New Shockwave Blade Pistol Stabilizer retrieved from shockwavetechnologies.com on December 21, 2014.

SIG SAUER SB 15 Stabilizing Brace retrieved from SIGSAUER.COM on 11/20/14

If you recall in our inaugural post, SB 15: Stabilizing Brace or Illegal Short Barrel?, we discussed the design, use, and legality of Sig Sauer’s revolutionary stabilizing brace (for a more in-depth discussion of developments prior to the finding regarding the Blade AR Pistol Stabilizer, please refer to that post).

The crucial question which has developed comes down to whether a stabilizing brace —as it can be used as a shoulder stock— can convert a firearm to a short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun. The significance of this distinction is that short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns are firearms subject to National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations.

How the NFA defines the terms “rifle” and “shotgun” are very important in this context, because ultimately, whether stabilizing braces subject a firearm to the NFA should logically depend upon these definitions. Under the NFA:

The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(c).

The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell. 26 U.S.C. § 5845(d).

Sig Sauer’s P516 7.5” Pistol equipped with the SB 15 Retrieved from SIGSAUER.COM 11/20/14

Commonly paired with AR-15 style pistols, the SB 15 allows for convenient and accurate use of these firearms with only one hand. This can be particularly useful for those with physical limitations. Although the SB 15 can be used as a makeshift stock, allowing its users to fire AR-15 style pistols from the shoulder, the NFA definitions clearly focus on design and intent rather than use. Given Sig Sauer’s intended design, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) found that the use of the SB 15 would not render an AR-15 subject to the NFA as a short barreled rifle. The following is a brief history of BATFE’s findings prior to its most recent Shockwave Blade AR Pistol Stabilizer finding:

• In a letter dated November 26, 2012, John R. Spencer, then-chief of BATFE’s Firearms Technology Branch found that “the [SB 15] is not designed or intended to fire a weapon from the shoulder” and thus “would not be subject to NFA controls.” In reaching this conclusion, Spencer reasoned that “the device provides the shooter with additional support of a firearm while it is still held and operated with one hand.”
• In a letter to the Greenwood Police Department (CO) dated March 5, 2014, then-chief of BATFE’s Firearms Technology Branch Earl Griffith took a similar stance and clarified the matter (http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/atf-arm-brace-letter.jpg). Griffith represented that “firing [an AR-15 type] pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR.” Furthermore, Griffith explained that the Firearms Technology Branch “classifies weapons based on their physical design characteristics” and, as a general proposition, not “based on how an individual uses a weapon.”
• In late 2014, Max Kihgery, Acting Chief of the Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch, issued a finding to Black Aces Tactical, a manufacturer in Florida. Black Aces had developed a short barreled shotgun which employs use of the SB 15. Addressing the firearm’s status, BATFE concluded that using the SB 15 as a shoulder stock would render this particular weapon subject to NFA regulations. It did not invalidate the prior rulings. (http://www.shootingsportsretailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sigbraceusage.jpg). BATFE additionally found that if the model is used with one hand by utilizing the forearm brace “as intended,” NFA regulations would not apply. See SB 15: Stabilizing Brace or Illegal Short Barrel?

When it comes to firearm restrictions, there’s a general sense in our recent culture that the tie goes to the government. In other words, if application of a restriction could go either way, there’s a sense that the restriction will be enforced. Perhaps surprisingly, this was not the case with BATFE’s finding regarding the SB 15.

Legally speaking, it appears that BATFE made the correct decision regarding the SB 15. As the NFA regulations specify that shotguns and rifles are weapons “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder,” it would appear that a weapon attached to the brace would not be subject to the NFA. In its findings, BATFE specifically noted that determinations regarding the NFA focus upon design and intent, rather than use. After all, Sig Sauer repeatedly asserted that the SB 15 is specifically intended to serve as a brace allowing one-handed shooting with AR-15 style pistols. Considering our nation’s firm, long-standing values regarding the rights of disabled persons, it seems logical that depriving disabled Americans the use of the SB 15 for assistance in firing non-NFA firearms would be discriminatory and unjust.

Black Aces Tactical Shotgun with SB 15 Retrieved from THETRUTHABOUTGUNS.COM on 11/20/14

BATFE reached a different conclusion when it came to the SB 15’s role in Black Aces’ short-barreled shotgun. In this instance, BATFE specifically stated that the firearm’s classification depends upon its use. While this is contrary to BATFE’s previous findings, it applied solely to the weapon being evaluated.

Now, BATFE has reached a finding with regards to the Shockwave Blade AR Pistol Stabilizer (“Blade”), a different stabilizing brace. Similar to its finding in Black Aces’ case, in a letter dated December 15, 2014, BATFE concluded that the Blade “when attached to a pistol . . . is not a ‘firearm’ as defined by the NFA provided that the Blade AR Pistol Stabilizer is used as originally designed and NOT as a shoulder stock.”

So let’s recap:

• November 26, 2012: SB-15 does not subject a firearm to NFA restrictions.
• March 5, 2014: firing [an AR-15 type] pistol from the shoulder with the SB 15 does not subject the firearm to NFA restrictions.
• Using the SB 15 as a shoulder stock with Black Aces’ shotgun DOES subject the firearm to NFA restrictions.
• Using the Blade as a shoulder stock DOES subject the firearm to NFA restrictions.

Logically, this doesn’t seem to make sense. In all four instances, the stabilizing brace in question is NOT designed and intended to be used  as a shoulder stock. Even BATFE has conceded as much. The NFA does not include “use” in its definition, and again, BATFE has conceded as much (see March 5, 2014 letter).

To what could we attribute these conflicting decisions? As we are limited to BATFE’s findings in its letters, any reasoning we can provide would be strictly limited to speculation. Practically speaking, it seems that BATFE does not want to condone a loophole. If companies could simply call their shoulder stocks “braces,” they could potentially circumvent NFA regulations entirely by doing so. Regardless of personal opinions about the NFA —and again, we are not here to give ours— we can all agree that we don’t expect BATFE to allow the NFA to become completely meaningless by continuing to give a nod to future similar devices. It is entirely possible that seeing new products emerge following its initial determinations, BATFE is scrambling to prevent the same from happening.

Is there anything different about the Blade? One may contend that its design more closely resembles, and functions as a shoulder stock. While the SB 15 utilizes “elasto-polymer” which can easily bend around the forearm, the Blade does not fit around the forearm, and is constructed of “high-strength glass-reinforced polymer.”

New Shockwave Blade Pistol Stabilizer retrieved from shockwavetechnologies.com on December 21, 2014.

Shoulder stock retrieved from http://www.mountsplus.com/ on December 21, 2014.

This difference doesn’t necessarily justify BATFE’s finding, as it doesn’t follow the reasoning provided in the November 26, 2012 and March 5, 2014 letters. If BATFE had found that the Blade —regardless of the manufacturer’s assertions— is designed and intended for use as a shoulder stock, it would be one thing. While many would likely disagree with this factual finding, this would allow BATFE to deny the purported “loop-hole” with reasoning consistent with its previous findings. Instead, we have a finding completely inconsistent with its previous findings, and frankly, inconsistent with the NFA.

Have the manufacturers pushed too far? Perhaps. Had they complied with the basic blueprint of the SB-15 and its use with AR-15 style pistols, it is entirely possible that we wouldn’t be having this “use” discussion. Looking solely at the language of the NFA and the reasoning provided by BATFE in its SB 15 findings, the manufacturers (Black Aces and Shockwave) would be justified in believing their products would receive a similar finding. However, practically speaking, we could not expect BATFE give their blessing to every product labeled a “brace.”

The bottom line is, without expressly saying so, BATFE’s finding seems to call BS on the Blade Stabilizer, and future manufacturers who want to cash in on the SB15 exception would be wise to consider that they may not be able to do so.