>

If you were pro gun you'd be against this vehemently. This new ATF regulation will turn an estimated 40 million+ Americans into felons overnight.
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. >

I think it is silly to call those pistols, more like a sawed off rifle. >

It’s a really interesting thing actually. In order to effectively regulate something, you have to go to great expense in order to define what it is that you’re regulating. 
If one were to apply your logic to cannabis/hemp, there would be a ton of felons just because they went to a strip mall and bought gummies with their credit card. >

If fits the definition of a rifle though. I understand the law has nothing to do with the truth though.
Rifle
noun
a gun, especially one fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance. >

dictionary definition and legal definitions are two different things. its where things for laymen gets annoying and confusing. >

Did you just repeat what I just said? >

dictionary definition and legal definitions are two different things. its where things for laymen gets annoying and confusing. >

Is it a rifle, a shotgun, or a felony >

I wonder how they classify the spoons in a kitchen. >

Or pointed knifes like the Mayor of London has stated.
Bet he never tried to prep ribs. >

I just realized that spoons are out of the jusrisdiction of the ATF. That's more of a DEA thing that considers spoons a Controlled Substance Analogue to heroin. >


A stabilizing brace is an attachment to a pistol that functionally turns it into a short-barreled rifle, similar to a sawed-off shotgun. Such weapons are considered particularly deadly as they offer the power of a traditional rifle, but are much easier to conceal.

That doesn't make any goddamn sense. >

Last I checked switching grips does not increase muzzle velocity nor any other additional benefits other than stability and maybe cosmetic appeal. >


Last I checked switching grips does not increase muzzle velocity nor any other additional benefits other than stability and maybe cosmetic appeal.

Wrong, in MW2 you get increased lethality by just changing grips so that's science. >

Some of us still play BF41 your insinuative sod! >

There are already millions of these in use across the US. Nearly all of those people are not going to register them, now or ever. The ATF has just created millions of felons, riled up Republican voters, and done nothing for gun safety. Absolute galaxy brain move. >

Pretty much…and in places where SBR’s are illegal, doubly so. >

SBRs are illegal everywhere >

No, SBRs are legal in 29 states. They require an additional $200 tax and registration. >

In other words its legal if you aren’t poor >

And have the time to spend waiting on ATF year-long wait >

Laws are ridiculous, but Eform1's(what you need for SBR) are usually taking a few weeks these days, I know someone who heard back after a couple days recently. Times will go up during amnesty tho. >

Not pro gun but these laws are useless and just for show. >

Pro gun here, and honestly I ain't mad. Now I can convert some of my guns to short barrel for free, saves me a lot of money!