308LiteHunter Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I hope SB Tactical wins out on this. I haven't even used my yet Daymit !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liber Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) First, this is my first message and I came here for the 308 info, but I am also in California so this sig brace topic is dear to my heart, and yes I do own one. I currently have a Thordsen buffer tube cover on my KAK sig brace tube, both will work fine on it. There is a lot of panic going on. The ATF didn't redefine any law, all they have done was sent out an opinion letter to a letter that was submitted to them. After dealing with the ATF for over twenty years as a dealer , that's hopeful thinking at best . The a$$holes in charge will just go along with the ATF & its hopeful the Court will go on the side of Logic . Unfortunately it will probably take an arrest & prosecution of someone, to bring all this out in the Courts, I do not Volunteer for that . You say probably? I think this is definitely going to require someone is charged with the sig brace and the courts to decide. That may be good or bad. The case in California with the 2 dolts who got arrested will not be that case unfortunately. The sig brace is a very small part of it, and there are many other complications in the case which make the sig brace insignificant. No bullet button, having possession of a firearm while on probation, narcotics for sale, armed robbery, etc...and without a bullet button the AW penal code will stick anyway. That case just complicates the sig brace issue. Let's hope we are not relying on those dolts for a ruling in the courts, they will probably be using public defendants. Anybody here ever heard of 'Declaratory Relief'? Check out this article, it may be the next step in this mess and the ATF might get their peepee whacked! http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/foghorn/next-step-atf-pistol-arm-brace-decision-declaratory-relief/ I agree in theory, but going to court is always a crap shoot and depends on the attorney handling the case...OJ a case in point...but it can also work against everyone in the case where a crap attorney handles it. The question I propose to the firearms community at large is when is enough, enough? When is it that we can actually challenge all of this BS in a legal manor? The NFA and GCA68 both infringe upon our rights, just as many of the State legislation does as well. I was born prior to 1968, so I feel as though I was infringed even more by them. Yet, it's almost impossible for a layperson to challenge law. As legislation continues to get layered on, much like manure being added to a pile of crap, how do we start to shovel some of it off? If anything it seems we need some type of governing law that would apply to all States...yes, something like a constitution...hey wait, we already have the 2nd amendment, so why can't we rely upon it? That's the real question in this and other similar matters. And although I do feel the NFA is just a concocted tax idea, I can't even pay $200 for a tax stamp in California? That is being infringed on infringement itself...f#@$ me... Edited January 22, 2015 by liber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNP Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Welcome aboard! And I agree, fcuk me too California. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
392heminut Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) I agree in theory, but going to court is always a crap shoot and depends on the attorney handling the case...OJ a case in point...but it can also work against everyone in the case where a crap attorney handles it. The question I propose to the firearms community at large is when is enough, enough? When is it that we can actually challenge all of this BS in a legal manor? The NFA and GCA68 both infringe upon our rights, just as many of the State legislation does as well. Liber, first off welcome to the board! <thumbsup> If Sig decides to take the Declaratory Relief route you can pretty much bet it won't be with any 'crap' attorney! As for the NFA, that is NOT going away. The fact that it covers weapons capable of full auto fire guarantees that. Ain't gonna happen! The MOST that could be accomplished with that situation would be getting the SBR, SBS and silencer parts repealed. Edited January 22, 2015 by 392heminut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibiwan Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 It'll happen soon enough. There's still that ruling in the 1939 US vs Miller case where the court decided that the NFA does not cover "militia weapons"... matter of time before some brave lawyer decides to pick it up, along with the other issues like the Sig brace and go head to head with the ATF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magwa Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 I agree the time for NFA is over enough BULL $hit .... for instance lets say you are a CCW holder you should be able to walk into a class three dealer pick out your item pay for it and pay your tax at the same time and BATFE will send you your tax stamp.. the current way of doing things needs to go extinct! next they need to repeal the 68 and 86 decisions on new made machine guns that is a 2nd amendment rights violation those that qualify should be able to own one and you should not have to pay 16 to 25 thousand for a M16 lower that is ludicrous. The whole system needs a face lift if they want to tax you for a certain Item even if I do not agree I will pay to play but accessibility needs to be easier for law abiding citizens. It has already been proven less than 1/2 of a percent of crimes are commited with a SBR,SBS, or machine gun and if you do commit a crime with one you need to go to prison, and loose your rights to any weapon for life! now what is the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liber Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Welcome aboard! And I agree, fcuk me too California.Thanks for the welcome. I keep hoping that things will get better, but we continually seem to take one step forward, two steps back, for lack of a better analogy. Yet, none of us should give up and we get the best results in numbers. (just like a true militia would) If Sig decides to take the Declaratory Relief route you can pretty much bet it won't be with any 'crap' attorney!Honestly, let's be realistic here. What are the chances of Sig remotely trying to defend the product? Sig had a cash cow for a long time. I don't think they will spend it on a legal fight. My guess is that we'll need to see this decided at the State level, where they might leverage off the Supremacy Clause much like Heller or McDonald. As for the NFA, that is NOT going away. The fact that it covers weapons capable of full auto fire guarantees that. Ain't gonna happen! The MOST that could be accomplished with that situation would be getting the SBR, SBS and silencer parts repealed.I agree it is not going away, that does concern me. Big deal, automatics...why shouldn't I be able to bear one, but the Government can? Although I am willing to accept background checks and even the fact that people can loose their 2A rights by being a felon, I am in no way conceding that I shouldn't have the right to keep and bear any type of arm that is commonly used in the military, and especially that they use against other non-Americans. Furgeson just proves that it is only a matter of time before the Government will use excessive force against the people. I don't think they will do it intentionally, but that by having that power, eventually they will use it if the people stand up against them. I'm not a prepper or anything, and don't believe the Government is plotting anything like that, just offering an opinion. :) It'll happen soon enough. There's still that ruling in the 1939 US vs Miller case where the court decided that the NFA does not cover "militia weapons"... matter of time before some brave lawyer decides to pick it up, along with the other issues like the Sig brace and go head to head with the ATF.I hope you're right, I really do. But I tend to agree with 392heminut, I don't think the NFA is going anywhere.I do feel the NFA and GCA68 are both terrible infringements on our 2A rights, but don't feel we will ever see the end of them.I have always kinda felt like you shibiwan, that it is only a matter of time before some brave lawyer runs with case law in the system...But the picture that has been painted by people such as Alan Gottlieb (2nd Amendment Foundation) is not very pretty. The time it takes to make changes in the system make it prohibitive to make too much progress...and many of the courts are able to sit on 2A cases and stall them in the system. Legislature happens faster than the courts move, so in the end it seems we are always taking one step forward and two steps back. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.