BREAKING: Statement from SIG SAUER About ATF Pistol Brace Ruling

SIG_SAUER_SIGTac_SB15_Pistol_Stabilizing_Brace_on_SIG_MCX_Tactical_Piston_AR_Carbine_SBR_Nick_Leghorn_The_Truth_About_Guns_TTAG_at_SIG_SAUER_Headquarters_New_Media_Writers_Event_2014_David_Crane_DefenseReview.com_DR_1

[PRESS RELEASE]

NEWINGTON, N.H. (January 21, 2015)—SIG SAUER, Inc., has issued the following statement about the recent opinion by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in regard to the SB15 and SBX pistol stabilizing braces.

“As reaffirmed in an Open Letter by ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division dated January 16, 2015, the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) is legal to own, legal to purchase, and legal to install on a pistol. SIG SAUER® believes that the PSB improves the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols, and offers the product both as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols.

“The Open Letter goes further to rescind a previous private letter regarding the ‘intent’ of the user of the pistol stabilizing brace. In the letter of January 16, 2015, ATF opines that a person’s actual use of the product as a shoulder stock can change the legal classification of the product. However, the Open Letter explicitly states: “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.”

“We question ATF’s reversal in position that the classification of the brace may be altered by its use. We are reviewing the legal precedents and justification for this position, and will address our concerns with ATF in the near future.

“We will vigorously defend the classification of all of our products and our consumers’ right to use them in accordance with the law. If we find that the open letter opinion is outside the scope of the law, we will seek further review.”

comments

  1. avatar Patrick says:

    Well, hopefully Sig can work some magic. Need to shove bricks down the ATFs throats whenever possible. If Sig puts its best foot forward (good chance they will) I’ll go and purchase a new gun from them to show support.

  2. avatar jake from detroit says:

    never cared for sig’s products before: i don’t like DA/SA triggers. Between the avalanche of lawsuits they seem to be fighting on our behalf and their p250/p320 designs, I may very well have to consider supporting them with my next purchase.

    1. avatar B.Malloy says:

      I highly recommend the p320. I shot a buddies’, full-size 9mm, and am very seriously considering picking up one for myself.

    2. avatar Scrubula says:

      Their P226 trigger is really nice. Great single action and acceptable double action (still lighter than any revolver I have fired).

    3. avatar Sian says:

      Try a P238/938. They’re super nice.

    4. avatar Barney Fifenmiester says:

      They offer plenty of SAO, and DAK triggers, as well as the da/sa.

  3. avatar William says:

    I think I’ll buy a P290 as a show of support.

    1. avatar Youzernayme says:

      its a great gun, but doesn’t like Berdan-primed ammo.
      inside of 30ft, the P290 gets it done in a small package.

  4. avatar Roy says:

    Instead of buying a handgun I probably won’t use… I’ll buy their ammo to show my support.

  5. avatar Accur81 says:

    I’m excited for the 300 BLK pistol. This makes me even more intrigued.

  6. avatar cogline says:

    I would buy a P210 to show my support but I doubt that I will ever find one,

    1. avatar DaveR says:

      I doubt I will ever find $3k

  7. avatar MotoJB says:

    Soooo…does this also mean that one cannot hold the pistol with two hands and rest the buffer tube/brace against one’s cheek and fire? Would that be illegal? Or only if you shoulder fired it?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If I use the upper on my SBR for a weekend, can it never again be a pistol? What if I install the 9″ upper from the SBR on the pistol lower? Will f’ing lightning strike me? AAAARGH!

      1. avatar Bill says:

        Yeah, the lower is considered the “gun” not the upper. So you can use your pistol upper on any pistol or SBR. You just cannot use the upper on a rifle lower for legality purposes.

        The idea behind this lawsuit is that the ATF doesn’t want any further stabilization of a pistol, the same reason fore-end grips are banned for pistols. It’s kinda stupid if you ask me… doesn’t make the gun any more deadly. Practicing makes a pistol more deadly. Are they going to ban target practice?

  8. avatar Randall J says:

    “Owning one of those things put owners baby steps from blowing guys in a dark alley. Things are hideous .”

    Read this little nugget on another forum, and agree.

    Follow up to question about people with disabilities using them.

    “Talking mall ninjas who refuse to go f1 and parade those things around like a brand new 416 at range not a person with injury.”

    Agree again.

    Who cares if Sig wins? Just SBR it the right way, and quit whining.

    1. avatar tacocat says:

      And to the folks who live in many of the states that don’t allow SBR tax stamps?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Were those sentences supposed to mean anything, or were they random words strung together by idiots?

    3. avatar B says:

      I care because the ATF’s ruling makes it a freaking felony to hold a perfectly legal gun the wrong way. Its only about 1 degree from saying pulling the trigger more than 3 times in 5 seconds makes a weapon fully auto or a 12 gauge pump shotgun shooting slugs (.72 caliber) is an illegal destructive device.

    4. avatar surlycmd says:

      Thanks for your input. Your support for freedom of choice is limited.

    5. avatar Ian T says:

      What about people who live in states or locals that can’t have SBR/NFA? What about people who object to registering their guns with big brother? To some you are just enabling an illegal gun registry and folding on your rights like a coward by supporting the system. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not good for other people. Try opening you mind a little bit there, being so narrow minded isn’t a good thing. More options is always a good thing, so even if you don’t like the item, any gun owner should fully support this.

      1. avatar Randall J says:

        Ah yes, that old cutting ones nose off, to spite ones face bit. If people choose not to enjoy these things for their own reasons, that is their problem, not mine. As for people who can’t, I genuinely feel for them. It really sucks not being able to own cool toys, because their home state won’t allow it. Until NFA goes away, I’ll play by the rules, and continue to enjoy my suppressors, and SBRs.

        1. avatar SuperiorPosture says:

          I must have missed a step. If everyone follows the NFA to the letter of the law and never challenges anything, how and when, exactly, will the NFA “go away”?

        2. avatar Rob says:

          You sound like a real prick Randall. Im surprised you don’t call your supressors silencers, not the is wrong to call them silencers, but that’s what your butt buddies at the ATF call them. By the way I hope you get your biggest and fattest suppressor and enjoy it all the way up your loose ass hole.

    6. avatar Grindstone says:

      Hope you don’t bruise your knees too hard…

      1. avatar Randall J says:

        Thanks for the concern, but I’m good. And I don’t have to worry about getting 10 years, and losing my firearms rights when I shoulder my LEGAL SBRs.

        BTW, when did following the rules = sucking dick? Just because a law or rule sucks, doesn’t mean I’m going to deprive myself of something I want, and enjoy. I just chose to follow them to get there.

        1. avatar Sian says:

          “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” — Thomas Jefferson

          “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” — Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

          So tell me, what justice does saying “putting a pistol to your shoulder is a felony” serve?

        2. avatar Joe says:

          Hey man, I understand your arrogant and think your above all other gun owners because you have an sbr or suppressor but you need to realize just because you pay a tax stamp to legally shoot a certain restricted item doesn’t mean the ATF won’t change their minds about allowing you to own those in the future. Making the sig brace illegal to fire from the shoulder only means that now you are told how you can fire a weapon so before long it might be only legal for you to shove that suppressor up your ass. Even if you don’t own a sig brace it’s all about more rights being stripped from the American gun owner. Your freedom isn’t safe just because you pay tax to King George.

    7. avatar Matt in FL says:

      I’m just trying to figure out what the pistol brace has to do with oral sex. And does it have to be a dark alley? Could it just be a living room, like normal folks?

    8. avatar Retired Para says:

      As has been pointed out, what about folks who live in non-SBR states. Along with that, many find it onerous that in order to go the SBR route one has to not only go through further expense and paperwork, they also not must stay on the feds radar with a REGISTERED weapon that requires permission to take across state lines, etc…..

      I do not advocate willfully breaking the law but this latest letter from the ATF does not make any sense in the least. If you support such governmental nonsense and regulatory abuse then more power to you.

  9. avatar Paul53 says:

    Classic government thinking. One person does (or might do) something wrong, so punish everybody who didn’t.

    1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

      Hell, a good chunk of our laws are Malum Prohibitum, which means exactly what you said. That’s unfortunately true for pretty much all Western nations. It’s sickening.

  10. avatar g says:

    As a SIG owner (and not just the SB15), I really they push through with this and serve notice on the ATF that gun owners and gun companies will no longer tolerate their nonsensical logic.

  11. avatar tacocat says:

    Maybe I do need a 232 in stainless with wood grips after all.

  12. avatar B says:

    Go get em Sig. Very fond of my C3 1911, great gun. Glad to see them going after the ATF for their continuing full rtard stances. Who knows where B. Todd will go next if he didn’t get challenged on this bull crap?

  13. avatar Franko says:

    Must be fun to pull out a 5.56 pistol with a Sig brace at an office meeting like that guy in the picture.

    1. avatar Alex Waits says:

      That pistol is not 5.56

    2. avatar Clownpuncher says:

      But the lady in back stole the poor guys targets and is using them for ear rings.

    3. avatar KCK says:

      Nick at SHOT in the SIG room with SIG personel, now that’s an office meeting.

  14. avatar Royal Tony says:

    I’ve been in the market for a 10mm, looks like it might have to be a 220 in stainless. If I can wait long enough.

  15. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Here’s a rule so simple that it’s likely way over ATF’s head: Something should only be considered illegal if it is used to perform some act that is inherently illegal.

    For example: putting a pistol against your shoulder using a brace, and firing at a range target, should not be illegal, because nothing about shooting from the shoulder at a range target is inherently illegal. Conversely, putting a pistol against your shoulder using a brace, and firing at an innocent person, should be illegal, because using unjustified deadly force against another person is inherently illegal.

    But then, such a simple rule would deprive ATF of all purpose, and their tax stamp revenues.

    1. avatar int19h says:

      What is “inherently illegal”?

      1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

        I would assume he meant “inherently immoral”. And I agree with the OP. Malum Prohibitum laws are unjust and immoral, plain and simple.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          While I agree with you regarding 90% (99%?) of malum prohibitum laws, in this case, I likely misused the term inherently. Perhaps otherwise would have sufficed? I was referring to using the firearm in the commission of a crime, such as murder, robbery, rape, etc – i.e. it’s a crime whether the firearm is present or not.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        (Not sure if serious…)

    2. avatar Phil COV says:

      You’ll never become king that way.

    3. avatar John Smith says:

      Why should any arrangement of atoms be “illegal”?

  16. avatar doesky2 says:

    Other companies selling brace equipped guns should not be freeloading on Sig.
    They should be pitching in to the legal fund.

  17. avatar JS says:

    Leghorn why do you have to go and mock me with that picture. I’ve been holding my breath for an MPX for what seems like eons now. Cant. Wait. Much. Longer…

  18. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    Good for SIG; I’m really happy to see that they will be fighting this. I’ll make sure one of my next guns is a new SIG to show my support.

  19. avatar Tim U says:

    If they pull this off, I’ll get both a brace in support but will pick up a pistol (p320 or if I cave in to my inner demon, a p229). I normally don’t go for DA/SA but maybe I’ll give dak a try, or just make an exception for sig because I just like the look of their pistols.

  20. avatar Michael C says:

    “We are reviewing the legal
    precedents and justification
    for this position”

    How long does it take to review nothing? ATF is obviously making stuff up. I knew that as soon as I read the bit about how putting the brace against your shoulder constitutes a redesign of the firearm, but putting the buffer tube against your shoulder doesn’t. Things are what they are even when people use them as other things. A minivan doesn’t magically become a racecar because someone drives fast and corners hard in it.

    1. avatar Phil COV says:

      It’s the PC way of Sig Sauer putting the ATF on notice.

  21. avatar Anonymous says:

    The statement also bans holding a pistol to ones shoulder. The second a pistol touches the shoulder it becomes a short barreled rifle. It instantly magically transforms into a rifle – so not only is the ATF regulating what we can own – they want to regulate how we can hold and shoot it.

    They sound like jackbooted thugs to me.

  22. avatar Serg says:

    Intention changes the classification? Maybe companies should make and sell guns “capable of, but not intended to fire full auto”, and see how stupid the ATF feels.

    1. avatar Fanfare Ends says:

      ^THIS^

    2. avatar Grant Lackey says:

      This is gold. Actually lol’d

  23. avatar b says:

    Where do I sign up for a Life Membership with Sig and where is the NRA?

  24. avatar JQP says:

    I’m honestly not sure what to make of their statement, or the future outcome at this point. I think it’s clear though that ATF’s current position is indefensible and will have to change… one way or the other. I am glad to see a statement on this at least though, as it seems many others (surely for their own legit reasons) have basically taken ‘no-position’ – or the position that ‘well, we knew it was going to happen’ – which was disappointing to many of us, who (wrongly) assumed that the ATF’s word had at least some integrity. And the saga continues…

  25. avatar billy.hill says:

    So just don’t shoot with a bunch of narcs… you would think the Atf would have real criminals to go after…

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      …and very likely they’re sitting in the office across the hallway.

  26. avatar fishydude says:

    Holy crap. That would be like a state say that because some people might use a Subaru WRX for illegal street racing, we cannot allow any WRX to be registered in the state for legal road use.
    Intended product design is the key.
    What if the ATF decided to make it illegal to sell any gun type that has been recorded as having been used in a crime?
    ATF cannot write law. They cannot rewrite law. But then neither can the president but he does is every day.

    1. avatar FreakinPeanuts says:

      Right on, great comment

  27. avatar Matt says:

    So to review
    1. ATF approves brace
    2. ATF approves shouldering of brace
    3. People spend lots of money on new guns w sig braces
    4. ATF waits till the day after Christmas to reverse their position

    Obviously this was another intentional move to spite law abiding gun owners, even the timing of it all was designed to be as dickish as possible.

    1. avatar JQP says:

      Yup. The Friday before SHOT. Talk about a kick in the balls. Either they’re totally incompetent and schizo, or they’re devious, scheming and malicious. Either way, it doesn’t make people respect their ‘opinions’, that’s for sure.

      1. avatar Matt says:

        Not to mention that there are still lots of guns up on the rack in the gun store with the sig brace. Members of the public who have no idea what a sig brace even is are walking in and shouldering the guns in the store- a felony- and they have no clue it is even illegal.

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          The latest letter clearly says that there is a problem if you “intend” to shoulder it.

          Just because someone has it at their shoulder doesn’t mean they “intended” to put it there.
          As the song goes…”Ooops I did it again!”

        2. avatar JSF001 says:

          @ doesky2 because I can’t directly reply to you. Your a decision behind, the ATF released another one decaling that simply shouldering the arm brace constitutes a “redesign” of the firearm making it an SBR. Unfortunately because the NFA does not define what it constitutes a “redesign”, going by the dictionary definition, the ATF is technically right with their decision. Lucky for us however by following that particular definition would mean that simply holding a pistol with both hands would also technically make it an NFA item, so they will have to reverse their this call, or open up a very easy court challenge to the NFA declaring it unconstitutional.

  28. avatar Randall J says:

    The design of it was clearly intended to push the envelope. It looks like a collapsible stock, and everyone knows it does, even if they won’t admit it. It could just as easily been a plain buffer tube, with a wide velcro strap for support. Play with matches, and eventually you will get burned. Especially when dealing with a government agency that can arbitrarily change rulings. If a shoestring can be a machine gun, and Chore Boy scouring pads can be silencer parts, this is what you end up with.

    1. avatar MotoJB says:

      What about those in states where SBR’s are not legal? They have no recourse but the registered “pistol” AR and hopefully legal accessories that can get them remotely close to what everyone else enjoys. So, we should just do without while you thumb your nose at us with your legal SBR’s? Let me guess, “Then you should move!”. Not that simple when you’re anchored there with careers and families. I’d say consider the people most impacted here, before you revel in/brag about the rights that many are deprived of.

      1. avatar Randall J says:

        I said it before, and I’ll say it again. I genuinely feel for those that live in states than ban SBRs, suppressors, and FA weapons. I’m not suggesting anyone move, but you are going to have to work to get things changed at home. Washington got SBRs removed from their ban list, so it can be done. And just in case you missed it in your post, you openly say that people want the SB15, in order to make an illegal SBR out of a pistol, by attaching an accessory. Intent is everything when it comes to NFA, and people openly flaunting a loophole are the ones who got it closed.

        1. avatar MotoJB says:

          “And just in case you missed it in your post, you openly say that people want the SB15, in order to make an illegal SBR out of a pistol, by attaching an accessory.”

          Um excuse me, no, that’s NOT what I said.

  29. avatar H says:

    I have one thing to say, in Irish, “Oh Shite.”

    They said it so well.

    These things are handled in court, not in public opinion.

    There is a weakness in the Feds argument.

    It’s like if I apologized then went to court for not doing what I apologized for.

  30. avatar Steve C. says:

    Randall J. –
    You can enjoy your freedoms without being a dick about it.
    Not everyone is in your position. How about looking out for other gun owners, and not just yourself with your line of thinking.

  31. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    That lame ass Sig brace is just slightly less stupid than the assinine law it’s intended to circumvent. And, Nick, that optic smacks of an unholy alliance between the NRA and Jerry’s Kids. Seriously. Embarrassing. Are you guys geting paid by the word for Sig brace articles or what?

    1. avatar ARluv says:

      And your comment is slightly less stupid and embarrassing than ATF’s new opinion letter. If you have nothing to say other than to bash a product that has changed the way people buy guns in the industry, go somewhere else to dispense of your garbage.

    2. avatar Larry says:

      I agree. I hate this stupid brace. People should have just spent the money on an SBR

  32. avatar JSF001 says:

    I unfortunately don’t think Sig really has a standing in this. My them fighting this decision they are arguing that they are fine with people misusing their product and that they are intestinally selling a product to be misused. In other words, in order for them to have a leg to stand on they would basically admit that one of the intents was so people could make an SBR. With that the ATF could not only reclassify the arm brace, but really f*** Sig by claiming that they have been selling unregistered SBR’s to the public.

    1. avatar GuyFromV says:

      Intestinally selling, nice.

      1. avatar JSF001 says:

        that was suppose to be intentionally, though I suppose you could say the ATF rulings are intestinally as they seem to be pulling them out of their ass.

    2. avatar ARluv says:

      I don’t think so at all. They aren’t arguing that anything was intended to be misused. They have and still do promote the brace for its intended use, and have only ever promoted it for that reason and that reason alone. Bringing this to court ultimately is about two things. The first and most important is that this opinion criminalizes Sigs customers for simply using a legally bought product in an illegal way…changing the past 15 years of known Atf opinion. And second is that this type of ruling damages Sig because it causes less people to buy for fear they may be brought to court for the same misuse. Ultimately, this is an intimidation tactic by the ATF. They know their letter is merely an opinion, and they don’t have the legal standing to make a ruling. I’m not a betting man when it comes to the outcome of court cases, but I would venture that Atf is going to get their ass handed to them, especially considering the opinion precedent and further confession that the brace is and always will be a brace.

  33. avatar Larry says:

    Saw this ban dropping a long time ago. Just surprised it took this long. Too many people showing off their “not an SBR, SBR.” They should have spent the money on the stamp.

  34. avatar BVRoc says:

    Imagine the slippery slope this could be.
    “Excuse me sir, you fired that shot while holding the firearm in an improper grip. You are under arrest for failure to grip in the approved manner.”
    Shaking my head at the retarded idiocy…

  35. avatar Tr0llT0ll says:

    You accidentally included a woman in your photo of four fat white guys.

  36. avatar Judge Dredd says:

    Sadly the BATFE will prevail in the long wrong. SIG is just urinating in the winds.

    1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      “In the long wrong” ??????? No matter how hard you try to make that ignorant assed butchery of the English language a typo it just can’t be done. Too funny!

  37. avatar Lawrence says:

    This fight is not just Sig and Brace owner . it is our gun owner fight,if you give a inch in the end you will lose all your gun right,do not think you paid your SBR stamps now you will have all the rights.please stand our firm ground.

  38. avatar Volunteerveteran says:

    To quote Randall J, “I said it before, and I’ll say it again.” We can’t agree on anything, and this is why we, the gun community, will never win. AR vs. AK, 9mm vs. .45, … That is not defeatist; that is realist. Do you think the gun grabbers lack solidarity in their position to ban guns? Are they saying, “well, I guess sometimes they are okay, if they are pink, no greater than .380 caliber, and only used in the hours of darkness, they are okay?, no they are evil and must be destroyed – that is their position. There are no devil’s advocates, no contrarians, they are unified, and we damn sure better get that way too.
    For any patriot that believes in liberty, there is one acceptable position. NFA, ATF, etc. are unconstitutional, and lack common sense. They are contrary to the very fiber of our independence and they make me sick. And if you think it is okay, because you don’t have one, or because those that bought the brace were “cheating” – when they were well within their legal rights to do so, then you are as useless to this community as a football bat. It should not be a compromise… period!

  39. avatar Von says:

    The fact we even have any laws that restrict our use of firearms and we all don’t viciously fight them is the problem. I’m disgusted at how our freedoms are slowly over time being sliced and diced away into a bowl of confusing trash. Why are there SBR , suppressor, and even full auto laws to begin with?
    Especially SBR and suppressor laws I mean what harm are they anyway? Our government sticks their money hungry “lets get bigger just because we can” fingers into too many things that should just be left alone.
    Why are we wasting so much time and effort on trying to complicate our lives? All this stuff should be legal to everyone.

  40. avatar Cory Pettiford says:

    So, by the ATF’s own definition, I could ‘redesign’ an AR-15 as a walking stick more commonly known as a cane if I grab the muzzle end and, by placing the buttstock on ground, use it for support to assist in walking? Then my newly redesigned cane does not need to be registered with the ATF regardless of length, because the ATF does not monitor nor regulate walking sticks, correct?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email