Sig SB-15 Brace legal again, still
An email from Sig:
BATFE REAFFIRMS PISTOL BRACE LEGAL TO OWN, INSTALL AND USE
Newington, N. H. (February 20, 2015) – SIG SAUER, Inc. has issued the following statement relative to the January 2015 open opinion letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regarding the SB15 and SBX Pistol Stabilizing Braces.
BATFE Technical Branch issued an open opinion letter dated January 16, 2015 regarding the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) which is marketed by SIG SAUER®. Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal. The BATFE letter stated that the SB15 is a product “which is legal to own, legal to purchase and legal to install on a pistol.” SIG SAUER believes that the PSB enhances the shooter’s experience and offers the products as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols. In all of its opinions, BATFE has consistently stated that a pistol with a stabilizing brace attached remains a pistol under the Gun Control Act when used as designed.
Emphasis added. Because that’s how it was been. So, a press release for nothing happening?
February 20th, 2015 at 8:07 pm
I still sincerely hope they are pursuing legal action against the BATFE.
February 20th, 2015 at 9:00 pm
Up here anyway people were selling them off because they heard on the internet that the braces were now “illegal.”
SIG is just clarifying, for the dumb, that it’s still the status quo as far as owning one goes.
As far as t’other, don’t (in a picture visible online) shoulder one and certainly don’t do it as some idiotic form of counter-productive, attention-whoring public “protest.” Which is what prompted the damn ATFE reversal letter in the first place.
February 20th, 2015 at 9:48 pm
Still, at the heart of the matter is this: Where does the ATFE get the legal authority to unilaterally rewrite the law? How is using a product in a way that it is not designed to be used considered to be redesigning the product?
February 20th, 2015 at 10:48 pm
What they said. Plus. Don’t be so stupid, Sig fans and others, as to let your ego overload your checkbook. I think that is what the gubs are counting on. I am NOT Brett frve’, or whatever his name is. Book of the face be-damned.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:15 pm
“Still, at the heart of the matter is this: Where does the ATFE get the legal authority to unilaterally rewrite the law?”
– same place the rest of the government does. From that fact that they have a lot of organized men with guns who are willing to use them on you if their bosses want them to.
February 20th, 2015 at 11:28 pm
I said AUTHORITY not ABILITY. There is a difference, and in that difference are both police states and revolutions are made.
February 21st, 2015 at 12:13 am
Loosely worded Congressional statutes that give administrative agencies broad power to enact regulations, divemedic. We’re seeing it with Obamacare and Immigration front and center now, and for a long time with the EPA, Bureau of Land Management, even the Army Corps of Engineers, etc., etc., etc..
February 21st, 2015 at 5:55 am
Seems to me that the “zombie preppers” out there should still want these. After all, you can’t legally shoulder it, but in an emergency situation should you just so happen to… Not that I’m giving any legal advice, of course…
February 21st, 2015 at 8:35 am
Unless I’m missing something, this is still just a series of opinion letters by an executive agency. A judicial court can look at them in a trial and decide that they’re persuasive…or that they’re hogwash, but is entirely free to do either. The law isn’t being rewritten.
As a de facto matter, though, an agency opinion is often like a cop’s testimony: the court is going to believe them unless you’ve got some great evidence of your own.
Also, as a practical matter, it’s easier for the executive branch to advise against something and either 1) not prosecute, or 2) let a judge rule on the matter than to speculate that something is okay that a court later rules isn’t.
February 21st, 2015 at 12:49 pm
@divemedic: in that case, the government doesn’t have “authority” to do any of this at all. It is after al just a collection of folks who tell other people what to do, because they can.
February 21st, 2015 at 1:19 pm
Meh same old same old. Given the price of the things Compared to say bcm go fighter of magpul moe sl, I’d rather just drop another hundred and get the tax stamp.
February 21st, 2015 at 4:00 pm
So if I get a pistol and use two hands to shoot it, is it being used improperly and this a SBR?
Or if I get a pistol and use the tree to brace it when I fire, is it being used improperly and this a SBR?
Or if I get a pistol and shoot it upside downward, is it being used improperly and this a SBR?
And lastingly, if I get a pistol with a LONG barrel, say a single shot Thompson Contender, and make a device to pull the trigger while I have the grip against my shoulder, is it being used improperly and this a SBR?
February 21st, 2015 at 4:37 pm
It’s only wrong if you hold it sideways, gangsta style.
February 21st, 2015 at 5:17 pm
Nolan: if you are only planing to use an SBR during a prepper emergency, then simply own a carbine and an AR pistol.
Both are perfectly lawful as long as the uppers stay on the correct lowers.
If you insist on practicing with an SBR, get firearms trust, and pay the $200 dollar tax.
February 21st, 2015 at 8:52 pm
I specifically mentioned “zombie preppers” because that’s not what I am. I find my ar works much better with a real barrel on it, and can’t afford .300 blk ammo. No shorter than 16″ on my ar for me.
February 22nd, 2015 at 2:20 pm
Well, I’m gonna do the SBR once I have my cans, particularly for the 300BLK with the night vision. I figure to become the scary part of the night.