Sig Sauer Challenges ATF Open Letter Regarding SB-15 Brace Use

According to the BATF, how one holds this may constitute a product redesign.

According to the BATF, how one holds this may constitute a product redesign.

How to use or not to use, that is the question.

The Sig Sauer SB-15 stabilizing brace for AR-type pistols has exposed some sticky legal questions. Does the use of a product define its purpose? For example, if one uses a hammer to remove a corroded battery terminal from a 1970 Gremlin, does the use redefine that same hammer as a wrench?

Historically, the BATF, citing National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations, has adhered to clear boundaries related to the design of a firearm. If a firearm fell outside of technical definitions, its manufacture and transfer was deemed subject to the terms of the NFA. For example, if a manufacturer put forth a rifle with a 12-inch barrel, it would be subject to NFA restrictions. Clear enough, right?

In the case of the Sig Sauer SB-15 Stabilizing Brace, the ATF has gotten itself into a pickle. Initially, the agency issued a ruling in favor of the Sig Sauer stabilizing brace, stating that “We find that the device is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder. Based on our evaluation, FTB finds that the submitted forearm brace, when attached to a firearm, does not convert the weapon to be fired from the shoulder and would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm.”

In a subsequent open letter, the ATF appears to contradict its stance of applying NFA regulations to firearms design rather than use. According to the newest ATF letter, “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.”

In plain English, the ATF appears to have stated that the method of use of a firearm can qualify as a product “redesign.” Even though the parts and installation remain exactly the same, the method of holding a certain gun can create a “redesign” that makes it an illegal product. This opens up a can of worms that puts any barrel of monkeys to shame.  Back to the hammer example, if I strike a nail, the thing in my hand is still a hammer. If I smash it on a ream of copier paper, is it now a printing press subject to FCC regulation? Likewise, if one holds the Sig brace equipped pistol at shoulder height, is it illegal? What if the user mounts the brace an inch below, does that qualify as a redesign of the product?

Does a consumer’s use of a product define its intent? Does the ATF have the legal authority to define law? What is the legal authority of an “open letter” from a federal government agency? These questions and many more remain.

On January 21, 2015, Sig Sauer issued a statement addressing the issue:

“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.”

As the statement from Sig Sauer indicates, the company believes that how a customer chooses to use a product does not constitute a “product redesign.” Just because a consumer might use a can of creamed corn to pound a nail doesn’t make that packaged vegetable a hammer. It’s still a can of creamed corn, dented or not.

This is gonna get interesting folks.

{ 86 comments… add one }
  • Commit Murder October 23, 2016, 9:30 am

    Short Term Loans

  • memory foam September 27, 2016, 12:43 am

    I used to be recommended this blog by my cousin. I’m now not positive whether or
    not this submit is written through him as nobody else understand such unique approximately
    my problem. You’re incredible! Thanks!

  • manish June 13, 2016, 4:08 am

    Hey, very nice site. I came across this on Google, and I am stoked that I did. I will definitely be coming back here more often. Wish I could add to the conversation and bring a bit more to the table, but am just taking in as much info as I can at the moment. Thanks for sharing.
    Finger Extension Splint SupportKeep Posting:)

  • Mark Tercsak August 24, 2015, 12:36 pm

    2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    As Ratified by the Respective States in which “We The People Reside”, and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the United States Secretary of State. This is the official version , the other other was by Congress but it has one more coma in the language.

    The most important section or clause of the 2nd Amendment is the very last, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, what this means is Congress, the Courts and State Legislatures and local city or town Government can make no law that regulates or taxes our firearms or ammunition , nor can they create an organization that regulates or controls our firearms and or ammunition , or impose fines or licenses or there associated fee’s when pertaining to ownership of firearms and there associated products.

    I therefore contend the BTAF is a Unconstitutional Organization and we should petition the Government to disband this Unconstitutional Organization and allow Freedom to ring, Do not get me wrong I have met and have known BTAF Agents through Dad over the years, and all are great Americans, what we can do is have them move on and concentrate of folks who will use the firearms for criminal activities.

    Lets regulate the criminals make it harder for them to operate, lets put the criminals out of business.

  • David May 12, 2015, 1:20 pm

    I am a disabled man. I have Multiple Sclerosis. I lost most of the feeling in my right arm, hand and fingers, as well as much of the motor functions.
    Being that I am right handed, the brace gives me the option of shooting with my left arm.
    But, here is the caveat, when sighting in, because I use a rest, it is much easier and more accurate to place the brace against my shoulder. This does not alter the intent of firing the pistol with a brace, it helps me get an accurate boresight.
    The same holds true for hunting from my blind. I have a rest to put the gun on and depending how I feel that day, I may have to shoot with just my left arm, but also may be able steady the gun more accurately in the rest, with the back of the brace rested against my shoulder.
    The atf is not taking in to consideration all facets of people like me that are disabled. The initial ruling where the atf stated that there is no issue with using the brace incorrectly needs to remain intact for disabled personnel like myself.

  • Steve Burrell March 31, 2015, 9:30 am

    So given that the geniuses of F Troop (BATFE) now are holding the position that it is not the design or configuration of any given firearm that defines its classification and is rather the way it is held or used that defines its classification; the same argument could be used to change an SBR or SBS to a non NFA item so long as one never fires said weapon from the shoulder. By extension, it could be argued that an NFA weapon that was originally designed as a select fire weapon capable of firing more than one round with a single operation of the trigger is not a machinegun if it is only used to fire one round at a time. If I ‘redesign’ a M2 by only loading a single .50 caliber round on a link, is said weapon now a semi automatic rifle?

  • Austin Walls March 11, 2015, 10:06 pm

    I think congress needs to cut the atf’s money and tell them the American citizens are tired of them screwing with the 2nd amendment. What if you use the buffer tube against your shoulder?

  • jesus Fernandez February 27, 2015, 3:14 pm

    It’s a matter of interpretation. Like the biblical passage, and the legalization of Marijuana? “If two men lye together, they shall be stoned”!!! Make sense to me!!!

  • Fred February 16, 2015, 8:15 am

    I love all the colorful language and jokes about AR-15 becoming flowerpots and all BUT the real fucking question is what do I do with the $1400 paperweight I just bought having been told by my local gun shop it was a “shortcut to Class 3 ownership”? Who is filing a lawsuit against these assholes at ATF for saying one thing and then just reversing it? Any takers? What pisses me off is I walked into that shop intending to file my paperwork for an SBR here in Florida and I was mis-led into buying this pistol, which who the fuck is gonna fire with one hand anyway. So now it’s in my safe. I think Sig or someone should fork over the $300 bucks I need now to make this gun official or simply grow some balls and sue ATF.

  • PREPARE4WAR3 February 14, 2015, 11:53 pm

    If someone breaks into my house and I shoot them with an AR15 pistol that has a Sig Brace on it and I somehow shoulder it as I fire to protect my family, when the police show up are they going to ask me if I shouldered the pistol? And if i did shoulder it under stress to make my shot more stable and more accurate, am I now admitting I committed a crime? Who thinks like this other than educated idiots who run the Government.

  • Chris January 30, 2015, 10:28 am

    Sometimes I shoot my AR carbine with one hand does that somehow now make it a pistol?

  • jim January 27, 2015, 9:06 am

    I seem to be missing something here.
    Are criminals running the streets with these? I am sure those in a life of crime want to be legal.
    How many lives have been negatively affected by these braces? One armed robberies are they rampant?
    Are gangs roaming the streets with arm braces?

    Silly, eh? I say let the idiots run around with a arm brace. There is no way that contraption could make someone a better shot than someone with a rifle or conventional pistol.

  • John Wolf January 27, 2015, 7:49 am

    This type of rule would allow the sale of machine guns as long as you would use it on semi auto . What’s is good for the goose is good for the gander. Gota be consistent Boys .

  • Reno January 27, 2015, 1:21 am

    What about grand father rights? Because they changed the description now it’s illegal. So all the cars that DON’T have emission controls are illegal cause the cars laws has changed. I better get rid of my dad’s model T.

  • DaveGinOly January 27, 2015, 1:09 am

    Doesn’t this really just expose how foolish these laws are in the first place? Pistol or SBR? In the infamous words of Hilary, “What difference does it make?”

  • J.V.Williams January 27, 2015, 1:04 am

    I just love it when everyone speaks for the ATF and knows what they intended and or why they changed the ruling etc.!

  • DaveGinOly January 27, 2015, 12:50 am

    So, according to the ATF, if I attach a light to the rail on the dust cover of a handgun, and then grip the light with my support hand, I’ve “redesigned” the light to make it an illegal foregrip? Pernicious nonsense!

    What about foregrips that have retractable bipods? A bipod on a handgun is legal, but a foregrip is not. Can you put one of these dual-use accessories on a handgun and be OK because you never use it as a grip? Does NOT using an accessory or part as it was intended “redesign” the part in such a manner so that it is no longer illegal to use?

  • Ringo Lapua January 27, 2015, 12:30 am

    Hey People! The ATF functions directly under the gun laws passed by Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives). So GUESS WHO controls Congress in the coming year? The Republicans who are supposed to be against oppressive gun control and if so, should be willing to pass new legislation which limits the power of the ATF. The ATF should NOT be able to create their own legislation simply by interpretation. The ATF should be required to seek congressional approval for every law change the wish to make. The ATF has grown too strong and is OUT OF CONTROL. It’s time to put a leash and a muzzle on the ATF. Don’t you all agree. Time for letters to our Congressmen and the NRA. We need to fight back.

  • Liberty ACE January 26, 2015, 7:49 pm

    Ya’ll are missing the point. When the device is used as designed to support the pistol when firing then it is a benign, target accessory incapable of anything other than a fun-filled outing with the grandchildren. The very moment that it approaches the shoulder the firearm is altered into an evil killing machine whose sole purpose is muder and mayhem.

  • Johnny January 26, 2015, 6:16 pm

    NFA Short Barreled Rifle regulation is antiquated and useless

  • Trip 3 January 26, 2015, 6:15 pm

    Sounds to me like the ATF is trying to cover their asses. Did they really think people were going to stick their arm in that goofy looking brace instead of throwing it up to their shoulder? If they’re that damn dumb, no wonder it takes forever to get a stamp back from them.

  • jimonthebeach January 26, 2015, 4:16 pm

    Thanks, Sig Sauer! It’s nice to see a firearms manufacturer stand up to the thugs at the ATF unlike S&W who seems to roll over ever time the ATF barks.

  • RedClayBlues January 26, 2015, 3:58 pm

    Ever since we ceded individual sovereignty in the matter of firearms to the federal government back in the 1930’s we have been manipulated by an agency which due to its very existence contravenes the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. Instead of writing nastygrams to the offending agency why don’t we all grow a set and demand that our so called representatives abolish the ATF due to the fact that it is prima facie unconstitutional. What part of ” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” do we no longer understand. Inquiring minds want to know.

  • Tom January 26, 2015, 3:32 pm

    So, if I hold my revolver up close to my body, or shoulder, then fire it, is it now no longer a handgun, but some kind of illegal weapon?

  • Joe January 26, 2015, 2:44 pm

    Once the BATF gets these pistol braces reclassified into class three designation they will be going after all those AR slide stocks, watch and see.

  • mach37 January 26, 2015, 2:04 pm

    This letter says that it is the government view that it is illegal to use two hands when firing a pistol. Somebody tell me that it says otherwise.

    • RedClayBlues January 26, 2015, 4:02 pm

      No… it is illegal for anyone other than a government employee to use a two handed grip. Somehow I think that the FBI academy will still be teaching a Weaver stance

  • Tom Slater January 26, 2015, 1:18 pm

    Suppose I take my broom handle Mauser and add the stock. Do I have a pistol or an SBR?

    • Bobo January 26, 2015, 3:42 pm

      If you attach the stock to a broom handle, it’s considered an SBR.

      • mbsc January 27, 2015, 9:20 pm

        Only, if the stock is a reproduction stock.
        Usually… an original stock is legal. But, it does depend on the date the stock was made.
        So, if someone had an original $600 stock on his broomhandle… it is ok to use.
        But, if he has an Ebay $60 Chiese stock then he would be in trouble.
        Talk about another stupid law.

        • Captain Bob December 10, 2015, 4:41 pm

          I actually have a copy of an ATF ruling that states putting a reproduction stock on a Luger is permissable and does not create an SBR.

  • JohnL January 26, 2015, 12:13 pm

    Thx You Sig.

  • Stef January 26, 2015, 12:05 pm

    The problem resides when congress allows the creation of a bureaucratic non constitutional agency such as the ATF to regular, create rules and defining laws which their sorry asses are to gutless to do themself .

  • Curt Cocrhan January 26, 2015, 11:19 am

    What about the money? As we defend our right to bear arms the cost continues to spiral up. It seems to me the person or persons involved in drafting these rules as well as the individuals that attempt to enforce them should be held accountable. A crime against our Constitutional Rights is treason. Capital punishment is in order! I say hang them high! Then use all their liquidated assets toward developing shooting sports in our public schools. We have lost generations of gun related development because of our relaxed attitude in defending our gun rights. Those that tread on us should feel our firm hand of enforcement.

    • Kalashnikov Dude January 26, 2015, 11:58 am

      Amen CC! That’s what I’m talkin about!

    • Stef January 26, 2015, 12:09 pm

      Well, this mostly comes from huge cities where liberals are bread and cancerous laws are made to control them ridicilious hordes of people all stacked up on suck small places. Get ride of huge cities and this all goes away.

    • Russ January 26, 2015, 12:29 pm

      I like Curt Cocrhan’s world.

    • Trip 3 January 26, 2015, 6:32 pm

      You’re so right Curt, while we’re fighting to keep the right to even own firearms, the people in the rest of the “under developed countries” are running around with all kinds of weapons we could only dream of being able to afford. Mean while, our upcoming generations are more interested in Face book and Twitter accounts than actually learning how to defend themselves and their country if need be.

  • Matt B January 26, 2015, 10:30 am

    It’s really simple, the BATF realized they made a loophole, and are now losing Form 1 $200
    tax stamp. Honestly, if anyone thinks otherwise, I have some nice swamp land in Florida you my be interested in,

  • GearForYouHere January 26, 2015, 10:29 am

    So, if you were to bring an AR Pistol with just a pistol buffer tube up to your shoulder, are you now redesigning the pistol buffer tube & need a tax stamp?? Ridiculous

  • Kalashnikov Dude January 26, 2015, 10:29 am

    The ATFE is full of crap. They’ve always been full of crap. It’s time to abolish the ATFE before they get more letters in their name. If people began to push back against their illegal, arrogant, dictator style tactics, the same way people have attacked the NRA, but with the truth, we could get this done. The 2nd Amendment is your people! Take it back!

    • Russ January 26, 2015, 12:26 pm

      +1 for K.D.
      I would go 1 further in saying the NRA should be in charge of all laws having to do with firearms in the United States.
      Does anyone know who would be more qualified?

    • GenEarly January 26, 2015, 12:33 pm

      Exactly! Debating this is tactical, like debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, when the real problem id strategic.
      The BATFE is a regulatory law making agency outside the control of Con-gress, as is most of the Feral Gov., EPA, IRS, DOE, HHS, DOA, …..the problem needs to be addressed at it’s source, The Gov. will regulate (strangle) you to death in their edicts with no oversight. “Government of the government, for the government, by the government.” Tell me I’m wrong…….

  • roger caster January 26, 2015, 10:09 am

    I’m 75 years old and have shot pistols with two hands for over 60 years and don’t plan on stopping. Do to old age/hand strength
    because of broken bones that didn’t heal right and fingers that don’t grip like they use to the Sig brace made it possible to shoot my AR pistol with one hand–if the need arose most of the time I used two hands. The gun can be shot from the shoulder with out the brace so what is the fight about. I think we should stop fighting over small chickens and move on to something more important .

  • John H January 26, 2015, 8:51 am

    My letter to Sig
    Sog why do you continue to arm and maintain a relationship of arming the government? The government is guilty of basic rights violations and you are arming them, allowing them to father oppress the people. Sig and all is arms mfg need to stop, until inviduals rights are fully restored

    • Bobo January 26, 2015, 3:38 pm

      Who’s SOG and why is Father oppressing people?

  • Ryan January 26, 2015, 8:05 am

    I think it’s simple, the ATF saw a nose dive in form 1’s for sbr’s. Sig braces sold x $200.00 = a lot of money the atf didn’t get.

  • tom monk January 26, 2015, 7:55 am

    Several years ago I designed a monopod type shooting platform to be used with a pistol the unit had a shoulder brace, the pistol was held in place on the monopod with your hand the BATF looked at the unit and told me flat out that this unit turned a hand gun into a short barreled rifle, I had to put the project to bed

  • Larry L January 26, 2015, 5:55 am

    Yeah, the BATFE figures they are losing a $200.00 tax on a bunch of guns and registration for a bunch of folks. Leave it to our government to tax and regulate everything. As for the government going back on its word; ask the Native Americans how often the government did them dirty.

    • Sam G January 26, 2015, 7:52 am

      You are right Larry L, government speak with crooked tongue, never keep word.

    • Trip 3 January 26, 2015, 6:22 pm

      Amen Larry. It’s all about the Do Rae Me.

  • Dan January 26, 2015, 5:28 am

    We are our own worst enemies sometimes! There are so many photos and videos showing people shooting the sig brace from their shoulder that the people at ATF may be feeling compelled to cover their a$$es before some kid who stopped taking his SSRI’s sneaks one of these into a school, or they start becoming the rage with street gangs!

    • Peter January 26, 2015, 7:44 am

      I agree on this point. It seems everyone wanted to be first on YouTube to announce this neat new use of an arm brace. Sheesh!!

      • Marquel January 27, 2015, 3:01 am

        Why should we live in fear of something that was our God giving right to have? The ATF was butt hurt that the SBR’s tax money was declining, everything is money motivated with the federal government:(

    • DaveGinOly January 27, 2015, 1:04 am

      I guess I missed it. When did the NFA stop gangsters and other criminals from 1.) putting stocks on pistols; or 2.) buying unregistered SBRs on the black market? Any criminal who substitutes a Sig brace for an actual stock is a complete and utter moron. Although most are that and worse, I think they know enough to use the real thing, seeing that aren’t too particular about the law.

  • Scratching-My-Head January 26, 2015, 4:40 am

    I am also good with this ruling. Phew, I thought I was going to have add an SBR to my NFA trust, because I have an 12.5″ upper and a completed lower to which to mount it. Prior to this ruling I would have constructed an SBR requiring registration and a tax stamp. No Longer!
    Ive now reconstructed/redesigned the weapon in two ways; 1) I dont “intended” and of course never shall hold the stock to my shoulder, treating this weapon only as a pistol(and now by BATF definition have in fact redesigned it!)
    2) I’ve added a nylon strap to the stock which is a material redesign of the stock and furthers the evidence of my “redesign-by-intention” as clarifed in my aforementioned statement in 1).

    Id actually like to thank the BATF for expressly vetoing the need for a tax stamp in my particular case. IMHO, they Rock!

  • Peter January 26, 2015, 4:36 am

    Sig need to redesign the item to make it like just plain looking. The design look like a rifle stock and ATF doesn’t like it, that’s why they rescind what they approved previously. One can just wrap a cord of velcro or some strong tape to make a brace. Sig’s pistol brace does not alter anything in the firearm part or mechanism yet ATF want to prohihit the usage of the item which is not right in my assessement. The law state firearm cannot be alter not accessory, Sig ought to win this one in court.

    • Jim January 26, 2015, 11:40 am

      Made my own sig brace, poked the bottom out of a walmart plastic bag put it on my arm and wrapped duck tape around the bag and buffer tube. Cost$2. Should I file a form 1 for the bag tape combo.

      • mach37 January 26, 2015, 2:13 pm

        There was a supposedly serious comment made by someone in BATF a few years back, in answer to a question about using a Brillo pad to make a silencer; the gov’t “expert” said that, yes, the Brillo pad constitutes a “silencer” and needs a tax stamp if used as such.

  • tim January 25, 2015, 4:55 pm

    This is probably dumb but I’m learning.
    Under this thought process, when you change a shot gun stock to pistol grip is that not a redesign?

    • DJ January 26, 2015, 9:00 am

      It may be considered a redesign but pistol grips are not illegal. This refers to the law governing short barrels on rifles or shotguns. If a gun has a stock for shoulder use it must have at least a 16″ barrel. There are people who make AR type pistols which have no stock and these are legal to have short barrels. The device that Sig manufactures is a forearm brace for such AR pistols. The ATF originally said this was ok because the brace is not really a stock or meant to be a stock. They changed their opinion and now say that because people could use this brace as a stock it’s illegal to put on AR pistols with short barrels because it would redefine the firearm as a short barreled rifle which requires a tax stamp from the BATF.

      • Alejandro U January 26, 2015, 9:57 am

        Sig braces are still legal to own and put on AR pistols, ATF is not challenging the legality of it but challenging the legality of the use of it. If it is used for single hand shooting is still legal but if used from the shoulder then is illegal.

        • Chase January 27, 2015, 7:31 am

          That is not what BATFE is saying or has said. The legality of the SB-15 is not the issue, it is still sa legal product that can still be freely sold. What the ATF is saying is that owning an AR15 pistol with a SB15 is fine, as long as you use it as a pistol. Using it improperly–firing from the shoulder–will basically redefine the firearm itself, not the brace, as a short barrel rifle. Making and possessing an unregistered short barrel rifle in the US has some legal penalties.

  • deekon January 25, 2015, 10:15 am

    Not trying to throw anyone under the bus but if the sb15 redesigned a pistol to a sbr just for shouldering the weapon, how does the bump stop rifle stock not redesign the rifle to a automatic weapon. It was intended to make it fire like a automatic rifle. How is that not a redesign. The sb15 brace was designed to put your arm through it, just because you don’t put your arm in it doesn’t change the design. Atf is trying to say if you hold a sb15 braced rifle at shoulder height a half inch off your body its legal. Now move it a half inch towards your body and touch your shoulder it’s now illegal and you need to pay a stamp for it. It doesn’t make sense.

    • Don January 26, 2015, 7:16 am

      I tie fishing line and hook to every auto weapon and this makes it a fishing pole and completely legal.

      • Kalashnikov Dude January 26, 2015, 12:04 pm

        Don, I’m sure you are commenting with sarcasm here. But you don’t want to go around on the internet giving ATFE any ideas. Before long the ATFE will be the “ATFEFP”……….

    • Freedom Fighter 0.03 January 26, 2015, 1:27 pm

      What we need to make clear is that an SBR is legal. You just have to pay $200 to own it and make mods to the lower to identify that YOU own it. Same goes for a full automatic.

      Also what needs to be made clear here is that many of the gun laws DO NOT MAKE SENSE. The people that make up these laws and fight for them are people that have never owned nor fired a weapon in their life. Someone stands by these people armed ready to protect them at a moments noticed and those people are paid for by you and I. However you and I are not worthy nor afforded to have people standing by us that are armed and ready to protect us. But also we are not worthy to be armed ourselves because who can trust “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. Irony is when enough people cannot trust the above, their will not be a “free State”.

      • Calvin Grimalkin January 28, 2015, 11:53 am

        “You just have to pay $200 to own it and make mods to the lower to identify that YOU own it. Same goes for a full automatic.”

        Not entirely true ! ! ! You also need to slog thru the paperwork, and approvals from everybody from your local law enforcement on up thru the BATF. If your local law enforcement official doesn’t think you have a VALID reason for an SBR or a silencer or a full auto, you don’t get one. Period, end of story.

        • Rob62 January 29, 2015, 12:42 pm

          Calvin Grimalkin – if your local CLEO does not, or will not sign off on your NFA paperwork – and its legal to own NFA items in your jurisdiction otherwise – then a simple answer is to create a “Revocable Living Trust” and purchase your items under that Trust. (No LE signatures required…..yet 🙂 )Lots of people do that legally in areas where LEO’s are anti gun and will not signs off on the paperwork.

    • DaveGinOly January 27, 2015, 12:58 am

      Probably because it doesn’t actually change the operation of the firearm. It still only fires one round for each pull of the trigger. Bump-fire devices only permit more rapid trigger pulling, they don’t alter how the trigger group functions. In other words, it doesn’t really convert a semi-auto into an automatic, it just increased the rate of fire.

      • ARluv January 27, 2015, 10:43 am

        And the SB15 never really converts a pistol to a real SBR, especially considering that the ATF has stated in this most recent letter that the SB15 IS NOT A STOCK.

    • Wayne January 31, 2015, 8:36 pm

      The slidefire or bump stock does not make it an automatic weapon as the ATF has ruled…….A single pull of the trigger still fires a single shot…..not multiple, thus unless the weapon is changed internally to fire more than 1 shot per pull it’s not an automatic

    • Dave February 14, 2015, 2:18 am

      What if you never had a Sig brace and just put the buffer tube to your chest. Does that make it a rifle? If I put my 1911 to my chest does the beaver tail become a stock and thus my 1911 is a rifle. The letter was saying during manufacture what was the intent. Answer pistol with brace. Done it’s a pistol. If on the other hand your intention from the get go was to shoulder the brace it would become a stock (during the manufacture process) and thus and SBR.

  • Pete D January 22, 2015, 11:21 pm

    No, I like this ruling. Now I can go buy a fully automatic weapon, but if I put flowers in the barrel, it is no longer an automatic weapon, but a flower pot!
    ATF not thinking this one through, as even if it is upheld in court (which I highly doubt), will come back to bite them down the road.

    • Dave January 23, 2015, 4:51 pm

      No. It will depend on how you configure the flower assembly…………and what you were thinking while you were doing it.

    • Steve K January 26, 2015, 6:25 am

      When you find those full auto flower pots, please let me know where you found them so I can get one.

      • Vince B January 26, 2015, 1:35 pm

        They are right beside the sawed off salt and pepper shakers, Steve.

      • Bobo January 26, 2015, 3:32 pm

        Full auto “flower pots” are readily available, if you have the $$ to purchase them

    • Boba Fett January 26, 2015, 10:03 pm

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! I’m cracking up. Well done.

    • DaveGinOly January 27, 2015, 12:43 am

      Are you going to put a “spray” of flowers in your fully-automatic flower pot?

      • ej harb January 29, 2015, 5:36 pm

        As long as you dont spray the wifes think waco was bad?,,,,,

        • sasnak1 February 4, 2015, 3:49 pm

          You guys are all nuts….and you own guns AND flower pots?

  • Will Drider January 22, 2015, 1:18 pm

    This one will go to Court because BATFE has deep pockets filled with our tax dollars. BATFE will lose base on one simple point. By the definitions they have used for decades a pistol is griped by one hand. People overwhelmingly shoot handguns with two hands. ALL Federal Agencies firearms courses teach primary two handed fire and single handed only as close encounter while drawing or support hand not avail. Single weak side is also included. So since everyone who shoots a handgun with two hands (weaver stance: 1950) has “Redesigned it”, why has it not been incorperated as “primary method of pistol use” and change the BATFE’s so often quoted definitions. This will also cause the forward verticle grip on a handgun opinion to fall as two handed pistol use will be formally recognized. There is more effort “making/redesigning” installing a scope on a pistol (legal) then installing a forward verticle grip (NFA restricted). Not forgetting that rifled barreled pistols are specifically excluded from being AOW’s per the Law/Regs/Codes as written.
    God Bless the outstand people at Sig Sauer!

  • thomas 67 January 22, 2015, 10:46 am

    THANK YOU, Sig!

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend