comment: >
  
  
  ... when manufacturers, dealers, and individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into rifles with a barrel of less than 16 inches, commonly referred to as a short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the laws that regulate those rifles ...
  ...
  Nothing in this rule bans stabilizing braces or the use of stabilizing braces on pistols.
  
  Edit: Can somebody explain why the two most relevant sentences in the press release are being downvoted?
context: As a European why exactly are short barrel rifels such a threat to society? Compared to either pistols or long barrel rifels. >
  
  The idea is that they’re easier to conceal. Same reason you can buy a rifle in 15 min (in some states) but a pistol still requires a longer background check. Useless law either way IMO >
  
  OK but still why outlaw them so drasticly compared to the easy to concear handguns. >
  
  Because of the tommy gun, or Thompson aub machine gun. All this legislation dates back to 1934 when the police were wildly outgunned by gangsters. Automatic rifles and sawn off shotguns and short barreled rifles were their tools of choice so they were regulated under the NFA. SBR's aren't illegal, you just need to register them and pay a special tax. 
  This is an absolute cluster of a set of laws and regulations because modern platforms allow the various bits to be swapped fairly easily, so the rules make little sense in the real world. >
  
  The long term goal was to ban pistols, so stopping people from chopping rifles shorter was a first step.  Logically there is no reason to have stricter laws on rifles with slightly shorter barrels. >
  
  FYI people in CT, IL, and Cali are extra fucked due to this law. They're not allowed to own SBRs as they can't own NFA items. Guess what happened to the "Others" they were legally in possession of? They're now NFA items, and since they can't own those items in those states...
  I'll also note the ATF has said these braces in the past were legal when they were written letters asking about them. 
  Personally I completely disagree with this ruling. Many of us firearm owners in CT, Cali, and IL are in the process of having tragic boating accidents (tm) as we speak. I imagine it'll be struck down eventually. I really don't like this "yeah those are legal, you can own them" "NO WAIT THEY'RE NOT! FELONY TO OWN!" bullshit they're doing. It's not even legislation that was passed, BATFE is just deciding on a whim.
  EDIT: 
  Straight from the document. 
  
  In a narrow set of circumstances in which the individual cannot remove the
  “brace” device and maintain the pistol, or make other modifications to the firearm, then
  the firearm may be prohibited under State law and must be either destroyed or disposed
  of in compliance with State law. The Department notes that commenters did not appear
  to submit information indicating the frequency with which such circumstances would
  arise, and ATF’s experience indicates that these circumstances would be extremely
  limited. The Department thus believes that the important public safety benefits of this
  rule, as discussed more fully in the accompanying Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”),
  outweigh any interest in retaining the firearm for the few individuals who might find
  themselves in such circumstances.
  
  So "Public safety benefits" outweigh me being able to keep my legally owned in compliance at the time firearm? Why comply? >
  
  “No one is coming for your guns lolz” is what I’ve been hearing for years. Well since my state bans SBRs, I have a choice to either get rid of my AR pistol or become a felon. Thanks >
  
  Can we all just agree that SBR regulations are dumb and get rid of them so we can stop with this constant nonsense about braces >
  
  Especially since they literally only exist because the original NFA was supposed to cover handguns and those got removed because it wouldn't have passed otherwise.  They're completely vestigial and should've been removed when the main target (handguns) were removed during the process of passing it. >
  
  Yep, shouldn’t have been in the final draft in the first place and we won’t even get rid of it now that it’s causing a bit of an enforcement fiasco. Truly shows that it’s all gun control purely for the sake of more gun control
  Edit: a word >
  
  The reason for that is that short-barreled rifles have the greater capability of long guns, yet are easier to conceal, like a pistol. But certain so-called stabilizing braces are designed to just attach to pistols, essentially converting them into short-barreled rifles to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, they must be treated in the same way under the statute
  These three sentences don't make sense when connected together. >
  
  Welcome to the ATF, the same geniuses who have called shoelaces machine guns (not kidding, look it up).  
  I'm just hoping that the recent rejection of Chevron Defense plus several other pro-gun rulings leads to this being the biggest backfire in ATF history and resulting in them losing a ton of power via losing the right to write rules and overturning some or all of the NFA by putting it before the current Court. >
  
  It makes no sense. The problem is that they give you the capacity of a rifle, but are easier to conceal. Therefore, we have to ban pistols with braces.... Which still have the capacity of a pistol. But are harder to conceal. >
  
  Love it when a federal agency randomly reverses a regulation. There are thousands of gun owners who relied on a letter from the BATFE saying that the brace did not turn a pistol into an SBR. >
  
  Millions.       
  SB Tactical alone estimated they've sold or licensed some 9 million braces in one of their hearings.
  Then there's Kak and the other makers. And Chinese clones.