ProTact by Haartz

SIG SAUER Issues Statement Regarding ATF Opinion on Stabilizing Braces

During SHOT Show, SIG SAUER released this statement regarding the recent BATFE open letter on Stabilizing Braces. I had heard it was coming but didn’t look very hard for it during the busy season. Here it is, a week later, but still relevant.

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.”

Tags: ,

11 Responses to “SIG SAUER Issues Statement Regarding ATF Opinion on Stabilizing Braces”

  1. bulldog76 says:

    GO SIG GO !!

  2. Angelo D says:

    SIG SAUER, a company that cares about its customers.

  3. Craig says:

    Never back down!

  4. Thomas 67 says:

    I understand how the BATFE can rule on the legality of new products brought to market, or “things” … but not “actions” or use by the end user. And of course it it idiotic to suggest that a product can be “redesigned” by how it is held.

    I hope that SIG will successfully fight on our behalf, and I’ll continue to be a proud SIG owner.

    • Bill says:

      Of course they can rule on “actions;” you can legally possess a piece of steel, but when you take the action of milling it into a full-auto sear, that’s a criminal act, assuming you don’t have the right permits and licenses. Because the drafter of the regulations also writes the definitions of the terms, “redesign” can mean whatever they want it to.

  5. Bill says:

    This is one of those letters in which type and glyphs exist to form words that actually mean nothing in the end. It’s SIG pandering to their customer base by saying that they will “review” the issue and may or may not do something ambiguous.

    I’m a SIG owner and carrier, but they don’t have a legal leg to stand on, probably saw this coming as the brace was being conceptualized, and are calculating profit/loss margins before taking anything any further.

    My only question, and I’m not asking the ATF, is if I put a crutch tip on the end of my buffer tube to protect it from damage, have I redesigned the crutch tip as a buffer tube protector?

    • PETE says:

      I’m With you on this. No disrespect to American capitalism, but I doubt SIG is going to do more than a token note of opposition. Machined and stamped steel keeps the doors open – injection molds were just another temporary revenue source. Do not piss off the ATF nor too seriously alienate their base customers who pay too much for basic firearms.

  6. Ed says:

    “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.” – U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment.

    I wish the MSM would pay as much attention to the BATFE not abiding by the rules as those who allow footballs to attain less than 10.5 psi in the cold.

  7. Thomas 67 says:

    SIG just sent out an email that said in part: “Contrary to several statements subsequently made in social media, this opinion letter did not make or otherwise declare that the SB15 product is illegal.”

    I wonder why it took them this long to state the obvious. Also, are they going to challenge the BATFE’s obnoxious opinion about how you hold the firearm – some how ‘redesigns’ the pistol?