comment: >
  
  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.
context: 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. >
  
  This ruling is political theater.
  There are literally millions and millions of braced pistols that have been sold legally. There should be zero chance our courts will allow that many people to be instant felons.
  "Sorry Gramps, you aren't tied into media so you had no idea the pistol you bought legally at Sportsmans Warehouse is now an illegal SBR. It's off to the clink for you!" >
  
  I believe they simply need to be reported within 120 days to avoid becoming illegal. >
  
  Guess I'm going to have to add "check to make sure every single thing I own is still legal" to my quarterly todo list. >
  
  Is it a rifle, a shotgun, or a felony >
  
  I wonder how they classify the spoons in a kitchen. >
  
  But we have to do “something” about assault spoons! >
  
  Curious -- at what distance could a set of spoons kill dozens of people (use the Las Vegas mass shooting from a hotel window as a reference point -- could he have hurled spoons)? >
  
  That would be zero, regardless of whatever weapon was used, had our “legal” system worked the way it should. Very violent and dangerous people are quietly returned to the public at large every day through plea deals, parole, etc. There’s an entire lucrative industry for it. In the case of the individual referenced above, he was actually a millionaire which insured the law would never touch him or even investigate prior allegations of wrongdoing. >
  
  How does this boost gun safety exactly? Is there an epidemic of gun crimes committed with weapons equipped with pistol braces? I’d sure love to see that statistic. >
  
  It's time to remove SBRs and suppressors from the NFA. >
  
  this is why i went sbr route. the pistol brace law was so  arbitrary, I knew it was a matter of time before this happened. >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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 increase the "power". Just the ATF/DOJ making false statements to ban something they previously stated was legal multiple times and turn law-abiding owners into felons >
  
  It looks like it's the authors of the article, not the ATF/DOJ, who are to blame for that phrasing.
  Here's the official DOJ release
  
  “This rule enhances public safety and prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago. In the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns. The reason for that is that short-barreled rifles have the greater capability of long guns, yet are easier to conceal, like a pistol,” said ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. “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.”
  Since the 1930s, the NFA has imposed requirements on short-barreled rifles because they are more easily concealable than long-barreled rifles but have more destructive power than traditional handguns. Beyond background checks and serial numbers, those heightened requirements include taxation and registration requirements that include background checks for all transfers including private transfers. Often, when pistols are converted to rifles by the use of a stabilizing brace covered by the rule, they have barrels less than 16 inches in length and must comply with the same heightened requirements that apply to short-barreled rifles under the NFA. >
  
  
  but have more destructive power than traditional handguns.
  
  So their official release still contradicts themselves. Because  stabilizing braces for pistols don't make the rounds any more destructive.
  If the restrictions are to focus on making higher powered weapons more concealable as explained to their rulings since the since the 30s,  this could be a linchpin in any lawsuit against them. >
  
  I’d imagine the “more destructive power” comes from the stabilizing brace provides the user with improved accuracy at a greater range.
  If you measure destructive power as “what happens when a single round hits a target” then yes, you are correct that the brace does not add to that. However if you measure it by “what happens when you fire multiple rounds at a target” then you could argue that the destructive power increases because the improved accuracy increases the odds that more bullets will hit the intended target. I imagine that’s why they’re saying the brace increases the destructive power. If so, it’s pretty reasonable. 
  Note: I am only commenting on the “more destructive power” language, not wether or not I agree with this change as a whole >
  
  Don't know why you're being down voted, this is literally what it would come down to in court. At least with regards to the clarification of destructive power. >
  
  Yeah, the proper word would probably be ability instead of power. It has more ability to destroy things but doesnt gain additional destroying power.
  But really that's just semantics >
  
  I live for the semantics! Lolol /s. You are probably right >
  
  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. >
  
  
  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! >
  
  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. >
  
  Hey their plans working, cmon guys everyone put yourselves on the registry for freeee! >
  
  The end of my pistol with the can on it is already registered and tax stamped. If you bought any of your guns with a 4473, you are most likely already on the illegal registry, or you will be just as soon as the ATF guy can make it to your local gun store to photograph their books. If you have ever bought more than one gun at a time, the feds were notified. While I vehemently disagree with the arbitrary rule making, I have also been thinking about turning it into an SBR for quite some time. If that lands me a free tax stamp, might not be the end of the world. Then pile onto the GOA class action lawsuit. If we are lucky, we can get SBR’s and suppressors removed from NFA, or God willing, get rid of the entire NFA. >
  
  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.