Here's a short posting by attorney David Goldman from Facebook, that explains it as well as anybody ever could:
ATF changes stance on sig brace again:
With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not “make” a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by FATD [Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division], it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder. If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder stock–for example, configuring the brace as to permanently affix it to the end of a buffer tube, (thereby creating a length that has no other purpose than to facilitate its use as a stock), removing the arm-strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace – and then in fact shoots the firearms from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock that person has objectively “redesigned” the firearm for purposes of the NFA. This conclusion is not based upon the mere fact that the firearm was fired from the shoulder at some point. Therefore, an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder
per David Goldman, attorney in Jacksonville area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Update by jhg: A later March letter from BATFE to attorney Mark Barnes (the top NFA attorney) also makes it clear that as long as the purpose of the brace is not to use it for firing from the shoulder, occasional firing from the shoulder does not make the gun NFA. Thus, there is an element of intent involved.
ATF changes stance on sig brace again:
With respect to stabilizing braces, ATF has concluded that attaching the brace to a handgun as a forearm brace does not “make” a short-barreled rifle because in the configuration as submitted to and approved by FATD [Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division], it is not intended to be and cannot comfortably be fired from the shoulder. If, however, the shooter/possessor takes affirmative steps to configure the device for use as a shoulder stock–for example, configuring the brace as to permanently affix it to the end of a buffer tube, (thereby creating a length that has no other purpose than to facilitate its use as a stock), removing the arm-strap, or otherwise undermining its ability to be used as a brace – and then in fact shoots the firearms from the shoulder using the accessory as a shoulder stock that person has objectively “redesigned” the firearm for purposes of the NFA. This conclusion is not based upon the mere fact that the firearm was fired from the shoulder at some point. Therefore, an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder
per David Goldman, attorney in Jacksonville area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Update by jhg: A later March letter from BATFE to attorney Mark Barnes (the top NFA attorney) also makes it clear that as long as the purpose of the brace is not to use it for firing from the shoulder, occasional firing from the shoulder does not make the gun NFA. Thus, there is an element of intent involved.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar