Maybe somebody can help me out with this story:
So SIG came up with an arm brace for AR-15 pistols. The statement that the arm brace could be used as a shoulder stock was talked about, but it turns out the ATF doesn’t care how you use the arm brace, and they don’t consider it a stock.
And the people rejoiced.
Still in this story the gun is a SHOTGUN. Now when it comes to a rifle with a short barrel, but no shoulder stock is a pistol, and since the arm brace is not a shoulder stock it doesn’t count to this definition. (Note that the “Rifle” can never have been a true rifle at any point of it’s existence otherwise it is now an evil Short Barrel Rifle, and it needs to be registered and taxed because the NFA makes a ton of sense).
Now with a shotgun it appears to be a Saiga 12 type shotgun, meaning it A) Has a barrel larger than .50 Cal (.72 Caliber for 12 gauge) and B) Has a smooth bore barrel. Now again because the NFA makes tons of sense, if the gun was never a long shotgun (because the gun will remember, and it’s now evil forever!!!!) and the barrel is RIFLED and chambered in .410, it would be considered a pistol, hence why you can buy a .410 derringer or revolver in any free-state gun shop like any other pistol. Still for a bigger gauge, short barrel, smooth bore, and no stock, and never having been anything else but this it is an “Any Other Weapon” and still needs to be registered with the NFA, but taxed at $5 rather than $200.
So yeah, at BEST I see this gun as being an AOW, and possibly a Short Barreled shotgun for whatever reason, but NOT a non-NFA item.
What am I missing with this story?
I never could figure out what the base firearm was that they asked the ATF about. The only way that I could see the stock being an issue is with a shotgun that has never had a shoulder stock attached and is legally classified as a firearm instead of a shotgun and has a barrel length of less than 18″. That combination might get the ATF’s undies in a bunch. See here http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?page_id=88.
I’d like to see the whole letter.
I beleive you are incorrect about the requirements that a shotgun receiver never been stocked to prevent it from becoming a pistol. That requirement is particular only to rifles (well, SBRs, specifically)
But I’d like to see the whole letter and I’d gladly give a go at translation.
First thing that jumps out at me as the letter went to a mfg, who uses components to accomplish design intents. Why would you “design in” an armbrace? Or is that just a way to include a stock? Or is it that an armbrace carries a $5 transfer tax vs $200 for the stock ?
Not saying that isn’t valid, but I have about a million thoughts on the issue but I’d like to – oh yeah – read the whole letter 🙂
SO now I’ve seen the mostrosity. ~8″ barreled 12ga pump with a ridiculous banana clip (oh yes I did) and the sig brace used as a stock. Also, this is a *pump* shotgun that has a pisol grip on the slide.
So by convention,
8″ 12ga with stock would be SBS.
8″ 12ga with no stock would be an AOW usually, but could be considered a DD at the stroke of a pen – administrative change as to if that particular gun is considered sporting. Streetsweepers and their ilk were thus re-classified to DDs some time ago.
I guess if OAL entered into it, there could be some angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin as to if the brace was measured or not, but I think convention would dictate it would be included.
So, ATF could have ruled it were a SBS since it includes a shoulder stock… But apparently did not and instead said that it wasn’t a SBS *until some user put it up to their shoulder* and further claimed that the act of use (moot: misuse) would redefine the gun. Logicaly fallacy here. You can’t use something and make it something else. From the letter “…the subject brace has been made or remade, designed or redesigned from its originally intended purpose”. I don’t see any remake or redesign by placing it on your shoulder….
This appears to take away leeway given in the original sig letter, but that’s no surprise – ATF has a L-O-N-G history of approving things then rescinding approval and creating instafelons(tm).
Frankly, since these Black Ace guys actually BUILD these guns, you figure they would design them too. They chose the sig brace for a reason… and I would have fully expected ATF to call it a SBS since it was clearly _designed_ to be fired from the shoulder.
Yeah that’s the only thing I could think of, was this was a way to make an “SBR” that is taxed as an AOW.
Also I just went looking at the ATF site and from their quick FAQ page, it appears you’re right that an AOW shotgun can be made from a standard non-NFA shotgun.
Still I remember reading something about Serbu not being able to convert a shotgun to a super shorty because they need to start with a virgin reviver, but that might have just been marketing/ CYA.
Thanks for chiming in, Wally, I was hoping you’d have something to say on this post.
Not a pistol, a firearm. Apparently if a firearm has an overall length of >26″ and is not designed to be fired from the shoulder, then it is in kind of a nebulous area of the law. There are people out there who have purchased Mossberg 500 shottys that shipped from the factory with pistol grips and 14″ barrels without having to go through the NFA rigmarole. If this was an 8″ barreled shotty that, with the Sig brace, measured >26″ OAL, I would expect it to fall in the same category as said Mossy. I think your “angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin” comment was hitting the area the manufacturer was hoping to scrape through. But it sounds like the technology branch isn’t all that consistent with their rulings. Surprise surprise.
Regards,
Barrett