• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

  • The site has been updated!

    If you notice any issues, please let us know below!

    VIEW THREAD

Why is this considered a "pistol", and not an NFA, SBR?

Smith and Wesson have a similar product for the AR15. I believe they came up with it. The ATF's definition of pistol is a firearm designed to be fired with one hand. The strap contraption does this ĺif you watch any of S&Ws videos they shoot it one handed) as it stabilizes the pistol. Could you shoulder it? Probably, but S&W got a letter from the ATF saying it's okay.
 
Interesting. Wonder if the same documentation exists for this. I'd sure be carrying the letter along with the weapon wherever it went.

So...NFA applies to form- and not function, correct? Shoulder firing this "pistol" would not be illegal?

In any case, seems like a trip to club fed should you be caught without the velcro straps on it...
 
They were designed to be used in this fashion. Sig-Sauer-AR15-Pistol-Brace.jpg People misuse things all the time, but that should not reflect on the original intent of the design.
 
Why are you making an argument for the gun control side? Why bring negative attention to it? Its a pistol and its legal. These sell out quickly. That's a good way to piss a lot of people off. That "if it quacks like a duck" bullshit is the reason why the bad guys call AR-15S ASSAULT RIFLES.
 
I have one and it fills the void til my form 1 comes back. ATF even issued a statement saying even if it was shoulder fired it is still a pistol.
 
Direct Assault said:
Why are you making an argument for the gun control side? Why bring negative attention to it? Its a pistol and its legal. These sell out quickly. That's a good way to piss a lot of people off. That "if it quacks like a duck" bullshit is the reason why the bad guys call AR-15S ASSAULT RIFLES.
Click to expand...

Your argument doesn't hold water.

I simply asked a question as to how/whether this is an NFA firearm.

You can buy an SBR online, and it's buyer beware to know wtf the laws are.

I see no comparison between my question regarding the definition of SBR's, and your statement of the anti-gunners calling every semi-auto an "assault rifle."

SKS Guy:

Thanks for the answer. If BATF has ruled on it, that's the answer to my question, and end of discussion.

Edit to add:

According to the video linked above, SIG has requested we all "spread the word" since the favorable BATF ruling. "That guy", is the guy in the video- at the request of SIG. It's also noteworthy to add that one should not make ANY mods to the stock, lest the line be crossed, or become blurred.

SIG has a letter of determination for the SIG Stability Brace. Personally, I wouldn't own any other similar weapon system unless the same letter has been issued for that particular brace. But hey, it's only ten years minimum, just say " shhhhh..... don't say anything about it...."
 
Last edited:
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it must be a duck.

If it looks like an SBR.... It must be an SBR

If it looks like an assault rifle.... it must be an assault rifle

That's how the sheep think. You said that yourself. I don't see how you still don't get it.
 
Wannashootit said:
If BATF has ruled on it, that's the answer to my question, and end of discussion.
Click to expand...

The SB-15 has been out for a long time now. Do you think a MAJOR company like Sig wouldn't think of all the stupid questions BEFORE making them available for the public? 15 seconds of Google would have helped you dearly. Have a good one.
 
Direct Assault said:
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it must be a duck.

If it looks like an SBR.... It must be an SBR

If it looks like an assault rifle.... it must be an assault rifle

That's how the sheep think. You said that yourself. I don't see how you still don't get it.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's fair. I can think the law is one thing and you can argue the law is something else but what most of us say and think isn't relevant to wether or not we might face an actual prosecution if we get it wrong.

Fact is it sure does look like a rifle stock to me. The appropriate response isn't to chew me it out. It's to say shhhhh wink wink and move on.
 
Direct Assault said:
Why are you making an argument for the gun control side? Why bring negative attention to it? Its a pistol and its legal. These sell out quickly. That's a good way to piss a lot of people off. That "if it quacks like a duck" bullshit is the reason why the bad guys call AR-15S ASSAULT RIFLES.
Click to expand...

I agree, these are the kind of posts that the anti's love to see.
 
So,

No intent to keep thread going but acquiring parts to do a couple builds and have a question. Could I purchase a complete pistol upper (Noveske 10.5 inch complete upper with KX5 installed) if I own a lower with intent to build into a pistol?

Should I purchase say this stabilizer first to show true pistol intent. I like my weapons and want to ensure I violate no laws so I can keep them.

Thanks in advance, if this should be asked elsewhere just let me know and happy to repost.
 
Smcarroll,

I just own a regular AR Mega billet ambi lower that I would like to build into a pistol. To save time thinking of just ordering a built Noveske upper with 10.5 inch barrel. Just want to ensure no issue with possessing both that are not yet built into a pistol as I already own other AR15 rifles.
 
Smcarroll said:
You don't need to own a pistol lower to own a 10.5" upper.
Click to expand...

NO, YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NEED TO OWN A PISTOL LOWER TO POSSESS A SHORT BARREL UPPER IF YOU DO NOT OWN AN SBR. It's called constructive possession.

Constructive Possession of NFA Firearms ? Red Hands Not Required | The Truth About Guns

This link is not directly addressing this specific case, but Google "constructive possession SBR AR-15" and you can read the other forums discussing it. It is very real.

If you own an upper with a barrel under 16" (unpinned) and a rifle upper AND do not own a lower that is registered as a pistol, that constitutes constructive possession. Keep in mind you also cannot register a stripped lower as a pistol. You must purchase the pistol as a complete firearm, then change out your upper receiver group later if you wish. If you currently own a stripped lower it is not registered as a pistol (or a rifle, there's a third classification I don't remember the name of) and an ATF Form 1 would be needed to reclassify it (if I remember correctly).

I am not a lawyer, do not take this for professional legal advice. I only relay this as I was told by my FFL when I pummeled him with questions about the legalities of the process as I am planning on trading my AK for one of these. He sells complete stock pistols then buys back the upper so that the customer can purchase their upper of choice without having to pay for an extra upper. If you think that that is not correct I would be happy to supply his contact info to you to confirm if this is the correct approach from a legal and rational standpoint.


I also don't think anyone mentioned that you can't use a standard vertical foregrip with these, as that would constitute an NFA AOW, voiding the point of the brace. You can use the Magpul AFG, as that was listed by name in the ATF decision, and is talked about here:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...rm-brace-just-kill-16-pistol-caliber-carbine/
 
Last edited:
Ride HPD, I respectfully must say that you are incorrect on several of the things you stated on your post above. I am not speaking to the Constructive possession issue, just the rest of your post. Anyone can buy an upper less than 16" without issue or NFA paperwork, its what comes after that and what you do with it, which is where I believe RideHPD is mentioning the Constructive Possession issue.

You can purchase a stripped lower and build it into a pistol, just make sure when you purchase the lower its is registered as a pistol by the FFL selling it to you on your paperwork. You can build a pistol and later turn it into a rifle/sbr but you cannot take a built rifle lower and turn it into a pistol. A pistol must always start as a pistol first.


As for Vertical fore grips, the ATF does not consider the magpul AFG a VFG and it is OK to use on pistols. Another interesting way around the VFG issue that is also approved by the ATF is if the overall length of the weapon is 26" or more, it is no longer a pistol nor is it a rifle (or sbr/AOW), it is considered a "firearm" and you can use a VFG on it. Franklin Armory sells one very such made "firearm" ready built.


The link I provided in my previous post above addresses just about every AR pistol question one might have and has links to the supporting ATF paperwork. everything I've stated here is on that page along with the ATF documents explaining it. The only thing it lacks is the recent ATF letter which states you can use the SIG brace against your shoulder legally.

Hope that helps someone out and answers questions.


M198gunner: if you intend to build a AR pistol I would suggest you buy a lower and register it as a pistol BEFORE you buy a complete upper with a short barrel to avoid any perception of CP at any point in your pistol build. The exception to this would be if you already own a registered SBR lower, in which case you would not have to wait nor would it give the perception of CP.
 
An AR lower receiver is a receiver when sold stripped or without a buttstock. There is no registered pistol or registered rifle unless the receiver is built into a pistol or a rifle at the manufacturer. So your receiver is just a receiver until you either put a buttstock on it or a pistol "type" buffer tube. If you make it a pistol, you can always make it a rifle. But if you make it a rifle, it can never be a pistol.

So to m198gunner, if you purchased a receiver, and the FFL listed it as a receiver when he sold it to you, not a rifle, or a pistol, it is your option as to how it will be built, and you dont need to tell anyone or register anything. Possessing an upper with a barrel less than 16" is perfectly acceptable and legal if you are in possession of a receive that has never been made into a rifle.

Carry on!
 
P03 thanks for clarifying that, I was on my phone and didn't re-read what I typed. I did intend to say that you would satisfy constructive possession if you purchased a short upper if you also already owned a rifle lower but no pistol lower. If you own both types or no types you would not satisfy constructive possession. I did not mean that you couldn't buy it, as there are no restrictions on upper purchases, but that's what is dangerous about it, that you can unknowingly satisfy that criteria, which is not good from a legal standpoint. My phrasing was also incorrect for the AFG, I meant that it was legal to put on, and this was explicitly stated in the ATF finding.

hotbrass-I only relay what my FFL told me, but from my understanding of what he said that building a pistol from a receiver for the purpose of using the Sig brace is sketchy because it is not legally registered as a pistol, as you stated. He followed the advice that P03 gave, and advocates selling complete pistols for those who want to use the Sig brace just to cover all bases.

I disagree though that you can turn a pistol into a rifle. I assume by this you mean building a stripped lower into a pistol configuration, and then at some later point putting a 16"+ URG and a buttstock on it. While no one would know that it used to be a pistol if it were only registered as a receiver, I can't imagine a pistol with a stock found attached to it resulting in anything good legally.

I do appreciate you guys adding on, I don't get to spend too much time researching this stuff and I'd rather be corrected in public than to be found ignorant and in violation of the law.
 
All,

Thanks for the info, I have a class 3 builder next to my hometown and I will stop by and talk with him just to be sure. He builds HK rifles and such so he should have good info.

Again, thanks to everyone for the info and sorry I diverted this thread. Seems this issue like many with the ATF is very gray with no clear lines.

gunner
 
I will apologize for any misunderstanding I have caused, and hopefully can correct for that here:

Request: Scans of any letters from the BATFE, that pertain to AR pistols - AR15.COM

This copy of a letter from the ATF does state that a pistol can be legally built from a stripped lower (that I assume has been registered as "other" on a 4473) if it has never been built into a rifle configuration. So hotbrass is right in that aspect.
 
rideHPD said:
P03 thanks for clarifying that, I was on my phone and didn't re-read what I typed. I did intend to say that you would satisfy constructive possession if you purchased a short upper if you also already owned a rifle lower but no pistol lower. If you own both types or no types you would not satisfy constructive possession. I did not mean that you couldn't buy it, as there are no restrictions on upper purchases, but that's what is dangerous about it, that you can unknowingly satisfy that criteria, which is not good from a legal standpoint. My phrasing was also incorrect for the AFG, I meant that it was legal to put on, and this was explicitly stated in the ATF finding.

hotbrass-I only relay what my FFL told me, but from my understanding of what he said that building a pistol from a receiver for the purpose of using the Sig brace is sketchy because it is not legally registered as a pistol, as you stated. He followed the advice that P03 gave, and advocates selling complete pistols for those who want to use the Sig brace just to cover all bases.

I disagree though that you can turn a pistol into a rifle. I assume by this you mean building a stripped lower into a pistol configuration, and then at some later point putting a 16"+ URG and a buttstock on it. While no one would know that it used to be a pistol if it were only registered as a receiver, I can't imagine a pistol with a stock found attached to it resulting in anything good legally.

I do appreciate you guys adding on, I don't get to spend too much time researching this stuff and I'd rather be corrected in public than to be found ignorant and in violation of the law.
Click to expand...

You can disagree, but making a pistol into a rifle is legal and done all the time. You just cannot go from a rifle to a pistol, legally. T/C Contenders broke that ground years ago.

OOPS! I see I was typing while you were posting. Sorry about that rideHPD!
 
Last edited:
So I have another question. If I have ar built as a pistol can I have the parts to build it into a rifle without fulfilling constructive intent?
 
Smcarroll said:
So I have another question. If I have ar built as a pistol can I have the parts to build it into a rifle without fulfilling constructive intent?
Click to expand...

Yes, thats not an issue. Where it becomes grey is if you build your AR pistol using a regular extension that can accept a buttstock and have extra buttstocks laying around. Which is why most people use the pistol extensions that cannot accept a buttstock. When building it into a rifle, just make sure you don't have the less than 16" upper on your lower along with the rifle extension and a buttstock sitting in the corner. Thats where you can fall into the CP or intent to construct an illegal SBR. Read the link I posted above in post #14 for more clarification.
 
What is it that all of you are doing that would make the ATF bust your door down to check and see if you are making pistols out of rifles or that you have to worry about constructive intent.

When people get busted in criminal acts involving NFA or ATF laws, usually from trafficking, is really about the only time the ATF would even know or care about what you do.

I stay legal, but I dont go around thinking I need to write the ATF every time I do something. And I dont do all the what-if games in my head over and over. Its just not that complicated. All the laws and cases are easily found online. Chill dudes!
 
No need for any apology, I was unaware of any precedence for that and I'm always skeptical until I see good evidence or hear from a source I trust to be educated, and I think you have supported that. My only real concern regarding constructive possession comes when I'm out on BLM land, as every now and then the Rangers (or whatever LEO it is) stop by to check our stuff. Usually happens when some jackass is bump-firing nearby. They will nail people who have illegal AWs, SBRs, CCW w/o permits, 30 rnd mags (constructive possession is big with these on BLM), etc. and most of them are very informed on the federal and CA state laws. Some of them are not forgiving and I've been smart enough not to do anything stupid or legally extraneous while out there so I've always been fine.
 
Oddly enough, for anyone that watches "Deadliest Catch", one of the greenhorns needs to appear in Federal Court on weapons charges, apparently for "constructive possession" of a MG due to what was apparently his shitty luck of being involved in an automobile accident and a search turned up the illegal goods.

Whether he knew he was violating the law( and REALLY was), or just ignorant about the regs and got tagged on a technicality is unknown...nor is it known how they came to legally (or not) search his vehicle.

My point being, completely unforeseen circumstances could lead to discovery of parts that could be construed as constructive possession, even though there was absolutely no intent to violate NFA laws. Just pays to know the rules, and follow them. It's my understanding that it's ten years mandatory minimum at Club Fed. My $.02
 
rideHPD said:
No need for any apology, I was unaware of any precedence for that and I'm always skeptical until I see good evidence or hear from a source I trust to be educated, and I think you have supported that. My only real concern regarding constructive possession comes when I'm out on BLM land, as every now and then the Rangers (or whatever LEO it is) stop by to check our stuff. Usually happens when some jackass is bump-firing nearby. They will nail people who have illegal AWs, SBRs, CCW w/o permits, 30 rnd mags (constructive possession is big with these on BLM), etc. and most of them are very informed on the federal and CA state laws. Some of them are not forgiving and I've been smart enough not to do anything stupid or legally extraneous while out there so I've always been fine.
Click to expand...

Well, sorry you live in CA. They play by different rules there and even though I think it is the prettiest state I have ever been to, I would not set foot in it again and will not even try to understand their laws. I would say move to Texas, but it seems we have been discovered and I am not encouraging anymore people from communist states to cross our border. But get out of CA as fast as you can! Best of luck to you!
 
Well hell if I would slap together an SBR if Nebraska had that. Mind you I already have a form 1 pending but I would still assemble it and go shoot it!

I just looked and the same bill was introduced here in Nebraska last year, but has not been approved. Yet. You can bet that when it does I will go ahead and assemble an SBR before the stamp is ever approved.
 
jmnielsen said:
Well hell if I would slap together an SBR if Nebraska had that. Mind you I already have a form 1 pending but I would still assemble it and go shoot it!

I just looked and the same bill was introduced here in Nebraska last year, but has not been approved. Yet. You can bet that when it does I will go ahead and assemble an SBR before the stamp is ever approved.
Click to expand...

I would not advise you to brag about doing so on a very public gun board that is probably monitored by the gov and has many government members.
 
That's alot of chest beating guys. Just remember when you break a federal law, you will not be tried under the jurisdiction of a state court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes March FFP 1.5-15x42 MPVO Review and Comparison (w/ Nightforce and Athlon)
Replies
246
Views
19K
OlivierFR
O
Burdy
Heartbreak 2022
Replies
9
Views
2K
D_TROS
D_TROS
Glassaholic
Rifle Scopes Alpha Class Long Range Scope Review - TT, ZCO, Schmidt, March, Vortex
Replies
206
Views
28K
Dutch308
D
SilentStalkr
Pandora Papers
Replies
11
Views
1K
vinniedelpino
vinniedelpino
gr8fuldoug
Winners Chosen - Next Drawing is September 1st for a great mix of Meprolight Sport Optics
Replies
2
Views
394
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Top Bottom
Back