Hot off the press: Galil Ace coming to the USA in 2015!

[RSR]

I don't think this writer fully understands the ATF shotgun brace decision -- scroll up for my more nuanced, and I think accurate, discussion of the facts there...

Regardless more of the same on mounting a pistol brace to your shoulder being considered "converting" the weapon to a different class -- this time from a non-NFA to a NFA class vs the shotgun which was from one NFA class to another...

AR Pistol Braces Get Even More Confusing Following Latest ATF Letter
12/20/14

Like the recent shotgun letter, this letter seems to show that the ATF may be backtracking on their original “intent and use” decisions. The new letter states the following [emphasis added by the ATF]:

Based on our evaluation, FTISB finds that the submitted forearm brace, when attached to a pistol is a “firearm” subject to the GCA provisions; however, it is not a “firearm” as defined by the NFA provided that the Blade AR Pistol Stabilizer is used as originally designed and NOT as a shoulder stock.

Of course, as everyone knows ATF letters only apply to the individual products they are referencing. However, it is an interesting datapoint that might show a general change in position from the ATF on forearm braces. I’m not trying to tell anyone what is/is not legal or trying to read the ATF’s mind, just passing along data points.

Click through for more: http://gunssavelives.net/gun-indust...n-more-confusing-following-latest-atf-letter/

 

[RSR]

Well, today there was this news:

http://gunssavelives.net/gun-indust...tating-that-shouldering-sig-brace-is-illegal/

BREAKING: ATF Issues New Opinion Letter Stating That Shouldering Sig Brace Could Be Illegal
DECEMBER 26 2014
[...]
However, several recent letters, including the one that just emerged in the last 24 hours, tends to show that the ATF is changing their tune on shouldering arm braces.
Here is the letter in question which was posted AR15.com earlier today (however the letter seems to be from November). Note paragraph 5 of the 2nd page:
[...]

The Sig Sauer SB-15 pistol stabilizing brace is designed so that a shooter would insert his or her forearm into the device while gripping the pistol's handgrip -- then tighten the Velcro straps for additional support and retention. As designed, the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand Consequently, a Sig SB-15 shoting brace is not designed or intended for firing a weapon from the shoulder.

Consequently, the attachment of the SB-15 to an AR-type pistol alone; would not change the classification of the pistol to an SBR. However, if this device, un-modified or modified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock, thus designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a weapon design to be fired from the shoulder; this assembly would constitute the making of a "rifle" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(7).
[...]
Further, if this device, un-modified or modified; is assembled to a pistol and used as a shoulder stock, in the designing or redesigning or making or remaking of a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder, which incorporates a barrel length of less than 16 inches; this assemble would constitute the making of a "a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length"; an NFA firearm as defined in 26 U.S.C., Section 5845(a)(3).

[...]
It would seem that all recent letters to the ATF are getting a similar response in regards to braces – the ATF isn’t cool with it.
[...]
Once again, these are just opinion letters. The real test would come in a criminal court if someone was caught shouldering an AR pistol and arrested.

Click through for more: http://gunssavelives.net/gun-indust...tating-that-shouldering-sig-brace-is-illegal/

 

[StooperZero]

opinions are like assholes.....

 

[yzfchet]

You know, this whole concept - the adding of an artifact to a pistol which allows it it to be rested on a shoulder being illegal - is the probably the stupidest firearm law I've read. One can take a coat hanger, bend it around, attach it to a pistol, and VOILA!! You are a felon! Sort of like the instant shoestring on a trigger finger felony.

An entire Federal agency dedicated to adjudicating the silliest shit imaginable. Like an overblown electric dog polisher evaluation committee; no actual useful function known to Man. And the GOP establishment backs them up completely. It's enough to make you weep.

 

[riderboy]

And those dingleberries can't seem to make up their minds in any sort of consistent manner.

 

[lcastillo]

It is what it is, they aren't saying anything different from before. What can you expect when you take a brace that was designed for the disabled in mind and is the least group of people that are using them. The U.S. Gun owners are the Kings of finding ways of getting around stinking ATF gun bans��. Long live the U.S. Gun owners hip hip hurrah!

 

[RSR]

Yep. Curious if IMI has already received approval for the Galil ACE pistol brace and is willing to share that letter?

Also, if the only way to mount a stock is to SBR it, then we'll also need 922r capability as well. Wonder if IMI will make those parts available as well?

 

[lcastillo]

RSR, I lost you on the last paragraph about 922 compliance brother. Could you please elaborate on what parts on a SBR you are referring to. I thought that 922R does not apply to registered SBR's? Also don't gun manufacturers like IWI, H&K etc that build weapons on U.S. soil exempt from 922R compliance laws where as importers like Century Arms International that build guns from import rifle kits with U.S. receivers have to comply with 922R laws? Thanks Lou

 

[RSR]

My understanding is that any rifle, even if SBR registered must be 922r compliant.

From the looks of it, many parts on the ACE might be easily swappable between a standard Galil and/or AK the ACE, so it might not be an issue with parts availability, but then again, it might.

Basically, under these recent atf letters, mounting a pistol with any form of arm brace to your shoulder makes it a rifle. So if you want to that the proper route is SBR, which also requires 922r compliance... Was having this convo the other day as to why a lot of these foreign-built latest gen rifles first enter the country as pistols (I'm not a fan of rifle rounds out of short barrels generally as it both makes weapons malfunction more, makes them louder etc, as well as seems to overall shortchange the capabilities of these rifle systems -- this particular convo was related to the CZ 805 Bren). Someone pointed out that pistols have no 922r requirement, which allows them to test the market without producing components and/or building entirely domestically -- I had blanked on that. I researched it some more and 922r does appear to apply to SBRs. Apparently prior to 2009 it was a loophole and/or gray area that the ATF has since closed...

See these links for folks smarter than me on that:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?107614-Does-SBR-Negate-922r-Compliance
http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173201

 

[yzfchet]

My understanding is that any rifle, even if SBR registered must be 922r compliant.

<snip> I researched it some more and 922r does appear to apply to SBRs. Apparently prior to 2009 it was a loophole and/or gray area that the ATF has since closed...

See these links for folks smarter than me on that:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?107614-Does-SBR-Negate-922r-Compliance
http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173201

I did not know that...thanks for that information, RSR. :thumbs_up