Sig Sauer issues a press release hinting at legal action over stabilizing brace issue

Arbitrary_And_CapriciousUpdate:  For the latest news on the stabilizing brace issue, see my March 21, 2017 update.

I received a call today from a client who had just read my article about the ATF’s open letter concerning the stabilizing brace issue.  He was coming to the issue late but was incensed that the ATF was reversing their previous position.

He asked me if the NFA community was “going to take this lying down.”  I told him I expected that several manufacturers were exploring their legal options.

I spent a few minutes trying to explain the basics of administrative law and how an agency ruling can be challenged as ‘arbitrary and capricious’ but went on to caution that the courts will grant significant deference to agency action.

It turns out that Sig Sauer at least is definitely considering such a challenge.  They released the following press release this afternoon.


NEWINGTON, N.H. (January 21, 2015)—SIG SAUER, Inc., has issued the following statement about the recent opinion by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in regard to the SB15 and SBX pistol stabilizing braces.

“As reaffirmed in an Open Letter by ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division dated January 16, 2015, the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) is legal to own, legal to purchase, and legal to install on a pistol. SIG SAUER® believes that the PSB improves the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols, and offers the product both as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols.

“The Open Letter goes further to rescind a previous private letter regarding the ‘intent’ of the user of the pistol stabilizing brace. In the letter of January 16, 2015, ATF opines that a person’s actual use of the product as a shoulder stock can change the legal classification of the product. However, the Open Letter explicitly states: “ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm.”

“We question ATF’s reversal in position that the classification of the brace may be altered by its use. We are reviewing the legal precedents and justification for this position, and will address our concerns with ATF in the near future.”

“We will vigorously defend the classification of all of our products and our consumers’ right to use them in accordance with the law. If we find that the open letter opinion is outside the scope of the law, we will seek further review.”

Posted in Administrative Law, AR Pistols, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, BATFE, SBR, Stabilizing Brace | Comments Off on Sig Sauer issues a press release hinting at legal action over stabilizing brace issue

We have an eForms update

Expect_DelaysFor some time now the ATF has been hinting that they would have an important update concerning eForms 3 and 4 at the 2015 Shot Show.

Many optimists had hoped that the ATF might be ready to announce that these eForms are ready to return to service.

I have been telling clients that this was hoping for too much and that they might expect eForms 3 and 4 to return to service by the 2nd quarter of the year.

It turns out that even this was too optimistic.  In the just-released ‘State of eForms’ newsletter (embedded in full below), the ATF reveals that there has been some progress but not nearly enough to herald an impending return to service.  The key portion of the newsletter states:

While eForms 3 and 4 have not yet been restored to service, there has been progress. ATF has engaged a new vendor to create a more robust platform for the processing of the eForms 3 and 4. The new platform will be designed to eliminate the issues that caused the removal of the eForms 3 and 4 from service.

The new eForms will also provide enhanced functionality such as batch processing and possibly some automated approval functionality for certain forms. The vendor has recently been cleared and has already started to work with ATF in engaging the industry for system requirements on certain processes. Once the requirements have been finalized, we will begin the design and review of the new eForms platform. We hope to have eForms 3 and 4 returned to service by late 2015.

So … it will be late 2015 at the earliest.  And if I were a betting man, I would wager that it will be 2016 before we see a full return of eForms 3 and 4.  Thankfully, the added staff continues to reduce the backlog of paper applications and cut down on wait times.

Posted in ATF, BATFE, eForms, Form 3, Form 4, NFA Transfers, NFA Trusts, Processing Times | Comments Off on We have an eForms update

The ATF has issued an open letter on the stabilizing brace issue

Pistol_Brace_ShoulderedUpdate:  The ATF has reversed their position once again.  See my March 21, 2017 update for the latest news.

………

Based upon a flurry of questions from friends and clients, on December 28th of last year I wrote an article entitled “Has the ATF changed their mind about the Sig brace?

In that article I pointed out that the ATF is seemingly taking the position that “using the brace as a stock would constitute a ‘redesign’ or ‘remaking’ of a weapon ‘designed to be fired from the should’” and therefore subject to the registration and taxation requirements of the NFA.

Several people contacted me to express their opinion that I was reading too much into the recent letters from the ATF.

It appears however that I was correct in my interpretation of which way the wind was blowing.  Today the ATF has released an open letter to the NFA community in which they ‘clarify’ their position on the use of stabilizing braces.

The entire letter is embedded below but the key messages from the letter are:

1)  “Any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.  

2)  Redesign is defined as ‘to alter the appearance or function of’.

3)  “Since the pistol stabilizing brace was neither ‘designed’ nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, use as a shoulder stock constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.

4)  “Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Despite the absurdity of a position that misuse of an item constitutes a remaking of that item, it appears that the age of the ‘poor man’s SBR’ has come to an end.

 

Posted in AR Pistols, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, BATFE, Firearms Technology Branch, NFA Trusts, SBR, Short Barreled Rifles | Comments Off on The ATF has issued an open letter on the stabilizing brace issue

Who can ask to see my tax stamp?

Tax_StampI tell all of my clients to keep a copy of both their approved tax stamps and their NFA trust on them at all times they are in possession of their NFA items.  

But if you follow that advice to its logical conclusion it assumes that you may have to show it to someone at some point.

So … who exactly does have the right to ask to see your approved tax stamp?

Let’s start with the obvious.  What about ATF agents?

Well … the Form 1 and Form 4 both give us a big clue.  On the back of both forms it says “This approved application is the registrant’s proof of registration and it shall be made available to any ATF officer upon request.”  

The authority for this assertion is 26 U.S.C. § 5841(e) which states that you are required to “retain proof of registration which shall be made available to the [ATF acting in their official capacity] upon request.

Therefore, any ATF agent has the authority to ask to see your approved tax stamp.

But what about local and state law enforcement officers?

Well … let me start by noting that my practice is limited to Virginia and this advice is intentionally limited to Virginia law.  Having said that, under Virginia law, most NFA items are banned but have an exception for items possession in conformity with federal law.

For example, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns are both generally banned under § 18.2-300.

§ 18.2-300. Possession or use of “sawed-off” shotgun or rifle.

A. Possession or use of a “sawed-off” shotgun or “sawed-off” rifle in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a crime of violence is a Class 2 felony.

B. Possession or use of a “sawed-off” shotgun or “sawed-off” rifle for any other purpose, except as permitted by this article and official use by those persons permitted possession by § 18.2-303, is a Class 4 felony.

And the exception for these items possessed in conformity with federal law is contained in § 18.2-303.1.

§ 18.2-303.1. What article does not prohibit.

Nothing contained in this article shall prohibit or interfere with the possession of a “sawed-off” shotgun or “sawed-off” rifle for scientific purposes, the possession of a “sawed-off” shotgun or “sawed-off” rifle possessed in compliance with federal law or the possession of a “sawed-off” shotgun or “sawed-off” rifle not usable as a firing weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament, or keepsake.

Therefore, a local or state law enforcement officer would have the right to ask to see the approved tax stamp and failure to provide it would be evidence of a violation of state law.

Is there anyone else?  What about range safety officers at a range?

There are certainly numerous anecdotes on the internet about RSOs asking to see the tax stamp for an NFA item that is being fired at a commercial range.

In this case however, the answer is ‘No’.  They do not have a legal right to see your tax stamp.  But … as a private property actor, what they do have is the right to ask you to leave if they ask and you refuse.

Posted in Federal Law, Machine Guns, NFA Trusts, SBR, Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns, Tax Stamp, Virginia Law | Comments Off on Who can ask to see my tax stamp?

Does 922(r) apply when building an SBR from an imported pistol?

922r_PartsI received a call last week from a client who was planning to SBR a swiss pistol and wanted to know whether the US-made parts requirement of 922(r) would apply.

His concern is understandable since this is yet another area where the ATF seemingly changes their opinion with each letter they issue.

So what is 922(r)?  When people refer to 922(r), they are actually referring to the requirements of 18 USC 922(r) and 27 CFR 478.39.

These requirements are part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which makes it a crime “for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section 925 (d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

To see if a build based upon an imported pistol would be covered let’s break down the elements of this offense.  In order for a build to be prohibited it must:

  1. Result in a semiauto rifle or shotgun …
  2. Which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under 18 USC 925(d)(3) as not suitable for sporting purposes.

Since we are presumably talking about a semiauto pistol, any resulting short-barreled rifle will satisfy the first requirement.  That leaves us with the question of whether the resulting SBR is ‘identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under 18 USC 925(d)(3)‘.

Among other things, 18 USC 925(d)(3) says that a firearm is prohibited from importation if it meets the definition of firearm in 26 USC 5845(a) and in that code section we find that SBRs are in fact prohibited from importation.

Therefore … it seems clear that 922(r) does apply when building an SBR from a pistol.

However … even the ATF has not always held this position.  In a 1994 letter we find the following:

[T]he lawful making of an NFA weapon would not violate 922(r), since the section only addresses the assembly of ‘non-sporting’ firearms, and not the making of NFA weapons.

ATF_Letter_922r_1994

 

In 2006 the ATF issued another letter which retained this position but seemed to limit it to lawfully imported rifles and shotguns whose original barrels were shortened to make an SBR or SBS.

ATF_Letter_922r_2006_Page1

ATF_Letter_922r_2006_Page2

But that was certainly not their last word on the subject.  In 2009 the ATF stated that 922(r) would apply to those items classified as ‘firearms’ subject to the NFA.  They went on to add that if you intend to replace parts on a lawfully registered NFA item that you are bound by the limit of 10 foreign-made parts as codified at 27 CFR 478.39(c).

TIFF-FX image

This was followed by a 2010 letter from the ATF in which the original question asked was specifically about making an SBR from an imported pistol.  You will note that the ATF avoided answering the ‘pistol’ part of the question but went on to say that if, in the course of SBRing a rifle, non-importable ‘military-style’ features are added then 922(r) does apply.

ATF_Letter_922r_2010_Page1

ATF_Letter_922r_2010_Page2

ATF_Letter_922r_2010_Page3

So where does this leave us?

It seems clear both from statutory interpretation and from the trend in ATF guidance that 922(r) does apply to the making of an SBR from an imported pistol.  And while there has not historically been a push to prosecute those whose SBRs violate 922(r), I must advise my clients to insure that their builds are 922(r) compliant.

Posted in 922(r), AR Pistols, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, BATFE, Federal Law, Firearms Technology Branch, Form 1, Imports, Manufacturing, SBR, Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns | Comments Off on Does 922(r) apply when building an SBR from an imported pistol?