How to use or not to use, that is the question.
The Sig Sauer SB-15 stabilizing brace for AR-type pistols has exposed some sticky legal questions. Does the use of a product define its purpose? For example, if one uses a hammer to remove a corroded battery terminal from a 1970 Gremlin, does the use redefine that same hammer as a wrench?
Historically, the BATF, citing National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations, has adhered to clear boundaries related to the design of a firearm. If a firearm fell outside of technical definitions, its manufacture and transfer was deemed subject to the terms of the NFA. For example, if a manufacturer put forth a rifle with a 12-inch barrel, it would be subject to NFA restrictions. Clear enough, right?
I love Mr. McHale’s analogy at the end of the article:
As the statement from Sig Sauer indicates, the company believes that how a customer chooses to use a product does not constitute a “product redesign.” Just because a consumer might use a can of creamed corn to pound a nail doesn’t make that packaged vegetable a hammer. It’s still a can of creamed corn, dented or not.
Read the entire article: http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/sig-sauer-challenges-atf-open-letter-regarding-sb-15-brace-use/