>

I think it is silly to call those pistols, more like a sawed off rifle.
I give it 3 months before the SC tells them no. >

Under Bruen & Heller, this should not hold up in court, but it could take years.  
However, considering that the ATF changing an interpretation of a definition (that conflicts with their previous interpretation of that same, unchanged definition) could make millions of people felons I think an injunction is likely. >

How many mass/school shootings have been committed with a pistol using a “stabilizing brace”? Or even just how many firearm-related homicides in general have been committed with one? >

Until I hear otherwise, I’ll assume the answer is zero.  Examples would have been trotted out had there been.  This rule is pure theater, and does nothing to improve public safety. >

Bingo. But hey, I get to register a lower as a sbr for free for a limited time, though. >

Doubt they'll be able to do anything after EPA v. West Virginia. They'll need an act of congress to enact it. >

From my understanding the moment they file it in the public register it is enacted and people can be prosecuted under it. It's only if a court rules that the ATF cannot do this, will it be go back to the way things were before. >


Such weapons are considered particularly deadly as they offer the power of a traditional rifle

How does a stabilization brace increase the power of a pistol to a rifle? >

It doesn’t make the projectile any more powerful or the weapons any more dangerous. This has more to do with making it less convenient to own an AR pattern pistol.