ATF Reverses Stance! SB Tactical Gets Green Light to Shoot Braces from Shoulder

[theGinsue]

I found this interesting.

From a GunsAmerica post. link: https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/atf-reverses-stance-sb-tactical-gets-green-light-to-shoot-braces-from-shoulder/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20170428_FridayDigest_119&utm_campaign=/blog/atf-reverses-stance-sb-tactical-gets-green-light-to-shoot-braces-from-shoulder/)


There are two main takeaways to this ATF reversal on SB Tactical stabilizing braces (https://www.sb-tactical.com/). I want to put these right out front so there is zero confusion.

This ATF reversal only applies to SB Tactical products. All other manufacturers of arm braces are NOT covered in this private letter. This cannot be overstated. The letter only applies to SB Tactical and SB Tactical products!
The ATF did, indeed, reverse its position with respect to SB Tactical’s proprietary pistol stabilizing braces. Shooting them from the shoulder no longer counts as a “redesign” of the products which previously made them subject to National Firearms Act regulations, i.e. short-barreled rifle. You can now fire an SB Tactical stabilizing brace from the shoulder and NOT be in violation of the law!

Yes, those are the two main takeaways from this story. How did this come about?

Lawyers for SB Tactical received a private letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that reads, “Re: Reversal of ATF Open Letter on the Redesign of ‘Stabilizing Braces.’” In this letter (see below) the ATF carefully explains in a not-so-easy-to-read manner the nature of the agency’s reversal and how it applies to SB Tactical and SB Tactical only.

After first saying that ATF “stand by those conclusions” in its 2015 Open Letter (https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/no-shouldered-sig-braces/), the one that caused so much heartache and confusion (ATF can’t admit it was wrong for liability reasons), the agency goes on to eventually state the following:
To the extent the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational “use” of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute “redesign,” such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has been historically enforced.


In other words, it’s not a redesign of the firearm if one has a SB Tactical stabilizing brace and one shoots it from the shoulder.

But the ATF goes on to say that “an item that functions as a stock if attached to a handgun in a manner that serves the objective purpose of allowing the firearm to be fired from the shoulder may result in ‘making’ a short-barreled rifle, even if the attachment is not permanent. See, Revenue Ruling 61-45.”

Again, if you have an SB Tactical product, you’re technically okay if you incidentally, sporadically or situationally fire it from the shoulder. But if you put on a device that you intend to use clearly as a stock or if you’re in possession of a product that isn’t made by SB Tactical and you attach it to the gun and fire it from the shoulder, you may find yourself in hot water with the ATF.

“It has always been our belief that the addition of our Pistol Stabilizing Brace benefits shooters, both disabled and able-bodied, and that neither strapping it to your arm nor shouldering a brace equipped pistol would constitute ‘redesign’ of a pistol to a NFA firearm”, said Alex Bosco, inventor, founder and CEO of SB Tactical in a press release obtained by GunsAmerica.

“We are strongly encouraged by the ATF’s reversal of opinion and commend their willingness to continually review policy, including their own opinions, to ensure public safety and the fulfillment of their mission,” he added.

Why does this letter only cover SB Tactical products? The answer is because it is a private letter sent to attorneys representing SB Tactical and the letter relates exclusively to the company’s stabilizing braces that were submitted for ATF review. Hence the language in the one paragraph, “in its original approved configuration.” Moreover, there are additional points in the letter where similar products on the market are alluded to in order to underscore the exclusivity of the determination.

“If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder-stock — for example, configuring the brace so as to permanently affix it to the end of the buffer tube, (thereby creating a length that has no there purpose than to facilitate its use as a stock), removing the arm strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace — and then in fact shoots the firearm from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock, that person objectively “redesigned” the firearm for the purposes of the NFA.”

The key line is “removing the arm strap.” Can you think of another “brace” on the market that does not have a strap? That’s basically what the agency is referring to. That’s not to say that the manufacturers of other similar products won’t petition the ATF in the future to get a similar determination on their products. But for right now, it only pertains to SB Tactical.

Anyways, that’s the skinny on this letter. You may also be wondering why this and why now? Why did the ATF suddenly reverse its position? Well, let’s just say that there’s a difference between the culture of an Obama ATF and that of a Trump ATF. Along these lines, one can only hope that this is the beginning of more good things to come from a Trump-era ATF.

[Zundfolge]

In the short term this makes me happy.

In the long term, this ability of the ATF to make law out of whole cloth by just writing a letter has to stop. Otherwise, next Democrat administration F-Troop will likely declare that all AR pistols with a buffer tubes are SBRs or some other nonsense.

[cstone]

Tool - anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose

If you defend your life with a firearm by shouldering it, does that make the act good or bad? If a criminal kills someone with a short barreled rifle, does that make the crime worse? How is making a firearm quieter good or bad unless we know how the firearm was used? Do dead victims care whether the firearm was a single shot, semi-auto, or fully automatic firearm?

Frankly, as long as a free citizen uses any weapon responsibly, and does not commit crimes with that weapon, I don't care if the weapon is a knife, hammer, flame thrower, grenade launcher, self propelled artillery, or shouldered AR pistol.

IMO, BATFE should be changed to BAT and be honest about their primary purpose: revenue collection for the federal government.

[Great-Kazoo]

post 51

https://www.ar-15.co/threads/143765-ATF-Sig-brace-updated-ruling/page2

[cstone]

Well that makes sense. Everyone knows that adding a rolled up towel and some duct tape makes anything into a super dangerous weapon of mass destruction. Hair splitting regulatory schemes are the preferred form of control in our republic. SMH

[Gcompact30]

Also on KAK Industry website, they are saying that their shockwave blade is good to go as well. I heard on YouTube that any pistol brace is ok, trust but verify the information :-).

[Irving]

People often wonder about the thought process of the ATF with all of the inconsistencies and logical failures. I submit that in order to understand the ATF, one must view them in the same context of the utter failure that was the war on drugs. It was never effective, every one knew that it was never effective, but the government continued to double down on failed policies "because the people who broke the arbitrary laws we created were BAD people and needed to be caught and punished."

[Firehaus]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-ar-pistol-brace-approval-may-give-the-gun-industry-just-the-shot-it-needs/ar-BBAqYRY?li=BBnbfcN


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DireWolf]

Frankly, as long as a free citizen uses any weapon responsibly, and does not commit crimes with that weapon, I don't care if the weapon is a knife, hammer, flame thrower, grenade launcher, self propelled artillery, or shouldered AR pistol.

^^^My thoughts exactly, I could not possibly have articulated it better.

This was also the Founder's intent.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[WETWRKS]

A friend sent me the following on it and it appears to disagree that the decision only applies to the SB products:



I copied this from thefirearmblog's website, the formatting is all screwed up but on my computer at least it's legible, so hopefully you can read it as well. I also read the actual ATF letter and, the way it's worded, I'm pretty confident that the guy I'm quoting below is correct: it's not just the Sig brace, but any brace as long as it isn't set up in a way that would make it impractical to still use as an arm brace and/or is permanently attached to the rifle.

Nicholas C, since you bring up the Shockwave Blade at the end of your article--and that you don't know its current status, I will let you in on what I learned today:

I just got off the phone with a very nice gentleman at ATF Tech Branch---who was fielding these calls today. (He was, understandably, very well versed on the subject---and very nice about it even though he's been on the phone all day, repeating himself ad nauseam.) I identified myself and asked him specifically if the letter that's making the rounds is limited to one company's products--or if it applies to all pistol stabilizing braces. He said: "The letter covers all pistol stabilizing braces, including the Shockwave Blade." So that settles that.

He then gave me two points of further guidance for our customers:

1. By "permanent affixing," ATF considers that to be adding permanent Loctite to the large set screw that secures the Blade into the dimples in the KAK tube. As long as you don't red Loctite the set screw in place, ATF considers it to be "temporarily placed" and "perfectly okay to shoulder." (He didn't beat around the bush on this topic.)

2. "Length of pull"---for lack of a better word regarding pistol braces---begins to enter a "gray area" above 13.5". Above 13.5" begins "to enter shoulder stock area." (His words. I believe this has to do with the "comfortableness" aspect.) On an AR-15 pistol, the "length of pull" for the Blade is approximately 13.13", so no issues there. But if you use the Blade on a firearm that requires a large adapter of some sort, please make sure that you only use the dimples up to the point that you remain below the 13.5" length. Stay below 13.5" and according to ATF, it's okay to shoulder a Shockwave Blade.

So there you have it. Anything you read to the contrary on a web forum, social media site, or industry blog is simple misinformation.

Per: https://disqus.com/by/martyewer/



Personally I don't know who Marty Yewer is or if he is a reliable source of info but if what he says is correct then it seems to apply to pretty much all the brands.

[00tec]

A friend sent me the following on it and it appears to disagree that the decision only applies to the SB products:



I copied this from thefirearmblog's website, the formatting is all screwed up but on my computer at least it's legible, so hopefully you can read it as well. I also read the actual ATF letter and, the way it's worded, I'm pretty confident that the guy I'm quoting below is correct: it's not just the Sig brace, but any brace as long as it isn't set up in a way that would make it impractical to still use as an arm brace and/or is permanently attached to the rifle.

Nicholas C, since you bring up the Shockwave Blade at the end of your article--and that you don't know its current status, I will let you in on what I learned today:

I just got off the phone with a very nice gentleman at ATF Tech Branch---who was fielding these calls today. (He was, understandably, very well versed on the subject---and very nice about it even though he's been on the phone all day, repeating himself ad nauseam.) I identified myself and asked him specifically if the letter that's making the rounds is limited to one company's products--or if it applies to all pistol stabilizing braces. He said: "The letter covers all pistol stabilizing braces, including the Shockwave Blade." So that settles that.

He then gave me two points of further guidance for our customers:

1. By "permanent affixing," ATF considers that to be adding permanent Loctite to the large set screw that secures the Blade into the dimples in the KAK tube. As long as you don't red Loctite the set screw in place, ATF considers it to be "temporarily placed" and "perfectly okay to shoulder." (He didn't beat around the bush on this topic.)

2. "Length of pull"---for lack of a better word regarding pistol braces---begins to enter a "gray area" above 13.5". Above 13.5" begins "to enter shoulder stock area." (His words. I believe this has to do with the "comfortableness" aspect.) On an AR-15 pistol, the "length of pull" for the Blade is approximately 13.13", so no issues there. But if you use the Blade on a firearm that requires a large adapter of some sort, please make sure that you only use the dimples up to the point that you remain below the 13.5" length. Stay below 13.5" and according to ATF, it's okay to shoulder a Shockwave Blade.

So there you have it. Anything you read to the contrary on a web forum, social media site, or industry blog is simple misinformation.

Per: https://disqus.com/by/martyewer/



Personally I don't know who Marty Yewer is or if he is a reliable source of info but if what he says is correct then it seems to apply to pretty much all the brands.

In other words, if a midget finds it comfortable, it's a SBR.... hahahaha

[WETWRKS]

In other words, if a midget finds it comfortable, it's a SBR.... hahahaha

LOL...pretty much. :D

[CS1983]

A friend sent me the following on it and it appears to disagree that the decision only applies to the SB products:



I copied this from thefirearmblog's website, the formatting is all screwed up but on my computer at least it's legible, so hopefully you can read it as well. I also read the actual ATF letter and, the way it's worded, I'm pretty confident that the guy I'm quoting below is correct: it's not just the Sig brace, but any brace as long as it isn't set up in a way that would make it impractical to still use as an arm brace and/or is permanently attached to the rifle.

Nicholas C, since you bring up the Shockwave Blade at the end of your article--and that you don't know its current status, I will let you in on what I learned today:

I just got off the phone with a very nice gentleman at ATF Tech Branch---who was fielding these calls today. (He was, understandably, very well versed on the subject---and very nice about it even though he's been on the phone all day, repeating himself ad nauseam.) I identified myself and asked him specifically if the letter that's making the rounds is limited to one company's products--or if it applies to all pistol stabilizing braces. He said: "The letter covers all pistol stabilizing braces, including the Shockwave Blade." So that settles that.

He then gave me two points of further guidance for our customers:

1. By "permanent affixing," ATF considers that to be adding permanent Loctite to the large set screw that secures the Blade into the dimples in the KAK tube. As long as you don't red Loctite the set screw in place, ATF considers it to be "temporarily placed" and "perfectly okay to shoulder." (He didn't beat around the bush on this topic.)

2. "Length of pull"---for lack of a better word regarding pistol braces---begins to enter a "gray area" above 13.5". Above 13.5" begins "to enter shoulder stock area." (His words. I believe this has to do with the "comfortableness" aspect.) On an AR-15 pistol, the "length of pull" for the Blade is approximately 13.13", so no issues there. But if you use the Blade on a firearm that requires a large adapter of some sort, please make sure that you only use the dimples up to the point that you remain below the 13.5" length. Stay below 13.5" and according to ATF, it's okay to shoulder a Shockwave Blade.

So there you have it. Anything you read to the contrary on a web forum, social media site, or industry blog is simple misinformation.

Per: https://disqus.com/by/martyewer/



Personally I don't know who Marty Yewer is or if he is a reliable source of info but if what he says is correct then it seems to apply to pretty much all the brands.

Takeaway on #1 -- so, using a drop of loctite to make sure a screw doesn't inadvertently unscrew is modifying a design? No it's not, unless Shockwave designed their shit to unscrew and be useless as an arm brace.

Takeaway on #2 -- This is frankly hogwash, and it has an opposite corrolary: a change on LOP to <13.5"on a RIFLE then makes it a PISTOL, but this is factually untrue. It's also never mentioned anywhere by the GAYTF in anything. It also goes against the very principles of basic physics (leverage) which the concept of "bracing" employs to be effective.

Magpul defines the LOP* on the CTR as:
SPECIFICATIONS**


CTR Carbine Stock, Mil-Spec

Weight: 8.8 oz.
Weight, w/receiver extension: 12.8
Length, max: 6.9 in.
LOP Adjustment Range: 3.3 in.
LOP, M4 Collapsed: ~10.5 in.
LOP, M4 Extended: ~13.8 in.


Does this mean that if I employ a CTR on a pistol, but loctite it so it doesn't go beyond 13.5" as measured by Magpul, I've permanently modified a stock to become a brace? According to the principles expressed by Mr. Ewer per the GAYTF, yes. Somehow, I doubt they'd be consistent on this.

*LOP -- not sure if they're measuring from trigger face to buttstock pad; I cannot see how they are, but these are the measurements they provide.

To answer who Marty Ewer is -- he's the owner of KAK, the company which makes the Shockwave Blade.

[Great-Kazoo]

Does this mean that if I employ a CTR on a pistol, but loctite it so it doesn't go beyond 13.5" as measured by Magpul, I've permanently modified a stock to become a brace?

I understand what you're saying and agree. BUT................the CTR was designed as a butt stock. Where the KAK & Sig Brace were not. IF magpul had designed and sold the CTR as a shoulder brace, then yes. Not that i'd be surprised to see MP and others start their own line of "shoulder braces"

[CS1983]

Does this mean that if I employ a CTR on a pistol, but loctite it so it doesn't go beyond 13.5" as measured by Magpul, I've permanently modified a stock to become a brace?

I understand what you're saying and agree. BUT................the CTR was designed as a butt stock. Where the KAK & Sig Brace were not. IF magpul had designed and sold the CTR as a shoulder brace, then yes. Not that i'd be surprised to see MP and others start their own line of "shoulder braces"

And the KAK was designed as a brace. LOP doesn't change that.

[cstone]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-ar-pistol-brace-approval-may-give-the-gun-industry-just-the-shot-it-needs/ar-BBAqYRY?li=BBnbfcN


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Then gun enthusiasts began customizing."

Since it came from MSN, I knew it would be a painfully absurd read and it did not disappoint.

[Zundfolge]

People often wonder about the thought process of the ATF with all of the inconsistencies and logical failures.

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

[Irving]

I kind of feel like the ATF changing a decision is less of a reversal, and more of just firing from their left hand instead.

[ray1970]

I think someone should write a letter seeking clarification.

[brutal]

Better not put a flat trigger on that pistol, you'll exceed the allowed LOP.

Oh Lord, when will the madness stop?

[ray1970]

Oh Lord, when will the madness stop?

Checked my calendar. I didn't see the day where the world comes to an end but I'm pretty sure that's the day the madness stops as well.

[TFOGGER]

All the 2nd hand phone calls in the world are just meaningless noise until the ATF issues a new determination letter, and it is signed by someone with the word "director" somewhere in their title.

[Ah Pook]

People often wonder about the thought process of the ATF with all of the inconsistencies and logical failures. I submit that in order to understand the ATF, one must view them in the same context of the utter failure that was the war on drugs. It was never effective, every one knew that it was never effective, but the government continued to double down on failed policies "because the people who broke the arbitrary laws we created were BAD people and needed to be caught and punished."
At least in 1933 they conceded that the law was unenforceable. Now they just throw more money at it.

Grey the waters enough and see what you snag.

[DavieD55]

In the long term, this ability of the ATF to make law out of whole cloth by just writing a letter has to stop.



“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged



^