Previous Post
Next Post

SIG Brace on SIG pistol (courtesy

[UPDATE: The ATF has not, in fact, reversed itself. Follow to this article to find out why.]

One of our Facebook followers messengered an ATF letter that’s been making the rounds. [Posted after the jump.] Dated November 10th, it advises an inquiring gun owner that “if this device [the SIG SB-15 brace ], unmodified or modified [italics theirs], is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock, thus designing or redesigning or making or remaking, of a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder this assembly would constitute the making of a ‘rifle’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(7).” And thus become an NFA item. The letter is from . . .

Max A Kingery, ATF Acting Chief, Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch. It’s in direct contradiction to previous ATF communications on the SIG/SB Tactical brace. Letter number 903050 clearly states that the brace is not an NFA item, no matter how it’s used, and an AR pistol is not an NFA item, no matter how it’s used. To wit:

FTB has previously determined (FTB #99146) that the firing of the weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15-type pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon. Further, certain firearms accessories such as the SIG brace have not been classified by FTB as shoulder stocks, and therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change. Using such an accessory improperly would not change the classification of the weapon per federal law. [Full text below.]

SB Tactical (makers of the Brace) are aware of the situation. Here’s the most recent ATF letter on the SIG Brace stating that it’s an NFA item – depending how you use it.

SIG brace letter page 1


SIG Brace ATF letter page 2


SIG Brace ATF page 3

And here’s the letter from the ATF stating the Brace is not an NFA item, no matter how it’s used.


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The Ministry of Truth is at it again just making shit up out of thin air that contradicts the other shit they just made up out of thin air.

    • Yes, and hopefully one that can do away with SBR regs. Now is as good a time as any to start dismantling that especially stupid portion of the nfa. One step at a time, and this is a good place to start.

      • I agree completely, if a “non NFA” has been used for this long without incident, and now has suddenly become one just on how you hold it. That should be more than enough evidence that the firearm is no more or less deadly due to physical modification. Then down the road you may be able to get that to work with mechanical modification as well aka fully automatic. But it’ll have to be done like eating and elephant…one bite at a time.

      • I would love to see that case happen.

        Unfortunately, it could also mean the opposite. Just imagine SIG losing and the ATF suddenly deciding that the SBR/SBS registry is now closed. It happened before, and the president selectively appointed an ATF director that is politically motivated to make such things happen.

        • When the machine gun registry closed it was due to an act of congress, so the real worst case is that things stay the same.

        • Bret, with the current administration enacting executive orders and issuing oppions to agencies, what would make you think any legal legislation would be a roadblock?

    • How is Sig going to sue them? Sig was swearing up and down that this thing was only designed for use as an arm brace. If they turn around and yell at the BATFE that people can’t use it on their shoulder, that’s the equivalent of telling the BATFE that they lied the first time around about the true intended use.

      Sig isn’t going to sue over this.

      • Yeah I don’t really see it as Sig’s place to sue. It should be brought on by the NRA, NSSF, ACLU, constitution law center, or something other “rights group.” The ATF claiming that the design of the firearm changes depending on how you use it is ridiculous. If I use my AR-15 to hammer nails into the wall, that doesn’t turn it into a hammer. If I shoulder a pistol, that doesn’t turn it into a rifle. ATF ruled that this is an arm brace and if you misuse it that doesn’t magically redesign it into something different. It is what it is. A pistol is designed to be fired with one hand and just because I put two hands on it, it doesn’t magically become something else and it damn sure doesn’t change what it was originally designed for. People misuse products all the time. Shouldering an SB15 isn’t redesigning it, it’s just using it incorrectly, and suggesting that it’s redesigning it is preposterous.

        The laws are becoming convoluted now. That’s what should be challenged. They cannot be followed when they’re contradictory.

        • Yep. This will all hinge on the exact definition of the words “redesigned or remodeled”, and I don’t see how this new interpretation would stand up in court.

          OTOH, what ATF might then do is argue that the SIG brace is originally designed to be used as a stock. That one will be much harder to challenge.

        • It wouldnt be at all hard to challenge because apparently SB Tactical is the maker of the Brace and not Sig. Sig is the distributor. So they would have to put into question the actual inventor which in this case seems to be a disabled vet…good luck with that one.

  2. Yep, that is the sound (view?) of the other shoe dropping. That is the problem with bureaucracy, changing definitions as it suits their bureau objectives, or the bureacrat whim.

  3. Well…have fun trying to prove people violated this ruling. Although this could be a great jumping point to attack SBR regs in court.

  4. God damnit…. I really wish the atf would just piss off…. This is probably because so many people questioned it and tryed copying the idea… How about if the atf gives us something like this in the future, we take it with a smile and shut the hell up about it?

    • I had the same reaction at first, and when I heard myself saying it, I got even more angry. No, we should not smile and take ANYTHING from the ATF. And I own two stamps. This just shows how asinine it is that we try and “do the right thing” by asking permission in the first place.

    • I don’t think it’s about people questioning and copying the brace. It’s about the thousands of brace-equipped AR and AK pistols that are now flying off the shelves, seriously undermining the whole concept of special regulations (and tax stamps and registrations) of SBRs. They need to put a lid on this now, before whole sections of the NFA are completely blown up. Even if nobody had made a peep, they would have noticed that a lot of people suddenly started buying AR and AK pistols (which had been a very small niche market before the brace came out), and reacted in much the same way.

      I’m just surprised it took this long, and I hope that delay works in our favor when the inevitable legal challenge to the NFA over this finally comes around.

      • What’s strange to me is that the ATF is making such a big deal about this brace when you’ve got slide fire that actually makes a rifle fully auto?! Or wait…it simulates full auto…but with that said, a Sig Brace simulates a stock.

        • My thoughts exactly. What I find surprising with slidefire and similar products is that ATF ruled previously a similar device was a machine gun. They had it on their site for a while, but after they changed it, I don’t know where to find it.

          Anyway, in it, they described a 10-22 that had the stock cut out to allow the action to move back and forth held forward by a spring. The trigger area was recessed so that when you pushed the trigger back far enough, the rifle would fire, recoil back far enough into the stock to reset the trigger, and slide back forward to an extent that your stationary finger would break the trigger again. It would act effectively the same as a slidefire.

  5. There’s about a few hundred YouTube videos of guys shouldering these things. Are they going to start prosecuting YouTubers?

    • They haven’t gone after the hundreds of people who have put up videos of themselves and their redneck plastic bottle, PVC, plumbing pipe, fender washer silencers.

      Maybe the .gov isnt aware of YouTube? Or, when hordes of people openly and willfully violate a stupid law it becomes null and void.

      If even 5% of us just simply ignore the law the law loses its power.

    • No, they won’t randomly prosecute. Get sideways with a politician and end up on their enemy list though, you can bet that anything they can find on the internet about you will be used against you.

    • Ask Adam Kokesh what happens when someone decides what you did in a photo or video is illegal – and crosses state lines (with cooperation from the locals) to trounce your stash. Doesn’t help that he’s kind of a dipshit who was begging for trouble, but just the same…

  6. How is it even legal that this department can interpret law and reverse interpretation of law seemingly on the fly? Are all the people on youtube shouldering a sig brace now in legal peril? Were they following a law that was reversed now or were they violating the law the entire time? What a joke.

    • It isn’t constitutional, legal, or moral. This is statism at its finest.

      Accountability? Nope.
      Power? Yep.
      Taxpayer funded? Yep.
      Bureaucracy? Hell yes.
      Arbitrary? Yep.
      Will arrest or raid those who don’t comply? Absolutely. See Ares Armor.
      Entrapment? Yes. See WI undercover op where a mentally disabled individual was targeted and arrested.
      Incompetent? See: Fast and Furious.
      Unnecessary? Of course. But absolutely essential to statist politicians. It’s s useful tool to discourage gun owners and ensnare those pesky independent thinkers who dare to interpret the Bill of Rights without the “assistance” of the courts.

    • >> How is it even legal that this department can interpret law and reverse interpretation of law seemingly on the fly

      It is legal, basically, because Congress made it legal by making an unclear law. Legislature write laws, executive branch implements them. When laws are vague, executive has a lot of leeway in how they do it. And in many cases, legislature even explicitly says that executive can make such decisions. For example, when it comes to drug laws, the Congress gave DEA authority to unilaterally add or remove substances to various schedules – an authority which they have exercised since then. So any substance in the country can be literally made illegal overnight by a decision of a single DEA bureaucrat with zero oversight.

  7. Damn this person who asked such a bone-headed question. A simple Google search would have enlightened the questioner to the BATFE’s prior responses to these questions. Another simple Google search would have allowed this skull full of mush to find out the law as it is written in the NFA, as well as what does or does not constitute a rifle/pistol/aow/machine gun/nfa device. Giving the ATF any latitude to speak on matters that they have previously given a positive statement on (few and far in between) is like a child asking a parent if they are sure they can have dessert after the parent has already said that they may. Thanks for nothing, dummy.

    • The fact the ATF can be likened to a parent is problematic in and of itself. This agency needs to be defanged or dismantled.

    • This is the wrong mindset. It’s a slave mentality where you blame your fellow slaves for trying to get clarification of your master’s orders. This is the natural consequence of letting bureaucracies dictate what is legal based on a whim. Whatsoever a bureaucrat grants, he can simply take away at a later date.

      We shouldn’t be taking issue with people trying to work within a broken system….instead we should be focusing on fixing the system so that bureaucrats don’t have authority….that should rest with the people or their representatives.

      • Wrong…these are opinion letters and nothing more. Rulings are made in a court of law….and one opinion is worth another no matter it’s date. What would be needed is a rescinding letter to change things…otherwise this is ATf just trying to slow sales.

        • This. BATF is not your judge and jury. They just tell you how they will arrest you. It’s up to the courts to decide, not the BATF.

        • Both letters are official documents. Both stand in court. And the ATF hasn’t rescinded their earlier ruling. SO. WHICH FVCKING ONE IS IT?!
          this hurts my brain. The ATF is a bunch of morons

        • so if I remove my sig brace from my pistol can i still shoulder it? Or is that illegal as well without the brace???

        • >> Both letters are official documents. Both stand in court. And the ATF hasn’t rescinded their earlier ruling. SO. WHICH FVCKING ONE IS IT?!

          It’s neither. Both of these letters are ATF’s own interpretations of the law. They would prosecute or not prosecute people based on those interpretations (and with two conflicting letters, we don’t really know, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that newer supersedes older here).

          But once it gets to court, it won’t matter, because it will be up to the judge to figure out what the law actually says. He may rely on ATF opinion as “experts”, but he doesn’t have to, and there have been cases previously where judges have thrown such out (in particular, one case where ATF actually argued in favor of the defendant, who was a felon found in possession of a black powder handgun – ATF said that their interpretation of the law is that it’s not considered a firearm and therefore felons can own it freely, but judge disagreed and locked the guy up).

  8. well doesn’t that just figure, I just paid $140 for one of those sig braces put it on which was a nightmare, and now they ban you from holding it against your shoulder what kind of s*** is that?

    • Well… for $60 more you could have done it the right way and not be in this situation, but then I get shouted out of here by all the SB fanbois every time I point that out.

        • $60 isn’t what’s a big deal. It’s the registration of your gun that goes along with it that most people disagree with.

        • The limitations that an SBR come with are not always a simple issue to resolve. I can’t store it with people who are not on my trust. It’s no longer a pistol I can leave in my truck loaded in many areaa. Some states won’t let me own an SBR and I also have to move every two years. Very few states ban AK and AR pistols. There are no upsides to own an SBR unless I live in the middle of Texas and won’t be crossing any state lines on a whim. Not everyone has your life situation which makes having an SBR easier to own. When I lived in Kansas the nearest ranges were in MO. I would have had to get a “permission slip” to take it out of state.

          I kind of saw this coming and sold my AK pistol and brace last month. I’ll stick to 16″ rifles for now. Maybe when I retire I’ll get an SBR if the NFA is still there. I’m sure it will be.

        • And to have to ask Mom & Dad for permission to take it across state lines. And to notify them in writing every time you move. This is bullshit. Where’s Trey Gowdy’s phone number?

      • You are absolutely correct. Now, does your ego feel better?

        A SB15 equipped AR15 pistol owner does not have to have written permission to cross state lines to shoot on a buddy’s property. And it’s $60 cheaper. Seems like it’s worth a chance. Maybe not to you, but that is ok too. Have a nice day.

        • Yeah well, now it appears that NO states will be allowing Sig Braces to be used as shoulder stocks… so

        • That was not the case when you were “pointing that out to SB fanbois”.

          Now, obviously, things are different, because circumstances changed.

      • MD banned SBRs with an overall length of less than 29 inches. A Sig brace was the only way to make my 26.5 inch build legal.

      • You get shouted down because of your quisling ways. You seem all to happy to pay extortion taxes to practice your rights as an American.

  9. I honestly do not believe this would have happened if so many people hadn’t “poked the bees nest” making inquiries about the brace and multiple companies hadn’t pushed the envelope with designs after the brace was ruled non SBR when fired from the shoulder. But SIG seems to like to poke the nest a good bit too, luckily they can afford expensive lawyers and are on our side. The ATF has shown multiple times they will do whatever they want without the approval from anyone but themselves, they believe the only checks and balances they need are themselves.
    I forsee a flood of used AR pistols hitting the market if this ruling holds though.

    • Yeah, especially if the receiver was previously assembled as a rifle, so that now they are “firearms”! Say it ain’t so!

      • I would say SIG is on our side. They like to push the envelope with the ATF/NFA and make non NFA items that can be used similar to NFA items. Hence the SIG brace, and thier muzzle devices that look extremely similar to a mono core. Whether it be for thier personal financial gain or not does not matter, it opens doors for other companies to do similar things.

        • “I honestly do not believe this would have happened if…multiple companies hadn’t pushed the envelope with designs after the brace was ruled non SBR when fired from the shoulder.”

          “Whether it be for thier personal financial gain or not does not matter, it opens doors for other companies to do similar things.”

          So which is it, are competing designs good or bad? Seems like you’re contradicting yourself here.

          “The ATF has shown multiple times they will do whatever they want without the approval from anyone but themselves, they believe the only checks and balances they need are themselves.”

          If that’s true (and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that it is), then what difference would it make if people “poked the bee’s nest” or not? Why would the ATF need prompting to capriciously change their ruling, if they just do whatever they want anyway?

          Like I said earlier, this has very little to do with anybody “ruining it for everybody else”. This was inevitable. They didn’t foresee that the SIG brace was going to take off like wildfire and create a whole new pseudo-SBR market when they approved it. Once it happened, it was only a matter of time before they decided they had to try to put the brakes on it. This letter confuses the whole issue and introduces a lot of doubt, and will likely slow sales of AR and AK pistols, which is precisely the ATF’s goal here.

      • You know that’s what makes the free market so great. They may be on there own side and out to make money. But by putting out things that people want, and things that challenge unpopular government rulings then they are also on our side. In the gun world there is no profit with out shooters. And many people who love guns stick to a brand. If sig finds little ways around the atf then they have won loyal customers.

    • The real problem is not enough people poking the bee’s nest and reminding our government that all this BS is an infringement. Too many people complacent enough to “play by the rules”, “60 dollars to avoid a felony”, etc…is why the ATF has any power at all.

  10. Is that a real ATF letter? They don’t usually contain so many typos.
    “used as a should stock”
    “this assemble would”

  11. What gibberish. I have a registered SBR AR-15. Barrel length less that 16″, but a rifle (not a “firearm”), so if I get this Sig brace on another AR, a pistol now, can I not shoulder the brace? What if I put it on my SBR lower? Can I shoulder it now, or did simply assembling it with a receiver previously assembled as a rifle (although SBR), make it a “firearm” now, instantly criminal whether shouldered or not? This crap is absolutely RIDICULOUS!!! And accomplishes precisely nothing. The NFA needs to go away, and the ATF with it.

  12. FCK the ATF. They should be eliminated forthwith, preferably by serving the same jail sentences and fines they hand out, and the NFA repealed in its entirety.

  13. Until they make pistol teacupping or ghetto sideways a crime, the ATF has no business telling people how to hold forearms. They can go piss up a rope.

  14. the BATFE needs to be dismantled and put back into the state system instead of the federal system. These guys if they had their hand caught in the cookie jar so many times now breaking their own laws trying to incriminate and causing criminal enterprises to spring up around businesses that they’ve started as a front to bust illegal guns.they are a joke! Crooked as the day is long!I have a ex brother in law who is an ATF agent and some of the things that he’s told me that they’ve done will actually make you shake in your boots at some of the illegal activity that they are involved in bunch of thugs with badges!

  15. Yep. This isn’t the first time some bone-head asked the ATF the wrong question at the wrong time and ruined something for everyone else.

    Still, there are lots of AR pistols with SIG braces out there. I believe one of my local big-box stores even has one in stock at the moment. It may be too late for the ATF to put this genie back in the bottle.

    • “… some bone-head asked the ATF … and ruined something for everyone else.”

      Um, no. The REAL problem here is the ATF, not the “bonehead” who asked a question.

  16. Until someone is convicted by a jury which ignores the ATF previous position I’m contiuning as normal.

    There will be a deekwad cop at a public range that will use this as an opportunity to be his deekwad self and arrest a gunner who doesn’t live on TTAG. That will hasten the process of final resolution.

  17. I knew this was going to happen and the ATF was going to change its mind eventually. “It’s not a shoulder stock..until we change our mind and say it is. Guess what? We just changed our mind. It’s a stock. Putting it on your AR pistol makes it a rifle, now you have an illegal SBR. Have fun in prison.”

    So there goes any reason I might have had to buy a SIG brace.

    • Technically, all he said was that shouldering a pistol with the SIG brace was illegal and would change the classification of the firearm. Although I suppose it’s only a matter of time before some jackwang ATF agent arrests someone not misusing the brace for constructive possession.

  18. “Your first step would be to obtain certification, from the manufacturer of the receiver, that it has never been assembled into a rifle.”

    What is this happy horseshit? If I buy a stripped receiver, no marks or blemishes, then it is neither a pistol nor a rifle. This making it up as they go shit needs to come to an end.

  19. The interesting thing about this is that it seems, from the definitions given and the ATF’s reasoning, that the AR pistol he wishes to build, even when he misuses the brace, would at all times remain a pistol under the GCA and would simply gain the secondary classifications of a rifle under the GCA and an SBR under the NFA. The GCA’s legal definition of a pistol, as given in this letter, only accounts for the original design and manufactured configuration while the GCA’s legal definition of a rifle includes both designed and redesigned, and made and remade. Therefore simple logic finds that after a weapon legally defined as a pistol is remade into a legally defined rifle it is still legally a pistol. At that point, under the legal definitions quoted in this letter, such a weapon would legally speaking gave to be simultaneously defined as both a rifle and a pistol.

  20. A pistol is a weapon intended to be fired with 1 hand. What this letter says now is that if you fire a pistol with two hands you’ve made an AOW….don’t get caught shootingn with two hands.

    • That is how I read it as well. If you use two hands to shoot ANY pistol, you have converted it to an illegal, unlicensed SBR, have fun in prison.

    • Exactly what I thought reading through that.
      My CZ handgun has a factory-designed rough spot on the frame. Why? Because it was specifically designed that way to have somewhere to rest the thumb of your second hand. I guess it is an AOW now.

      I really hope those ATF agents are trained to properly fire their handguns with one hand…

  21. This is exactly why it’s idiotic to let the ATF create regulations on a whim instead of following the law (or better yet, the Constitution).

  22. A handgun can be fired with one hand, but ALL of the training I’ve seen and received focus on BOTH HANDS on the pistol for stability and accuracy. Rifles are normally used with two hands, but CAN be fired with one. So once again contradiction, confusion, and incompetence come from the government. Big surprise.

  23. Under that convoluted logic, an SBR with a stock that you never shouldered and never intend to would be an AR pistol.

    It’s legal entrapment and the first person to be charged for shouldering the AR brace (if ATF doesn’t backpedal again) will have a reasonable case against the charges.

  24. This is an outrage. I can’t believe my hard earned tax dollars are funding this bs government agency. DISBAND THE ATF NOW!

  25. Make sure you get a letter from Sig saying that your Sig Brace has never touched anyone’s shoulder.

    Or is the ownership of both an SB and a shoulder now considered “shoulderive intent”?

  26. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

    So, it appears that Humpty Dumpty is now running the ATF.

  27. Just get rid of the NFA completely. Call your Congressman. Ask them if they’ll support/author legislation doing so. If not, then it’s time to start looking for a new Congressman.

    • two hands on a pistol has nothing to do with the NFA and its laws on pistols and AR 15 pistols it has everything to do with the total length of the weapon whether or not you can have a four and ninety degree grip it has to be 26 inches or longer to have a second vertical grip the pistol can be any link barrel. This is a totally new thing that sig designed to be an arm brace to add support when shooting the pistol, using it as a shoulder stock is just an improper use of a legal product which shouldn’t be against the law by any means you should be able to shoot your weapon however you want. There’s people out there that are disabled like myself who need all the support that they can get when firing a rifle or a handgun.

      • This has everything to do with “one hand”. The definition of what a handgun is vs what a rifle is in the NFA is not in any way related to the barrel length. It’s solely defined in terms of how it is designed to be fired:

        “(29) The term “handgun” means—
        (A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
        (B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled.”

        Now, therefore, if ATF is arguing that using the firearm in a way it wasn’t designed for constitutes a “redesign or remake” corresponding to the new mode of usage (in the case of the SIG brace, from a handgun to a short-barreled rifle), then the same logic as applied to handguns indicates that a handgun being fired with two hands can no longer be treated as “designed to be fired by the use of a single hand”, and is not a handgun for the duration of said use. Since it has a rifled barrel, it’s not a shotgun; and since it doesn’t have a stock, it’s not a rifle; so that would make any handgun fired with two hands AOW.

  28. Much ado about nothing.

    Buy a manufactured AR pistol, attach SB-15 brace and shoulder it all you want.

    The language in the letter is pretty specific that it applies only to receivers manufactured as anything other than a pistol. So in this guys case, his “other” receiver is where the issue is, not the brace or its use.

    • The force is strong in you. To read a bureaucratic letter, one must become a bureaucrat AKA become extremely technical.


      Just make sure your receiver was never made to accept stocks. Funny thing is, you can use a rifle receiver for an AR pistol as long as your show the ATF that it has been redesigned so it can no longer accept a stock.

      Also, if this is true, then anybody who has done this and redesigned a receiver to no longer accept a stock, it is now illegal for them to use the buffer tube as a informal stock.

  29. What’s going to happen next is the ATF is going to take a high profile youtuber using one of these and nail them to the wall with a felony.

    I’m not interested in playing games with an agency with that much power and a bottomless legal fund.

    You guys do realize going to court to defend yourself if this brace goes sideways is a $100k proposition at least, and you still may lose and do serious time.

    Not thanks, as said above just SBR. AR lowers are cheap, keep the SBR for special times and have another none SBR for the truck/whatever gun. Heck at today’s prices buy 6 AR’s.

    • Yeah, stamps are nice, but some people live in states that don’t allow them. Up until last year, I couldn’t have an SBR or suppressor in WA state.

      Another nice thing about the brace is that I can cross state lines without asking permission, so I could bring a particular toy with me when I visit family in Oregon.

  30. I wonder if we should blame those shotgun people that installed the SB-15 on it and then asked the ATF if it was okay or not..

    I mean I dont think they are all to blame but this just sucks now…

  31. BEWARE of posting photos and videos on social media, such as Facebook, showing conduct that MAY (?) be viewed as criminal.

    • Rob…it hasn’t become relevant at all. According to this latest opinion (if it’s a real letter) anyone shooting an ar pistol from the shoulder has created an Sbr. Even placing a sling and intending it to be a stock creates an sbr. Someone in your position should be pushing how wrong this opinion is…not fining ways to comply with this lunacy.

      • Then the converse would have to be true as well. Anyone shooting a SBR without touching the stock to their shoulder has created a pistol. No, need to worry about tax stamps if you don’t intend to shoulder the SBR, right?

        • You are attempting to use logic when discussing firearms law. That ought to be added to the standard list of logical fallacies.

  32. This SBR garbage is hands down one of THE BEST examples of stupid gun laws to share with non-gun people who tend to take gun laws at face value (e.g., “why did universal background checks fail when 90% of people support them?”). The tortured logic of pistols / rifles / SBRs is so stupid that anyone can appreciate how confusing and arbitrary the laws are, especially given the consequences of something as innocuous as attaching a VFG to “the wrong type of AR” can instantly transform an upstanding citizen into a felon.

    The real magic: ask an anti why one configuration is legal when another is a crime. Get THEM to tell YOU. They can’t give you a good answer, because there isn’t one. You’ll get blind guesses or shrugged shoulders as they attempt to reconcile their assumption that government knows best & the ATF are the experts until they’re left with nothing but the inevitable conclusion that these laws have nothing to do with SBRs being materially more or less dangerous than pistols or rifles. And at this point they can’t help but understand that opposition to seemingly “common sense” gun laws might stem from more than the usual “NRA twisting the arms of lawmakers” narrative.

  33. Well it’s simple logic. A stock is a solid object with a wide end for the shoulder. A flexible end that doesn’t distribute recoil is not a stock. Now for nfa item rules have no foundation in logic, so therefore those rules should not even exist. If we are a nation of laws. And not a freaking 3rd world nation, a dark age kingdom, or ruled by one person dictatorship.

  34. I never believed in this product to begin with, and still don’t. It’s supposed noble intent, to provide a support point on an AR pistol for a shooter with limited weak hand facility, always struck me as disingenuous. This “Edward Pistol Hands” monstrosity had end run around the NFA written all over it from the start.

    Now, the NFA is unconstitutional in itself and failing decades of SC opportunities to strike it down, should be repealed. Until then, follow the damn law, quit being cutesy, or else prepare to suffer the consequences.

    • >> Until then, follow the damn law, quit being cutesy, or else prepare to suffer the consequences.

      Why exactly should people follow bad laws and not try to work around them?

      Do you hate jury nullification, too?

  35. All someone needs to do is take a picture of you at the range “misusing” one of these stocks,
    and then testify to it in court. You’ll be convicted so fast your head will spin.

    Doubt it….any ATF or Cop STUPID ENOUGH to play that game gets the firestorm that
    follows. I know you LEO’s lurk here…think about this….why infringing on a gun owners
    rights after you “make law” if a very bad idea for your career….walk away…quickly….

  36. ,,,,hence my previous comment. You want to push that NFA fence over ?
    With all the increasingly polarized political climate ? For you LEO
    lurkers trolling this thread…think about how nice your government
    paycheck and pension plan is…and all that free coffee and donuts.
    Shame to lose all that…your wife likes her house… You wanna be
    that ATF agent who ended that gravy train by landing
    NFA in front of the Supremes? Did I mention wifey
    likes her house…?

  37. In other news, the ATF has ruled that if you plan on firing your rifle without touching the stock to your shoulder it will be considered a pistol.

  38. Looks like I’ll be buying an AR15 pistol….w/pistol buffer tube out the back….Hey ATFE,…this won’t be ” redesigned or remade “….Stick your Tech Branch manual up your a**.

      • As long as you buy it that way, they can’t say you ” redesigned or remade ” it. They can’t regulate the form you use to shoot your pistol….And just bought the ATI pistol…So stick that up your a**.

        • what if you build your own pistol from stripped upper and lower receiver and use the pistol buffer with a pistol barrel pistol buffer tube, is there any restriction on owning that?

  39. Well, this aint over yet… Not by a long shot. There are a LOT of people who have a LOT at stake with this, including:

    * All of the Manufacturers who have Pistols with Braces on the market, or in the works (Sig MPX, IWI Ace Galil, CZ, on and on) – and the stores who have/had these on their shelves.

    * All of the people who have shouldered these on camera, as per the ATF’s go-ahead. They are going to want an answer.

    * All of the folks who have Sig braces on pistols and could NOW potentially commit a felony if it so much as touches your shoulder (???) and all of the stores that sold them.

    It has been, and still is, all about design intent. The way I read this, it was all about the design to be used as a stock — but there is no doubt that this new self-contradicting ‘opinion’ makes it way too blurry now for anyone to proceed as we were just a day or two ago.

    Couldn’t see bringing a pistol with an SB to the range now, if touching it to your shoulder could potentially constitute a felony (?) Couldn’t see stores putting these on their shelves or manufacturers marketing these without some clarification on this.

    Personally, I think the ATF is boxed in on this and can’t undo their initial ‘opinion’ without turning the whole thing on it’s head… ie – If I use two hands to fire a pistol now, does that suddenly turn it into a rifle (that I was just carrying loaded and concealed on my person)?? Does a Slidefire suddenly turn your Semi auto into a Full Auto? Does Bump firing a rifle do the same??? I don’t see how ATF can reverse their initial decision on this, unless they now rule that the SB was designed to be used as a stock.

    This just opened up a big can of worms that many folks now need clarity on before proceeding. Until there is a court decision/precedence or some official clarify on this subject, the SB is coming off the Pistol.

    Nice that they waited until a million of these were sold based on their first ‘ruling’ before issuing this BS, huh? No one will want one of these on their pistol if by the act of it touching your shoulder could be constituted as a felony (?). Or perhaps even just the ‘intent’ to do so could be construed as constructive possession (?)

    Also even more unclear to me is if you paid the $200 and kept the SB on, would it still be a pistol? By their own words, attaching an SB to a pistol does not make it a rifle – apparently only the act of touching it to your shoulder would (and would that be a temporary condition, or does it resort back to being a pistol once it’s off your shoulder?) As apparently some people who like to call others ‘SB Fanbois’ don’t get, some states don’t allow SBR’s or allow you to carry a loaded rifle in your truck concealed in any fashion, so it’s not just about the $200, Tex.

    What a bunch of BS. I hope we can get some clarity on this – because there is a lot at stake and everything is now in limbo, where as it was not just a few days ago… Oh, and thanks so much to the all the asshats who just couldn’t let this go and had to keep asking until they answered themselves in a circle. Great.

  40. I don’t see how SB Tactical can sell another one of these until this issue is clarified. “installing an SB does not turn a pistol into an SBR…. OH, but if it touches your shoulder now, it does (???)”

    What about bump-firing a rifle? What about shooting a handgun with two hands? or shooting a rifle with one hand? What about Slidefire? It all becomes a mess if they don’t stick to their first ruling – or completely reverse their decision about SB being designed as a brace, not a stock.

  41. Maybe the point all along was to entrap a bunch of gun owners (in this case over a million) and then have the opportunity to prosecute at a later date? It’s not like the FBI doesn’t do this on a regular basis with their BS foiling of 17 alleged “Terror” plots in the US since 9/11.

    From Atlas Shrugged: Do you really think we want laws to be observed? We want them broken. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be crimes that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants law-abiding citizens? Pass the kind of laws that can’t be observed, enforced, or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers.

  42. This new ruling also flies in the face of the previous precedence that says that a Thompson Center Frame (such as a Contender or Encore) may configured as a pistol or a rifle and changed back and fourth – this ruling would imply that once your Contender or Encore frame is configured as a rifle, you may never revert it back to a pistol unless you register it as an SBR.

  43. Much ado about nothing….and most people here don’t know how to read. This Anthony Crawford guy asked if he needed to file a form 1. He basically told atf his intent was to make an sbr….and the atf responded in correct fashion. If your intent was to make an sbr then no…you can’t put a brace on your “other” lower and put it to your shoulder. This is no change in the atf position….especially considering that this guy declares that he in reality wants to make an sbr. It does create some other interesting implications…but this is no change from ATF opinion. Not to mention this letter is only an opinion for the person who manufactured that specific firearm with the intent of firing it from the shoulder. If he had ripped it up and never posted it nobody would know….and the letter written to the police agency in Colorado still stands. You cannot be arrested for shooting an ar in any particular fashion….you can be arrested if you declare your intent to make an sbr…then flaunt that in front of another officer.

    • That seems to make sense. All about design intent. But some wording in that letter does seem to beg for clarification to confirm that is the case…. For me, for my range, for my LGS, etc. Frankly, any ruling other than design intent would throw everything else into a tizzy (firing a handgun with two hands, rifle with one hand, etc)

      • What’s clear is that you can shoot a pistol in any way you want and there is no legislation to prove otherwise. What’s also clear is that the sb15 is legal….and what’s also clear is that if you intend to shoot it as intended and then fire it from the shoulder you are ok. What’s not ok is asking the ATF weather or not you really need to file a form 1 when making an sbr or asking if you can avoid filing a form 1 and simply put an sb15 in a stocks place…because when you do that, you’ve declared your intent.

        • That’s great news. When the Galil ACE pistol w/brace comes into town. I’d like to try it out as it seems the arm support of the brace would help out a great deal as they are heavy. Thanks!

  44. I have just one question reguarding the “so called pistol brace” to all of the owners out there……….when was the last time you actually strapped that thing round your arm, stuck it out and pulled the trigger. Pictures please.

  45. American handgunner has an article (March/April 2015 p.58 SIG’s P516) about the poorly rationalized haste to legitimize an SBR by yet another trendy marketing TEAM.

  46. I could slap the fools that kept provoking them. Every smartass in the country sent them letters written “well, what if I do this? Is that legal? What about this?” They let it go the first dozen times and we couldn’t just leave well enough alone. Get the government thinking about something enough and sure as shit they’ll rationalize taking it from you.

    • The flip side of that coin is that if the ATF issues enough letters in response to questions of varied nuances of the same topic, they will eventually define themselves into a corner that cannot be defended successfully in court. Conceivable, that could lead to a net loss of regulatory power for the agency.

      Then again, I keep thinking back to the “shoe string machine gun part” fiasco.

    • This is exactly what I thought also.They couldn`t just be happy reading the other 20 atf responses to the same question and had to indeed again raise their eyebrows.

  47. I’m not sure I see a contradiction. The opinion from the ATF, on the question asked, was about “building” or “assembline” a new weapon from parts, and a pistol. The original ATF determination about using the SIG516P, from the shoulder, is NOT “assembling” a new weapon. It’s using the weapon, as designed, and without changing the configuration. And as the ATF said, they don’t regulate firing positions.

    The reason the “assembled” pistol is NFA, is because it’s been “assembled” as a new weapon. The reason the SIG516P was ruled as ok to fire from shoulder, is because it was NOT “changed” or “assembled” as a new weapon.

    At least that’s the way I read these two letters. And I don’t see the contradiction. Just a misreading of why each ATF ruling was made.


  48. “All someone needs to do is take a picture of you at the range “misusing” one of these stocks, and then testify to it in court. You’ll be convicted so fast your head will spin.”

    Ignoring the nauseating “badge licking” in this comment….the ATF would have to bring buses at some of
    the ranges I’ve been to. Folks STANDING IN LINE to shoot one of these… As others have pointed out the
    ATF are also utter fools to have gone NEAR THIS…but bureaucratic bullies just cannot help themselves
    when the citizens let them run our of control I guess. The first arrest over nonsese like this puts the NFA
    and the ATF’s paycheck on trial.. PAY ATTENTION lurker LEO’s…I know you troll these threads so I will
    make a suggestion over “arm braces” ….WALK AWAY……NOW !!!! This is not 1934….


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here