>

It's all political theater. A total gun ban is the Democrat equivalent of overturning Roe V Wade. They'd rather fundraise off threatening to do it then actually pass it.
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! >

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'm not pro NFA, but I'm also not gonna lose any sleep over this ruling. Just cause I'm a gun owner doesn't mean that 2A is automatically the most important thing in the world to me. >

You're not going to lose any sleep over 40 million Americans being turned into felons when they haven't done anything wrong? Idk man you're kinda looking like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Oh and if you're pro gun like you claim you are, you most likely have friends/family with braced pistols. Lmao >

We all have 120 days to register, it's not the end of the world. >

The funny thing is the shorter barrel length on AR pistols is that they reduces muzzle velocity because the round most commonly used doesn't burn completely before leaving the barrel >

I think even full-rifles are subject to this. I think the 5.56 takes a 20" barrel to full burn, while most rifles are sold with 16" barrels. >

True but it is still less burn than a standard riffle barrel of 16" >

There are different powder mixes you can use to mitigate these issues. The army has short barrel 7.62 NATO ammo developed for 16" barrels. But unless you're military or hand loading AND mixing your own powder then ya, you're losing performance. >

The best/worst part is that just a few years ago, they told everyone that they were legal. Like legit, they issued a formal letter stating the exact opposite of this rule.
Kinda smells like entrapment to me. >

For people who might be confused with terminology and what this law is doing.
Handgun: A small hand-heldgun that is fired with one hand, and usually has a short barrel. Think Glock 17, M1911, .44 Magnum
Pistol: A firearm intended to be held in one hand when aimed and fired.
Pistols include handguns, but also include guns with a short barrel, no vertical foregrip (but angled is fine), and can't be shouldered with a stock. 
Braces/Stabilizers: Help people fire one handed pistols more accurately, or help people with disabilities.
A short-barrled rifle is a rifle with a total barrel length under 16". These require a $200 tax stamp and registration to the ATF. The penalty for not paying up is an ATF raid, a felony, and prision time.
This is how pistols and braces have worked out until now. Clear as mud and really stupid.
Now the ATF wants to classify braced pistols into short barreled rifles becuase some braces might/can be shoulderable and this kinda side steps the NFA.
There are millions of these in circulation, the ATF has been fine with this for decades, and now suddenly they don't like it anymore. This means an unelected arm of the US Executive branch now wants to make millions of law abiding citizens felons unless they register their braced guns in 120 days. This is not law by the way, its the ATFs interpretation of the law. The NFA specifically.
For context Europeans with their typically stricter gun control don't have as many limitations on short barreled rifles and suppressors like we do in the US. Often they have none at all, the restrictions are on gun ownership, not accessories. The NFA is the reason, and the ATFs enforcement is schizophrenic at best. >

CA only gets 60 days because they don't allow NFA items >

What is the 60 days for then? To get rid of it or convert it? >

Take off the stabilizing brace or 'surrender' it, the rule doesn't take effect for 60 days and ATF is giving a 120-day amnesty period to register the pistol as an SBR. Since CA doesn't allow for NFA items CA residents cannot register the firearm as an SBR so they would only have 60 days to surrender or convert. >

Gotcha, makes sense. 
This screws over people in lots of states that can’t have SBRs. Really crap situation >

ATF try not to make the dumbest rules challenge (Impossible) >

It's going to get obliterated in the courts. >

"New rule". With no congressional action. Yes, that is illegal (see West Virginia v. EPA). No, they don't care. >

Typical politician, endorse a rule that will go right to court and make its way up to get overturned all to make a political statement. >

I'm not sure it's a slam dunk. Honestly how is a pistol with a stock functionally different than a short barrel rifle? >

After the ruling in EPA v. West Virginia. The ATF is effectively barred from doing anything since they already approved pistol braces in the past. >

I thought the West Virginia case regarded major questions doctrine. >

Exactly. The ATF in the past deemed under the law that pistol braces were not short-barreled rifles. This sudden change will make millions of law-abiding civilians into felons over night, because unelected officials decided to change a previously established ruling. After EPA v. West Virginia it could be argued that the change will require an act of congress. >

Will be interesting to see how it plays out. >

ATF can eat a bag of dicks. >

Good. Can finally get this ATF ruling thrown out by the SC. >

Another law that doesnt prevent criminals and the illegal weapons they use. But as long as those law abiding gun owners are punshised everything is good. >

passes the tissues >

It would make much more sense to repeal the NFA altogether… >

Nah. Repeal the 2A instead. >

Why? Aside from gang violence and suicide, guns pose statistically zero threat to the average American… >

You make a good point: American gun owners have well and truly betrayed America.  There are too many guns in the hands of those who should not have them, and more guns directly equates to more gun violence. >

*Bans device that make a weapon easier to control and safer for the user and those around them*
"I'm helping!" >

If someone is trying to kill specific people, making it easier for them to aim would be bad >

An unelected bureaucrat making millions of people into felons overnight is even worse. >

The brace doesn't make them more "powerful" it stabilizes the weapon so it is easier to stay on target. And seeing all the collateral damage by gang bangers, they need all the help they can get.
Targeting pistols (or addons in this case) vs. the oh so scary AR platform may actually help reduce gun crime, as most perps by a wide margin uses pistols. >

Alcohol tobacco and firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency. >

Democrats (the politicians!) are so fn stupid. (Or is it by design?)
Nearly every "conservative" I know would vote liberal if democrats would stay the hell away from the 2a for a few cycles.