Kentucky Armory Club

SB Tactical_ATF Reversal of Open Letter Position
Saint Petersburg, Fla. (April, 25, 2017) – SB Tactical™, inventors and manufacturers of the Pistol Stabilizing Brace®, is excited to announce that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) has issued SB Tactical a reversal letter containing a sensible clarification of the Bureau’s position on the lawful use of SB Tactical braces.
The new clarification of opinion letter states, “an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not reconfigured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder. To the extent that the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational “use” of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute “redesign,” such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.”
SB Tactical, along with the law offices of Mark Barnes & Associates, have worked tirelessly for more than two years to correct what they believed to be an inaccurate interpretation of “redesign,” related to the Pistol Stabilizing Brace. “It has always been our belief that the addition of our Pistol Stabilizing Brace benefits shooters, both disabled and able-bodied, and that neither strapping it to your arm nor shouldering a brace equipped pistol would constitute ‘redesign’ of a pistol to a NFA firearm”, said Alex Bosco, inventor, founder and CEO of SB Tactical. “We are strongly encouraged by the ATF’s reversal of opinion and commend their willingness to continually review policy, including their own opinions, to ensure public safety and the fulfillment of their mission.”
Both SB Tactical and Mark Barnes & Associates are proud to be at the forefront of protecting and preserving the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Mark Barnes echoed Bosco’s praise of the ATF’s new guidance and stated that “it’s clear that the Bureau has no intention or desire to prosecute law abiding citizens using SB Tactical Pistol Stabilizing Braces. Their decision to act should be commended.”

WLJ wrote:This is suppose to be the letter
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-co ... .21.17.pdf

If I'm reading it right nothing is actually changed

Wyldman wrote:ATF doesn't deal in law, it deals in opinions and policies.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Wyldman wrote:ATF doesn't deal in law, it deals in opinions and policies.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

While this applies to all pistol braces, you must ensure that what you have is actually a pistol brace and the firearm you are dealing with is a pistol in the first place! Just because a manufacturer calls their product a pistol brace doesn’t necessarily mean that the ATF agrees.

kokopelli wrote:...and that is only the opinion of ONE agent...and another agent's opinion can override that, as proven by the ATF itself on multiple occasions.

WLJ wrote:Then don't shoot at KCR and shoulder a pistol brace, heard the RSO has been known to jump people's shit for doing just that.

jackalo626 wrote:

WLJ wrote:Then don't shoot at KCR and shoulder a pistol brace, heard the RSO has been known to jump people's shit for doing just that.

Who the fuck shoots there anyways? If that place hasn't ran you off yet then I bet you pay dominatrix also.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

PDM wrote:

jackalo626 wrote:

WLJ wrote:Then don't shoot at KCR and shoulder a pistol brace, heard the RSO has been known to jump people's shit for doing just that.

Who the fuck shoots there anyways? If that place hasn't ran you off yet then I bet you pay dominatrix also.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That's the consensus around here too lol

Edit: User comment from FirearmsBlog: " I just got off the phone with a very nice gentleman at ATF Tech Branch---who was fielding these calls today. (He was, understandably, very well versed on the subject---and very nice about it even though he's been on the phone all day, repeating himself ad nauseam.) I identified myself and asked him specifically if the letter that's making the rounds is limited to one company's products--or if it applies to all pistol stabilizing braces. He said: "The letter covers all pistol stabilizing braces, including the Shockwave Blade." So that settles that. He then gave me two points of further guidance for our customers: 1. By "permanent affixing," ATF considers that to be adding permanent Loctite to the large set screw that secures the Blade into the dimples in the KAK tube. As long as you don't red Loctite the set screw in place, ATF considers it to be "temporarily placed" and "perfectly okay to shoulder." (He didn't beat around the bush on this topic.) 2. "Length of pull"---for lack of a better word regarding pistol braces---begins to enter a "gray area" above 13.5". Above 13.5" begins "to enter shoulder stock area." (His words.) On an AR-15 pistol, the "length of pull" for the Blade is approximately 13.13", so no issues there. But if you use the Blade on a firearm that requires a large adapter of some sort, please make sure that you only use the dimples up to the point that you remain below the 13.5" length. Stay below 13.5" and according to ATF, it's okay to shoulder a Shockwave Blade. " Quoted from: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... qus_thread

jackalo626 wrote:

WLJ wrote: I bet you pay dominatrix also.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Toecutter1978 wrote:

jackalo626 wrote:

WLJ wrote: I bet you pay dominatrix also.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Why you know a place?

Hahahahaha!!!!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk