Saint Petersburg, Fla. –-(Ammoland.com)- 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 re-configured 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.”
For more information visit www.sb-tactical.com and follow @SB Tactical on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube.
Barnes Stabilizing Brace Letter Final 3.21.17 by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd
About SB Tactical
SB Tactical, the originator of the Pistol Stabilizing Brace and manufacturers of industry-leading firearms accessories, is setting the bar for innovation and product development in the PDW Pistol category. The SB Tactical line of products is veteran designed, BATFE approved, and manufactured in the U.S.A. For more information on the brand’s growing line of products for multiple firearms platforms, visit www.sb-tactical.com.
#braceyourself
Do away with anything that violates SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and we will be fine. The BATFE should stand for Brainless Asinine Totalitarian Fascist Enforcers because putting a shoulder stock on a .45 pistol doesn’t make it a rifle, putting a vertical grip on a Glock doesn’t make it “an any other weapon” and an AR Pistol is as much of a pistol as my .25 Beretta is a shotgun. Make any sense? I hope not, because their “laws” and regulations don’t either.
Just more evidence that funding to the “Firearms Division” be immediately cut by 50%. Better yet, Congress should totally eliminate the “F” from the BATFE. Trump could accomplish this via his “pen and a phone.” If the NRA really wants to do what is says, “to protect the Second Amendment,” they need to should stop playing around the Gun Haters by fixating on two fringe gun issues: national reciprocity concealed carry and silencers. Here is how we eviscerate the Gun Haters entire galaxy of perfidy: 1) Reduce the operating budget of the BAFTE by 50% (and eliminate the “Firearms Division”… Read more »
It is my contention that NFA ’34 violates ADA by denying the disabled (or whatever the PC term for us gimps is this week) access to firearms better suited to their/our physical abilities.
“an NFA firearm has not necessarily been made when the device is not re-configured for use as a shoulder stock – even if the attached firearm happens to be fired from the shoulder.”
I believe that phrase “has not necessarily” leaves open the possibility for prosecution should someone at the ATF feel differently on any given future date in any given future use of the arm brace. Leave out the word “necessarily” and you have a completely different stance. That one word changes the spirit and the letter of this phrase.