A new open letter came out yesterday, probably affects at least some here.

Relates to the use of the Sig Brace on AR or AK pistols.

It is now the opinion of ATF that the use of the Sig Brace against the shoulder like a stock constitutes redesign of the brace, and, if used on a gun with a rifled barrel of less than 16", or a gun with a smooth barrel of less than 18", you have made a weapon subject to the purview of the NFA.

http://www.atf.gov/content/Firearms/firearms-industry

Uhm geee... let me show you my surprised face....

I don't know the text of the Law. But I imagine that it's similar to the "intent, manufacture, use" phrase.
The Sig Brace was originally OKed b/c it was marketed to ATF as a way for disabled people, including those amputees returning from MidEast to be able to hunt and Target shoot.
It gives soldiers great solace to return to as regular a life as possible. And many of us grew up shooting for Dinner.
I recall taking a rabbit to lunch at school in 2nd Grade. Many of the other boys were jealous.
And squirrel stew during Winter, upland birds during Fall, etc. at my grandparents' farm.
Great memories.
A Firearm and Automobile are iconic symbols of American Freedom that others (like Europe) are deprived of during Rights of Passage. And the Erosionists (Progresives) want to take them away from future generations.

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

66427vette wrote:Owning one of those things put owners baby steps from blowing guys in a dark alley. Things are hideous .

American Vets who have amputated arms and still want to shoot are babysteps from blowing guys in dark alleys?
I hope that you meant "Guys w 2 arms who use these things." That comes across alot better.
And I know from your prior posts that you're an extremely good hearted guy.

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.

Yes, it was designed and marketed as an extra stabilization for one handed firing of what would be a rather unwieldy handgun.

There was a letter sent out after a question about whether using it as a stock was legal, even though it wasn't sold as such. That letter said yes, to use it as a stock was legal, and did not change what it was.
Then, somebody put one on a short shotgun, read AOW, since there isn't a smoothbore handgun category, and the only clear use in that instance was as a stock, since the firearm could not ever be a handgun.
As if that didn't tear on the envelope enough, somebody else came out with a "brace" that really is just a flat, non-adjustable stock piece. No place for the arm, no straps. It was automatically ruled a stock.
New leader at ATF about this time, promises to have another look at the Sig Brace. Of course, 99% of everyone who buys it never uses it as intended, all youtube videos of how to get around the SBR stamp.
Then, there is the simple "follow the money", or in this case, lack thereof. Don't think for one moment the loss of an almost free (just some paperwork and computer time) $200 per SBR doesn't get unnoticed. When you look at how many NFA transfers/builds are approved every year, it's a lot of money, that we willingly hand over, just because we want something.

When the brace came out, there was no way it wasn't going to eventually end up this way. Could have been worse. They could have said that to even mount the thing on a pistol without being genuinely handicapped was a crime.

On another (cough (NFA.com)) site I've been taking all kinds of heat about this device.

It looks like a stock, it operates like a stock, a lot of evidence (u-tube and otherwise) evidences it being used as a stock... let's see... does the emporer have clothes on?

ReallY????

continuity wrote:On another (cough (NFA.com)) site I've been taking all kinds of heat about this device.

You have been taking heat because you said you would arrest anyone that was shouldering one even though at the time the ATF said that it was legal.

IIRC you also made a comment along the lines of "letting the courts sort it out".

Why would you not expect to take heat with postings like that?

Bendersquint wrote:

continuity wrote:On another (cough (NFA.com)) site I've been taking all kinds of heat about this device.

You have been taking heat because you said you would arrest anyone that was shouldering one even though at the time the ATF said that it was legal.

IIRC you also made a comment along the lines of "letting the courts sort it out".

Why would you not expect to take heat with postings like that?

continuity, is this true?

continuity wrote:On another (cough (NFA.com)) site I've been taking all kinds of heat about this device.

It looks like a stock, it operates like a stock, a lot of evidence (u-tube and otherwise) evidences it being used as a stock... let's see... does the emporer have clothes on?

ReallY????

So basically you are arguing in favor of a facially unConstitutional law? So surprised.

L1A1Rocker wrote:

Bendersquint wrote:

continuity wrote:On another (cough (NFA.com)) site I've been taking all kinds of heat about this device.

You have been taking heat because you said you would arrest anyone that was shouldering one even though at the time the ATF said that it was legal.

IIRC you also made a comment along the lines of "letting the courts sort it out".

Why would you not expect to take heat with postings like that?

continuity, is this true?

Some quotes from Continuity on that other forum.....

(CONT... QUOTE)"BS...it's a Mfing SBR. If I came in contact with a person bearing such an item in this configuration, I would deem it a SBR, and request NFA documentation for possession. If NFA transfer documentation wasn't available, or immediately available, I'd arrest, and charge them with possession of "dangerous ordinance"."

(Sidenote) In Ohio(his state) NFA is considered 'dangerous ordnance'...the approved tax stamp is the affirmative defense to prosecution.

------

(CONT... QUOTE)"You are right. However, if "affirmative defense" evidence isn't presented in a field contact... "on the side of the street" as you put it, it is something that will need to be presented in court.

(Sidenote) Affirmative defense evidence as noted above would be an approved Form1/4.....which would have been impossible to present as that firearm didn't fall under the pervue of the NFA.

How do you present affirmative defense documentation for something that doesn't require affirmative defense documentation?



See why he is getting heat?

Bendersquint wrote:
Some quotes from Continuity on that other forum.....

(CONT... QUOTE)"BS...it's a Mfing SBR. If I came in contact with a person bearing such an item in this configuration, I would deem it a SBR, and request NFA documentation for possession. If NFA transfer documentation wasn't available, or immediately available, I'd arrest, and charge them with possession of "dangerous ordinance"."

(Sidenote) In Ohio(his state) NFA is considered 'dangerous ordnance'...the approved tax stamp is the affirmative defense to prosecution.

------

(CONT... QUOTE)"You are right. However, if "affirmative defense" evidence isn't presented in a field contact... "on the side of the street" as you put it, it is something that will need to be presented in court.

(Sidenote) Affirmative defense evidence as noted above would be an approved Form1/4.....which would have been impossible to present as that firearm didn't fall under the pervue of the NFA.

How do you present affirmative defense documentation for something that doesn't require affirmative defense documentation?



See why he is getting heat?

Son-of-a-*****!!!

Let's see if I get this straight. You see someone with an item you know to be legal, with the correct papers, and you automatically ASSUME that he is guilty. (I guess presumption of innocence is just a quaint old style American thing?) So, do you swagger on over and say "I need to see you NFA documentation", or do you smirk to yourself as you "kindly" ask "Papers please"?

And all this time I thought you were one of the "good cops".

Bendersquint wrote:
See why he is getting heat?

Because he is a scumbag who craps on his oath hourly? That just makes him a normal cop.

Maybe now people here will start to understand what I have been preaching...

L1A1Rocker wrote:
And all this time I thought you were one of the "good cops".

THERE ARE NO GOOD COPS.

Wow, just wow. Shame on anyone for thinking that abusing ones position is acceptable.

Bendersquint wrote:

continuity wrote:On another (cough (NFA.com)) site I've been taking all kinds of heat about this device.

You have been taking heat because you said you would arrest anyone that was shouldering one even though at the time the ATF said that it was legal.

IIRC you also made a comment along the lines of "letting the courts sort it out".

Why would you not expect to take heat with postings like that?

continuity, is this true?[/quote]

Some quotes from Continuity on that other forum.....

(CONT... QUOTE)"BS...it's a Mfing SBR. If I came in contact with a person bearing such an item in this configuration, I would deem it a SBR, and request NFA documentation for possession. If NFA transfer documentation wasn't available, or immediately available, I'd arrest, and charge them with possession of "dangerous ordinance"."

(Sidenote) In Ohio(his state) NFA is considered 'dangerous ordnance'...the approved tax stamp is the affirmative defense to prosecution.

------

(CONT... QUOTE)"You are right. However, if "affirmative defense" evidence isn't presented in a field contact... "on the side of the street" as you put it, it is something that will need to be presented in court.

(Sidenote) Affirmative defense evidence as noted above would be an approved Form1/4.....which would have been impossible to present as that firearm didn't fall under the pervue of the NFA.

How do you present affirmative defense documentation for something that doesn't require affirmative defense documentation?



See why he is getting heat?[/quote]

Chirp, chirp..........chirp, chirp............

Damn crickets.

Yep... every bit of it is true.

The possession of NFA items in Ohio is an illegal act, and observation of the possession is PC for arrest. However, possession in compliance with NFA protocul is considered an "affirmative defense", essentially providing legal grounds for that possession.

One that purchases a device that has every appearance of a stock, does so specifically intending to use it as a stock, installs it on a pistol and uses it as a stock, is engaging in criminal behavior ie... in possession of a non NFA'ed SBR. I don't need an ATF letter to make that determination. Bender has done his homework and provided the Ohio legalese.

Same will go if one is in possession of a firearm suppressor. Even if they swear its a hammer... Is what it is.

Now... please don't come to Ohio and show me how cool using a Sig "arm brace" as a stock on a pistol is.

Find it interesting the angst my position on the subject device/use of it has generated. Perhaps those with commissions/law degrees will find my position errant, but I've yet to have any blow back from that quarter. It would seem the ATF has come down on my side of things... not that it was needed.

Maybe my societal responsibility should include deciding what laws shouldn't be enforced. Not speaking of the ability to exercise descretion, but the responsibility to address clear violation of the law. Betting Poiky wouldn't like that one bit. Hell, me either.

continuity, it is your type of cop that has caused the divide between citizens and peace officers. You show a clear attitude of us vs. them in your writing. Your presumption of guilt is disgusting, and indicative of a "bad cop" in my opinion. Bottom line, you are part of the problem and an example of who should NOT be a peace officer.

Good bye

continuity wrote:One that purchases a device that has every appearance of a stock, does so specifically intending to use it as a stock, installs it on a pistol and uses it as a stock, is engaging in criminal behavior ie... in possession of a non NFA'ed SBR. I don't need an ATF letter to make that determination.

So according to FEDERAL LAW and OHIO LAW it is NOT A SBR yet you would arrest because it LOOKS LIKE A SBR or it was shouldered like a SBR?

Even though no Fed/State/County/City law was broken?

Seems like taking things into your own hands.......your are supposed to enforce laws, not create your own.

Bendersquint wrote:

continuity wrote:One that purchases a device that has every appearance of a stock, does so specifically intending to use it as a stock, installs it on a pistol and uses it as a stock, is engaging in criminal behavior ie... in possession of a non NFA'ed SBR. I don't need an ATF letter to make that determination.

So according to FEDERAL LAW and OHIO LAW it is NOT A SBR yet you would arrest because it LOOKS LIKE A SBR or it was shouldered like a SBR?

Even though no Fed/State/County/City law was broken?

Seems like taking things into your own hands.......your are supposed to enforce laws, not create your own.

Worthless cop if you ask me. I know cops out here that have told me when informed by a driver they pulled over that they are carrying a concealed weapon they will take that firearms and run it to make sure it's not stolen. In Missouri you can carry a loaded handgun in your car with out a permit. Possession of a firearm doesn't consitute a crime. So where's does the reasonable suspicion, and probable cause come from?? Same case applies here, if somebody is in possesion of an NFA weapon how do you know they committed a crime? Glad you would was tax dollars for that senseless BS. You are a turd among turds.

continuity wrote:Yep... every bit of it is true.

Goose steppers gonna step.

Oh, those replies are like warm sunshine on a cold day.

This statement lacks logic or rational thought. A hammer and suppressor?
Why not compare a flamethrower and muffler? How about a brick and breaching round?
I worked with your type while in military. Your type is a blunt tool lacking precision or objective thought to judge a situation and bring more results with planning. We would wind your type like a top or yo-yo. Then watch you spin until the wreck ended... I bet it is easy for anyone with skills to push your buttons until you burst like a plump balloon.
I look forward to seeing you step on your own reproductive organ with bravado of power.

continuity wrote:Yep... every bit of it is true.

The possession of NFA items in Ohio is an illegal act, and observation of the possession is PC for arrest. However, possession in compliance with NFA protocul is considered an "affirmative defense", essentially providing legal grounds for that possession.

One that purchases a device that has every appearance of a stock, does so specifically intending to use it as a stock, installs it on a pistol and uses it as a stock, is engaging in criminal behavior ie... in possession of a non NFA'ed SBR. I don't need an ATF letter to make that determination. Bender has done his homework and provided the Ohio legalese.

Same will go if one is in possession of a firearm suppressor. Even if they swear its a hammer... Is what it is.

Now... please don't come to Ohio and show me how cool using a Sig "arm brace" as a stock on a pistol is.

Bendersquint wrote:So according to FEDERAL LAW and OHIO LAW it is NOT A SBR yet you would arrest because it LOOKS LIKE A SBR or it was shouldered like a SBR?

Even though no Fed/State/County/City law was broken?

Seems like taking things into your own hands.......your are supposed to enforce laws, not create your own.

How do you define the term "configuration"? The acccusation is beneath you. Gimme a break Bender. You of everyone understand what I'm saying, yet you're joining in on the inmate song and dance.

YoungBlood wrote:... We would wind your type like a top or yo-yo. Then watch you spin until the wreck ended... I bet it is easy for anyone with skills to push your buttons until you burst like a plump balloon.

Speaking of being wound up...

Jt.kline19 wrote: ... Possession of a firearm doesn't consitute a crime. So where's does the reasonable suspicion, and probable cause come from?? Same case applies here, if somebody is in possesion of an NFA weapon how do you know they committed a crime? ...

In Ohio, the possession of NFA firearms is a crime. Not sure what the hard part is. Approved NFA form(s) is/are an "affirmative defense".


Ok, this turned into quite the bonfire. Before things lose the OP focus and move into the hang the cop party, a final comment on things.

As a cop, I'm certainly not gonna make posts that would make me an accessory to a criminal act, and if nothing else will share things I've heard in my world. My SSNcN told me I was walking on the edge repeating him, so I stopped it. If you must paint me as the badguy, remember, I'm not the only cop in the world. Will guarantee anyone playing with one of the subject "arm braces" is playing with fire.

peace.