comment: >
  
  Short answer? Because the presidency changed hands (parties), and the Executive Branch holds immense sway over the ATF.
context: I can tell you that this is already causing boatloads of gun owners to try and get AR pistols with braces so they can save $200 on the tax stamp for an SBR and put on a forward grip as a bonus. SBRs and suppressors really ought to be removed from the NFA. >
  
  A lot of Europe doesn't regulate suppressors, which I think makes sense.  We should protect people's hearing. Obviously earmuffs are great, but combine them with a suppressor, and it's a lot quieter.
  And it's less intrusive to neighbors.  Those close by can still hear the gun shots, but the sound won't travel as far. >
  
  The difference in attitude about guns in Europe and USA is way different. Europe has mature views whereas USA fetishize guns, many thanks to NRA marketing tactics. People here cannot embrace decent regulations because they have been brainwashed by the gun lobby and gun forums.
  Case in point, the FEAR of gun regulation during the Obama years caused gun sales to sky rocket and ammo shortages. The gun manufacturers LOVE it. They get the fear out via the NRA and sponsored forums. Job done. >
  
  The very same thing happened in the EU announced it's plan to introduce more restrictive gun laws and tried to, literally, ban all semi-auto guns. What makes it especially damning is that even such restriction would have had zero effect on the Paris terrorist attacks those restrictions were supposed to prevent because the terrorists used illegal full-auto AKs from the Balkans.
  The more idiotic laws you try to implement, the more resistance you'll meet and the US has a long history of idiotic gun laws. >
  
  The only idiotoc gun law we have is the second amendment, which was so poorly written than 250 years later 100 million people can't understand that "militia" was required at the time because there was no army. The combination of low intelligence, lacking education and 2A (gun proliferation) will cause the end of the United States, pretty sure of it. Just wait for trump to lose again. >
  
  Yes, I fully agree the 2nd should have been written better. I prefer the Czech version, it grants the "right to defend own life or life of another person also with arms under conditions stipulated by law" >
  
  You know the gun regulations around short barrel rifles make total sense in 2023 because they were written almost a hundred years ago when the biggest concern for law enforcement was mobsters wearing fedoras hiding tommy guns under their trench coats. >
  
  That and the laws regarding short barreled rifles were written when they were originally going to use the 1934 NFA to ban handguns. It was originally designed to prevent rifles from being shortened to handgun size in the wake of a handgun ban. Of course, the handgun ban was removed from the NFA, which makes the short barreled rifle provision kind of weird since it has no reason for existing. >
  
  Yet again the ATF takes something they themselves explicitly said was legal and now made it illegal putting the burden on the citizens. Let's see how long this lasts before getting struck down like the bump stock ban. >
  
  Wait? Adding a brace to a handgun makes it more powerful and easier to conceal? How is making something longer easier to conceal? >
  
  They’re saying people are intentionally buying AR pistols and braces to have a weapon identical to an AR rifle with a shorter barrel. It’s not easier to conceal than the base pistol, it’s easier to conceal than the rifle. >
  
  
  Such weapons are considered particularly deadly as they offer the power of a traditional rifle, but are much easier to conceal.
  
  No? Stabilizing braces don’t offer any additional power whatsoever. >
  
  The article doesn’t say adding a brace offers additional power. >
  
  The redditor literally quoted the text that says exactly that.  Adding a brace to a pistol does not give the round fired by the pistol the "power" of a round fired by a "traditional rifle." >
  
  The article says that adding a brace to a pistol essentially turns it into an SBR.  Then says that SBRs are “ considered particularly deadly as they offer the power of a traditional rifle, but are much easier to conceal.”.  
  No where does it say it adds additional firepower.
  And in my own opinion anyone with an ounce of knowledge of guns besides “they go boom” would read that and understand that they are referring to AR pistols or something like a Shockwave 590 and not a regular handgun. >
  
  It doesn’t say shit about Glocks either.  The article doesn’t say adding a brace makes the gun more powerful.  It says it essentially turns it into an SBR which is true.
  What’s more deadly?  Your uncle’s Glock w/ a brace of a 10/22? >
  
  It says "pistols".  Some idiot saying that a brace turns a pistol into a short barreled rifle does not, in fact, mean that a brace turns a pistol into a short barreled rifle.
  You're as ignorant as the author of the article. >
  
  And people have been arguing that SBRs shouldn’t require a tax stamp because people can just throw a brace on an AR pistol and turn into what is essentially an SBR for years now.
  We’re debating over legal definitions here so which is it?
  In fact we’re not even debating over legal definitions we are debating whether or not the article says adding a brace makes a pistol more powerful or if adding a brace makes a gun “ considered particularly deadly as they offer the power of a traditional rifle, but are much easier to conceal”. >
  
  Yea that'll definitely do it. >
  
  >A stabilizing brace is an attachment to a pistol that functionally turns it into a short-barreled rifle, similar to a sawed-off shotgun.
  ​
  It's so hard to take these articles seriously, a brace turns a pistol into a rifle, similar to a sawed off shotgun...really? >
  
  The actual press release from the DOJ makes about that much sense, so I can’t really blame the press this time. >
  
  As an immigrant who’s ancestors were almost eliminated by their govt, any gun control is how fascism starts. You may not what to hear it but it’s the truth >
  
  there is very strict gun control in all industrial countries except the US. are you saying that all of the EU, Australia, Japan, NZ, SE Asia and India are sliding into fascism? >
  
  Authoritarian governments do like to disarm before genocide. Not just fascists, but gun registration by the French led to confiscation and murder when the Nazis arrived. 
  Gun regulations in the USA started with taking Native guns and barring black people from ownership. Modern gun laws stem from white fear of black gun ownership by the Black Panthers. >
  
  Hopefully this leads to the NFA being overturned by the supreme court. Probably not but a girl can dream.
  Edit: is this sub finally starting to wake up? I expected to get downvoted into oblivion for expressing my heinous opinions. >
  
  Maybe we can just overturn the entire Second Amendment instead. >
  
  Gotta admit, I genuinely hope your vision for this broken but great country never comes true. >
  
  So Biden wants to make sure Democrats lose all future presidential elections.  This will be challenged and taken to the Supreme Court where there is a good chance it will fail.  Due to the fact that the pistols and stabilizing braces are already in 'Common Use.'  And they do not alter the way the firearm functions mechanically.  Nothing about this is attempting to improve safety, hes pandering to the anti-gun crowd.  It will drive red states to loosen gun laws, and drive up gun and ammunition sales...increasing tensions and gun violence. >
  
  obligatory firearms reference video >
  
  So if gun violence doesn’t decrease as a result, they’ll reverse the rule right? >
  
  If we can accurate collect data about gun violence and it then shows that, then why not?
  Unfortunately, a lot of gun lovers don't want data collected on gun college... >
  
  Gun control attempts during a 6-3 scotus. smart play. Stupid fucks >
  
  Especially when that SCOTUS has already been pretty clear on their stance on this stuff.  It would be ironic - and honestly fucking hilarious - if this case got them to evaluate the NFA itself and overturn some or all of it.  If that happened it would make this rule one of the biggest own-goals in political history. >
  
  Lmao sure it will. How about ditch the pointless law (that should’ve existed to begin with) instead of dealing with the quagmire of bullshit it has inevitably caused? >
  
  So when someone goes to commit a crime with one of these items they'll now say, wait, that's against the rules. Better not. >
  
  What a shame that murder is legal. Imagine all the lives we could save if it was against the law. >
  
  
  What a shame that murder is legal. Imagine all the lives we could save if it was against the law.
  
  ​
  If murder was legal, so many more people would get murdered. >
  
  How is that possible? Laws don't stop anyone from doing anything. Or so I've been told by the NRA. 
  I bet you can't show me one country with more guns control, and less gun violence, than the US. >
  
  Ban. The. Fucking. Guns.
  Nothing else will work. Fuck some arbitrary restriction on accessories. >
  
  We should model this after the War on Drugs. >
  
  I heard that was a great success in ending the drug problem. >
  
  It absolutely was a success. For the drugs. They won. They won the war. Hooray drugs. >
  
  The CIA always wins their wars >
  
  Cuba, Vietnam and Cambodia might disagree. >
  
  The army got involved and Sabotaged their efforts >
  
  you know how i know the CIA wasn't involved in the JFK killing? cause he's dead. how many times did the CIA try and kill Castro? sure, there were the early wins in Iran and Chili but for the most part the CIA is a bumblefuck of egos, money and amorality. >
  
  No Raffica for me i guess. >
  
  Canadian gun laws are great. All pistols have to be double locked at a minimum. You can only shoot at approved ranges and if you're transporting for any reason otherwise you have to get permitted. It's a great system with a much lower chance of mishandling than in the states. >
  
  This falls under the term "Well regulated".  The NRA will lose its shit, but who cares what the russians think? >
  
  The problem is that the ATF ruled these were legal for over a decade and are now changing their minds. This leaves people who followed the law holding the bag when the guns that the ATF said were legal are now deemed illegal by executive fiat. >
  
  Why did they change their minds?