What do you think about this new device?

[Patoz]

What do you think about this new device?

ATF has reviewed this product and determined that attaching the SB15 to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control.

http://www.sigsauer.com/CatalogProductDetails/p516-10-pistol-with-sb15-pistol-stabilizing-brace.aspx

 

[TraderDan]

This has allready been posted a few times.

 

[JohnAL]

I kinda thought about it but I'm not sure I want to be tied to my firearm.

 

[gunnerxxx]

JMO! Another stupid item by "Mall Ninjas".

 

[DrifterFisher]

Maybe if it was a clip on of some sort,I don't care for the whole velcro straps.

 

[flyandscuba]

Garbage...

 

[Scrooge]

Nope... a no-go, period!

 

[fiftycal]

It's amazing the number of ways folks can dissect NFA Regs and come up with new and inventive ideas. I remember seeing one device that hooked up a shoulder stock to a pistol. The inventors claimed that since the stock wasn't permanently attached (i.e. when you let go of the grip, the stock would fall away) it didn't constitute attaching a permanently mounted stock. I don't recall what came of it. And of course, there is every bodies favorite, the Slide Fire Stock. I have spoken to operators that routinely fire fully automatic weapons in the course of their jobs. They have tried the Slide Fire Stock. Their comments were that it is not exactly the same as full automatic fire - but it comes darn close. Considering that a legally transferable select fire (i.e. capable of fully automatic fire) AK-47 or AR-15/M-16) will set you back $15,000 (or more), the Slide Fire Stock option becomes an attractive proposition. There are some that say, go ahead convert your AK or AR to a fully automatic configuration, no problem. No problem that is , until you are caught and prosecuted by the Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (BATFE). You prize if convicted is an all expense paid vacation at the nearest federal correction facility, and the lightening of your wallet to the tune of a large fine. Another equally serious problem is that the components of the rifle that semi-automatic may not stand up to the stress of fully automatic fire. The weapon may malfunction with an open chambe(i.e. not fully in battery) firing of a round - which is a bad thing. The stabilizing brace is a fantastic idea, especially for those who have disabilities may hinder them from using a full stock. This adds a whole new meaning to the concept of a "strap on tool."

 

[Little Jack]

If you don't put your arm in and put it up to your shoulder... Is that a felony? In practical terms, how is this that much different than a stock? NFA needs to go away.

 

[FrankT]

It is legal, just not practical, I tried one and it is a no go. The law is about building them not the way you use them so putting a pistol to your shoulder to fire is fine, it does not have a buttstock and was not built to shoulder mount.

 

[fiftycal]

I agree the NFA needs to go away. When you look at the time frame the NFA was adopted, you realize what it really is. The NFA was adopted in 1934. Prohibition was repealed I933. The Socialist Roosevelt Administration had to find something for all of those unemployed revenue/prohibition enforcement agents to do agents to do. So they made up a bunch of silly rules & sent them out to enforce them. Seriously - does a 16" minimum barrel length really stop criminals from engaging in crime? The $200 transfer tax on machine guns is another case in point. Today, $200 is not a substantial sum of money. But in 1934, it represented 1/10 of the average annual salary in the US. The government couldn't do an outright ban, so they decided to make it nearly impossible for all but the wealthy to afford machine guns. The 1986 prohibition on new machine gun ownership by private citizens effectively does the same thing. With a legally transferable AK and/or AR (full auto capable) going for approx $ 15,000 dollars, this effectively accomplishes the same purpose. In 1939, in the US vs Miller case, SCOTUS held that the government could regulate the sale of machine guns (Miller dealt specifically with a short barreled shotgun). However, you have to look at Miller carefully, in the Milker case, only the government's case was presented.By the time the case was argued, Miller had died. A lot of anti-gunners use the Miller case to argue the government has unlimited power to regulate weapons. However, when you read the Miller case, it says..."absent evidence to the contrary..... If we can ever get someone with standing in front of the Supreme Court, to challenge Miller, we would probably win. this because short barreled shotguns and machine guns are use by the US Military to fight wars. Therefore they make excellent weapons to fulfill the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, namely
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed -

Montanna and several other states are trying to overcome the prohibition(s) of the NFA. They are seeking to make 22 caliber rifles, that will be stamped..."Made in Montana." Such weapons would only be legal for ownership in te state of Montana. Since they would never be taken outside the state, they would never enter into interstate commerce. This would effectively bar Congress from using the commerce clause in the Constitution to regulate them. If they are successful in their court challenge to this law,they then plan to make suppressors, full auto weapons, etc the legal nexus the government uses to regulate them, the fact they move through interstate commerce would be severe. Other states such as Wyoming, and North Dakatoa, are seeking to do the same thin. I hope they succeed!

 

[MIAMI MATT]

waste of $$$$$$$

 

[fiftycal]

How do feel about Slide Fire Stocks? I enjoy mine.