Shadyscott999 Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 2 hours ago, OPENB said: My RMI friend said that's not the context that was written in. It's in reference to "no Sig Brace pistols shot as rifles". If I have a legal rifle, I can have a stock made of cardboard & bubble gum. A rifle is a rifle, "able to be shot from the shoulder". Your RMI friend would be wrong. It is SPECIFICALLY prohibited. There is no context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 1 hour ago, OPENB said: My RMI friend said that's not the context that was written in. It's in reference to "no Sig Brace pistols shot as rifles". If I have a legal rifle, I can have a stock made of cardboard & bubble gum. A rifle is a rifle, "able to be shot from the shoulder". Tell “RMI friend” Troy specifically told me the exact opposite. A guy at Ohio wanted to run a blade something or other on a rifle. Troy clarifi d my interpretation that it was as not a stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPENB Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 (edited) I guess if he can make after market hammers legal, he can define what a stock is or isn't. Curious Kevin what you based your interpretation that it wasn't a stock on. You must have had some kind of definition in mind before you verified it with Troy. I think you saw a KAK Shockwave Blade. It slides over the buffer tube. If you install it with intent to shoulder it, ATF defines it as a stock. If the guy at Ohio had it on a rifle, what made you think it wasn't a stock? What attributes does a stock have? Edited November 1, 2017 by OPENB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPENB Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 I just sent my first ever question to Troy, let you know what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAFO Posted November 1, 2017 Author Share Posted November 1, 2017 If they want to clarify the rule, that's fine. It is still a provisional Division, after all. If what you're saying was the intent, they need to change it to something like "pistols with the Sig Brace or any variant thereof are not allowed". However, until they change it via a posted ruling or amendment to App D8, I'm obligated to use the language that's currently available. This isn't, IMHO, one of those instances of overthinking the rule or "just use common sense" misinterpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Its not what is defined as a stock or brace. It's either a rifle/carbine, SBR, or pistol. Regardless of which stock or brace is on it. If its a pistol, as legally defined by ATF / NFA rules, its not allowed in Pistol Caliber CARBINE division. With the term pistol caliber being an adjective to the noun carbine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 1 hour ago, OPENB said: I guess if he can make after market hammers legal, he can define what a stock is or isn't. Curious Kevin what you based your interpretation that it wasn't a stock on. You must have had some kind of definition in mind before you verified it with Troy. I think you saw a KAK Shockwave Blade. It slides over the buffer tube. If you install it with intent to shoulder it, ATF defines it as a stock. If the guy at Ohio had it on a rifle, what made you think it wasn't a stock? What attributes does a stock have? Because it is sold and marketed as a brace if memory serves. Then when the guy sent me a pick of the setup I forwarded it to Troy to back up my call or overturn it. His very short answer was “that’s a brace, not legal” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southpaw Posted November 1, 2017 Share Posted November 1, 2017 Why would anyone want to put a brace on a rifle/SBR? That would defeat the whole point of the brace... I get banning them even if put on a rifle/SBR as that would make it impossible to enforce the ban on them for pistols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPENB Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 We don't need to ban them on pistols, we've already banned pistols in PCC. That's my point, if they aren't on a pistol, they're a stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPENB Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 Troy just responded. The Sig brace, Shockwave, and any brace marketed as a brace is not considered a stock regardless of what it's mounted on or what ATF defines as a stock. I am now more knowledgeable of the matter. He did not elaborate on the intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 7 hours ago, OPENB said: Troy just responded. The Sig brace, Shockwave, and any brace marketed as a brace is not considered a stock regardless of what it's mounted on or what ATF defines as a stock. I am now more knowledgeable of the matter. He did not elaborate on the intent. Nothing beats getting it from the horse’s mouth. Even if it’s bad news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig N Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 The last I heard the ATF has reversed it's decision on shouldering a brace (there is a letter to someone to that affect). PCC was started right around the whole "can't shoulder a brace" timeframe. But the easiest way to look at the PCC rule is that it has to be a rifle and not a pistol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAFO Posted November 3, 2017 Author Share Posted November 3, 2017 It's one thing to say that, but when someone comes up to the line with a 10.5" PCC with a brace on it, how do I know if it started life as a pistol or if the shooter has SBR'd a rifle and stuck a brace on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatJones Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 It's one thing to say that, but when someone comes up to the line with a 10.5" PCC with a brace on it, how do I know if it started life as a pistol or if the shooter has SBR'd a rifle and stuck a brace on it?The simple thing would have been to require a 16 inch barrel at the creation of the division. It's a little late now that the horse is already out of the barn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Scott Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 Call me cynical, but suspicions are high if anyone shows up with a sub-16" gun, with a brace(of any kind) and says its an SBR. If you can afford a tax stamp, you can afford a stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 On 11/3/2017 at 2:29 PM, JAFO said: It's one thing to say that, but when someone comes up to the line with a 10.5" PCC with a brace on it, how do I know if it started life as a pistol or if the shooter has SBR'd a rifle and stuck a brace on it? An SBR has to be engraved. And they should be able to produce paperwork if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatJones Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 An SBR has to be engraved. And they should be able to produce paperwork if needed. Only NFA items that have been built on a form 1 require additional markings. If you buy an SBR from a licensed manufacturer, there are no additional markings beyond what we see on our non-NFA firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 Okey Dokey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now