wild cat mccane said:
I'm betting most of this category of buyer is MOST in the loop on gun stuff because they selected themselves to buy something that circumvents a $200 tax stamp for an SBR but has a lesser performing product (where a real stock is a better stock...cause people are using these as a brace...right?)
I would agree that many if not most of the buyers are in the loop. My earlier point, to clarify here, is that given the general lack of knowledge of firearm laws and the misunderstandings present even among those that are informed, again this thread is a good example, there are people that will end up committing a crime without the intent. That doesn't excuse them in the eyes of the law, but I do give some consideration towards it.
The cost of the tax stamp is not the only concern when building or buying a SBR/SBS. Keep in mind that the cost hasn't changed since the law was first passed, and adjusted for inflation $200 is $4224 today (
https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=200&year=1934).
The requirements around maintaining direct control of the firearm in certain range/social settings and the restrictions on travel with NFA items might be seen as more onerous than $200. Of course if a person has multiple NFA items then that total cost goes up. My point is there are logistical reasons around wanting a braced pistol that seemingly go beyond wanting to save money.
wild cat mccane said:
If anything, the makers/sellers of these stocks have been pretty caviler with not telling people that they were most certainly going to be challenged and, face value, were probably going to lose in the public eye that these aren't SBRs.
On this I very much agree with you. Back on November 24 of 2020 Ammoland Shooting Sports News ran an article detailing how the ATF had been sending letters to SB Tactical as early as July of 2018 detailing how only two of their products had been explicitly approved for use by the ATF, despite SB Tactical marketing seemingly applying that claim to all of their products for many years. ATF concluded the letter by warning that “SB Tactical must cease false advertisement of products as ATF approved which have not been evaluated nor approved.” The letter was signed by Michael Curtis, Chief of FTISB within ATF.
In the same article was another report from September 2020 on a classification determination for a submitted shotgun where the ATF stated, "SB Tactical has continued to market these accessories as “ATF Compliant,” which “has essentially left SB Tactical’s business partners … in the position where they are unknowingly manufacturing and marketing unregistered NFA
firearms.”
In short the article was rather accusatory against SB Tactical. By the enxt day, SB Tactical responded to Ammoland and author and the article was amended to include their point of view (and the title of the article became less accusatory). My impression from the evidence in the article (I have both versions of the article and the ATF letters that were linked saved) was that SB Tactical may have seen the legal writing on the wall since well before where we are now, but kept selling. You could argue this was simply to maximize profit in what they knew was a time-limited market, or to make these braces so prolific as to pass "common use" definitions. I don't know which version, if either, is true.
