NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => The NFA Corner => Topic started by: Dan W on April 30, 2017, 12:00:04 PM
-
ATF has reversed its stance on shouldering an AR15 pistol equipped with a pistol brace
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/04/24/breaking-news-update-atf-reversal-letter-sb-tactical/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2017-04-29&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter
More information specific to Shockwave brace users like me
http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?p=3524#comments
-
I was wondering the same thing Dan. Thank you for posting.
I now think a pistol is in my near future.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
-
I've been watching this too. Debating on doing a form 1 or pistol. MAC has a YouTube video pertaining to the brace. Still on the fence.
-
Does anyone else think that Trump might be leaning on the ATF just a little bit?
I wonder whats next?
-
It would be nice if POTUS was raining in the ATF but I don't think so.
Look at what's been happening lately to company's that sell solvent trap components.
-
It would be nice if POTUS was raining in the ATF but I don't think so.
Look at what's been happening lately to company's that sell solvent trap components.
Whats up with solvent traps? I havnt heard anything about that
-
Whats up with solvent traps? I havnt heard anything about that
I don't have a link handy, but they've called for cease and desist from at least 2 manufacturers.
-
The original marketing of the solvent trap wasn't the problem. The company that started this was preppers discount I believe and they were marketing parts that of themselves were unrelated to suppressors in any form. Although the end result was clear, the ATF was powerless to take any action. The legal responsibility was placed firmly at the feet of the end users should they decide to make the suggested modifications to the parts. Keep in mind that simply being in possession of suppressor parts can be and has been used to prove constructive intent to posess a supressor, although there is no clear line that needs to be crossed. I've been watching this closely over the last few years and knew it would be ending soon because the companies that were selling the parts decided that if selling arbitrary unfinished parts were good, selling finished parts in the form of a ready made kit would be better both financially for them and the end user. Some even advertised sending customers Form 1's for customers to fill out and send in to be approved for their homemade suppressors. The fatal flaw in this action was that individuals are prohibited from possessing suppressor parts prior to the Form 1 being approved. Simply having the finished parts with the clear intent of the end result violates NFA regulations both from a retail standpoint and individual end user standpoint.
Anyone can build their own suppressor following Form 1 approval and many have, but a manufacturer must serialize and Form 2 any and all manufactured firearm and NFA related devices and are prohibited from transferring them to anyone accept other SOT dealers without a Form 4 approval and subsequent stamp issued to the end user. One of the companies ordered to cease was a class 07 manufacturer. Im not sure how they thought they could do this in clear violation of their 07 license requirements. All of these companies overstepped the NFA regs attempting to circumvent the process. It was only a matter of time before the ATF put an end to it.
For the record this information isn't an opinion of mine supporting the ATF but merely explaining what I saw happening and predicting the inevitable outcome.
-
Also as to the original post, please keep in mind that as of today the ATF reversal applies to the company addressed in the ruling only, not to any other company that produces arm braces such as the Sig brace. It also forbids you from altering it from its original form which could reclassify the entire firearm as an SBR. Anyone reading the ruling should keep these things in mind. I'd hate to see anyone become a test case.
-
Also as to the original post, please keep in mind that as of today the ATF reversal applies to the company addressed in the ruling only, not to any other company that produces arm braces such as the Sig brace.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the case as pointed out in Dan's link here:
http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?p=3524#comments
As for Trump leaning on the ATF, I think it has more to do with getting ahead of people's attitudes toward firearm declassification. I think they are trying to give a little to quell a passion that might see a lot of regulations get tossed. Make us fight for what we want and we'll probably take even more in the process.
JMHO
-
I'm pretty sure that isn't the case as pointed out in Dan's link here:
http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?p=3524#comments
As for Trump leaning on the ATF, I think it has more to do with getting ahead of people's attitudes toward firearm declassification. I think they are trying to give a little to quell a passion that might see a lot of regulations get tossed. Make us fight for what we want and we'll probably take even more in the process.
JMHO
The one thing about the ATF that I know from being in business with them is to never assume anything and a phone conversation with them verifying information is as good as monopoly money. I'm not saying it isn't accurate but I've been down this mole hole with them enough to know better than trust it. Personal letterhead responses from them on issues such as this with an authorized sig is the gold standard. As a dealer, I wouldn't bet my business or my individual freedom on a phone conversation translated by a vendor to the Internet. That company isn't going to pay your legal fees when you get jammed up. I'm sure this will get cleared up soon and my concerns will be for not.
JMHO
Brian
-
The one thing about the ATF that I know from being in business with them is to never assume anything and a phone conversation with them verifying information is as good as monopoly money. I'm not saying it isn't accurate but I've been down this mole hole with them enough to know better than trust it. Personal letterhead responses from them on issues such as this with an authorized sig is the gold standard. As a dealer, I wouldn't bet my business or my individual freedom on a phone conversation translated by a vendor to the Internet. That company isn't going to pay your legal fees when you get jammed up. I'm sure this will get cleared up soon and my concerns will be for not.
JMHO
Brian
Thanks for your input on these subjects. I've done plenty of research on this and I can tell you I'm not willing to be the "test case"
-
As a dealer, I wouldn't bet my business or my individual freedom on a phone conversation translated by a vendor to the Internet. That company isn't going to pay your legal fees when you get jammed up. I'm sure this will get cleared up soon and my concerns will be for not.
JMHO
Brian
I don't blame you. Hopefully, this will all be clear soon. I will say that even before this, I never worried about a pistol brace coming to rest on my shoulder. While I wouldn't want to be a test case, I am not one that would lay down and take it and I hate to lose. ;D
-
Also as to the original post, please keep in mind that as of today the ATF reversal applies to the company addressed in the ruling only, not to any other company that produces arm braces such as the Sig brace. It also forbids you from altering it from its original form which could reclassify the entire firearm as an SBR. Anyone reading the ruling should keep these things in mind. I'd hate to see anyone become a test case.
The company in question is the maker of the Sig brace.
-
The company in question is the maker of the Sig brace.
I apologize for the confusion. I didn't word that correctly. There are others, one being the MFT Battle link that I've been questioned about and my advice is don't do it until the ATF puts it on paper. With the gun industry heading into difficult times because of the relaxed political climate, there will likely be other companies trying to exploit this niche, to survive, marketing unapproved designs putting unsuspecting buyers at risk. I'm not quite the tinfoil hat type but the past 8 years have moved me admittedly in that direction. I'm also all about the 2nd ammendment in its literal interpretation but bad things have happened to good people because of uncharted waters such as this.
I'll give you a for instance. Imagine the suprise when the ATF obtains a court order for customer lists for all of those people buying suppressor kits and letters start showing up in the mail. Simply having your name on such a lIst would be suitable grounds for a search warrant and an unfriendly visit. Chances are good that a portion of those people knew very well that they were violating federal law and didn't care but others were drawn in believing they were legal because the selling vendors said "do it this way."
I can't stress enough that a dice roll on anything scratching the NFA area without paperwork is a really bad idea.
-
Just an fyi, the ATF did not reverse it's stance on braces, simply clarified the stance. The position on shouldering braces has been consistent, although was misconstrued by many.