ATF Open Letter on the Use of SB Tactical Pistol Stabilizing Braces® YOU CAN SHOULDER

[unclejumbo]

It reads as a further clarification on the arm braces. If you buy it and configure it to use as a shoulder stock, you've created an NFA item. If, on the other hand, it's on the gun and configured for use as an arm brace, shouldering said arm brace sometimes doesn't create an NFA item.

http://www.tacticalshit.com/wp-conte...al-3.21.17.pdf

It's not company specific.

[Emptymag]

It reads as a further clarification on the arm braces. If you buy it and configure it to use as a shoulder stock, you've created and NFA item. If, on the other hand, it's on the gun and configured for use as an arm brace, shouldering said arm brace doesn't create an NFA item.

http://www.tacticalshit.com/wp-conte...al-3.21.17.pdf

LOL! So it's both legal AND Illegal!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Sounds about right.

[39flathead]

MAC is reading from the letter sent to SB tactical, and I paraphrase that- it applies ONLY to the SB braces, and that the BLADES, "if shouldered" are stocks since they permanently affix to the buffer tube via a set screw and do not come with a arm strap.

IOW this letter does not apply to anything not made by SB Tactical.

I'm not replying to you as much as replying to their legal interpretation.

The Shockwave was approved by the ATF as an arm brace like every other brace, strap not included.

The Shockwave is not permanently attached, it can be removed.

This is why these stupid rulings are stupid.

[unclejumbo]

I'm not replying to you as much as replying to their legal interpretation.

The Shockwave was approved by the ATF as an arm brace like every other brace, strap not included.

The Shockwave is not permanently attached, it can be removed.

This is why these stupid rulings are stupid.

I understand their interpretation. If they said that shouldering an "arm brace" was completely legal, then they've effectively gutted the SBR portion of the NFA. They can't say it's always illegal because that defies common sense (I know, never stopped government before) because there may be times pulling the pistol in close for extra support is necessary. Bottom line, they opened a can of worms approving braces and are trying not to stir a hornets nest by completely reversing their original decision. Since I've read of no arrests for shouldering an arm brace, I'd say it's a moot point unless you rub their nose in it.

[GunLawyer001]

. . . .
All in all it sounds like If you own stock in SB Tactical you should pretty happy very soon I'm thinking lol.

...or if you're selling SB15 stocks in the Classified section.....

[39flathead]

I understand their interpretation. If they said that shouldering an "arm brace" was completely legal, then they've effectively gutted the SBR portion of the NFA. They can't say it's always illegal because that defies common sense (I know, never stopped government before) because there may be times pulling the pistol in close for extra support is necessary. Bottom line, they opened a can of worms approving braces and are trying not to stir a hornets nest by completely reversing their original decision. Since I've read of no arrests for shouldering an arm brace, I'd say it's a moot point unless you rub their nose in it.

Actually a guy was arrested by a local cop iirc somewhere in the Midwest and the ATF said he didn't break any laws, he was released and charges dropped.

[ExFlyinguy]

I'm not replying to you as much as replying to their legal interpretation.

The Shockwave was approved by the ATF as an arm brace like every other brace, strap not included.

The Shockwave is not permanently attached, it can be removed.

This is why these stupid rulings are stupid.

I understand. I was just trying to give the cliff's notes version. I apologize if I incorrectly summarized any of the info.

[unclejumbo]

I understand. I was just trying to give the cliff's notes version. I apologize if I incorrectly summarized any of the info.

I think MAC is all wet. I like his gun reviews but I'd say his interpretation of legalese is weak.

[39flathead]

I think MAC is all wet. I like his gun reviews but I'd say his interpretation of legalese is weak.

The Truth About Guns disagrees with MAC.

[39flathead]

I understand. I was just trying to give the cliff's notes version. I apologize if I incorrectly summarized any of the info.

No, thanks, I think you summed it up well from other comments I've seen here and there.
I just think they're wrong.