comment: >
  
  What the difference betweent that and the current background check?
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  Turning MILLIONS of gun owners into felons just to give a wink and nod to antigun groups knowing damn well this will do NOTHING to stop gun violence is wild. We really are being led by the dumbest among us aren't we? Mind you, this will also be thrown out in a year or two assuming the Supreme Court doesn't put a stay on it earlier. >
  
  Not pro gun but these laws are useless and just for show. >
  
  How many murders were committed with braced pistols last year?  I’ll venture the answer is zero. >
  
  I think you want look at homicides not murders. I'll venture 4. I like your logic, this venturing thing is easy to use. >
  
  It would make much more sense to repeal the NFA altogether… >
  
  "New rule". With no congressional action. Yes, that is illegal (see West Virginia v. EPA). No, they don't care. >
  
  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. >
  
  *doesn’t allow NFA items for poor people >
  
  *Or not connected to Hollywood >
  
  "Pistol brace offers power of the rifle"????  Where's this space age tech the tranforms the caliber and muzzle energy of a pistol ? >
  
  Good. Can finally get this ATF ruling thrown out by the SC. >
  
  ATF needs to be disbanded entirely, give the alcohol and explosives enforcement duties to the DEA or FBI. >
  
  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. >
  
  Jesus Christ can Reuters get someone who knows literally anything about guns to write these articles? I got 4 sentences in, they may as have been talking about changing the blinker fluid and recalibrating the flux capacitor in your minivan. A pistol brace makes a pistol as powerful as a short barreled rifle and resembles a sawed off shotgun? What the hell?? Does congress realize 95%+ of gun murders are done with completely mundane shitty handguns with nothing on them? You could successfully ban every suppressor, pistol brace, 'assault weapon', rifle of every kind, shotgun of every kind, knives and poison too and they'd make what, maybe a <5% impact on gun violence? To make a serious impact by banning shit, you have to ban or make handguns hard to own, the most relevant self defense firearm. Or you could drastically increase funding to social workers and probably do better than all that combined inside a year or two. >
  
  
  Jesus Christ can Reuters get someone who knows literally anything about guns to write these articles?
  
  No, and they don't want to. I can see the average newsroom, "We got a gun story, anyone here want it? Bob, you say you're a gun expert and you want it? Okay, anyone else want to take it? Mary, you say you know nothing about guns, so you take it."
  They put those who know politics on politics stories, same for business, or even cars or tech. But they avoid having anyone who knows about guns writing about them. >
  
  Stop conflating the meanings of "deadly" and "lethality" and "power." Don't use bad talking points to criticize gun laws. .50 BMG is more powerful than 9 mm, but I can draw a pistol and fire faster than you can open your rifle case and take the covers off your optic. (You could shoot me through the window from 200 meters before I could unlock the gun safe, too.) Put the weapon in the context it will be used.
  Remember that guns are deadly weapons, and if you do not wish to maximize its success to this end then I assume that you view guns as toys.
  A rifle, short barreled or otherwise, is of course more powerful, and likely more lethal, than a handgun. But if you approach a venue carrying a rifle in full view, intending to kill a lot of people, they will see you and run before you can get to a position dense with people.
  More likely, and hopefully, your interest in a short barrel rifle is that it is easier to use in a space such as your home, where a long gun is more difficult to use effectively in hallways and doors and around furniture. ("use effectively" means "kill people") At the short distances you might use a rifle in your home, trading some muzzle velocity for a shorter weapon, especially if it means you can get on target faster, is worth it. >
  
  
  A rifle, short barreled or otherwise, is of course more powerful, and likely more lethal, than a handgun.
  
  Generally, yes. But an AR pistol in 5.56 with an 8" barrel is less powerful than a .357 revolver with a 6" barrel. Shooting rifle rounds through short barrels wastes an awful lot of powder. >
  
  Okay, I lost 5 IQ points just reading that article.
  There is zero way a bolt-on stabilizer is going to increase the power of a pistol.  It’s still the same pistol, with a stabilizer bolted to the back.
  That’s the same “Logic” that cause idiots to bolt rear wings to their golf car because ‘it makes it faster’. >
  
  ATF try not to make the dumbest rules challenge (Impossible) >
  
  It's going to get obliterated in the courts. >
  
  ATF can eat a bag of dicks. >
  
  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? >
  
  The actual question is how is a rifle with a 14.5 inch barrel functionally different than a rifle with a 16 inch barrel.
  One's protected by the second amendment and one isn't? No, the entire NFA is nonsense,  and if the ATF's ill conceived pistol brace rule is what gets SCOTUS to overturn it, it would be poetic justice.
  There's Miller, Heller, and now especially Bruen that all provide great precedent to overturn the NFA. The ATF are fools to go and give so many people such great standing to sue. >
  
  Less powerful, slightly easier to hide. That's about it. >
  
  Hiding a SBR with a 14.5 inch barrel vs hiding a rifle with 16 inch barrel... I don't think the missing 1.5 inches is going to make it magically invisible. >
  
  Hence the word "slightly." >
  
  While I never understood how AR pistols weren't considered short barreled rifles, how many shooting and/or injuries/deaths are they expecting to prevent with this rule change? This seems like a rule change for the sake of changing rules. >
  
  It’s a rule change for the sake of making felons out of gun owners, collecting massive amounts of registration info from AR owners, and being an overall pain in the ass. >
  
  *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. >
  
  Alcohol tobacco and firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency. >
  
  Cool, I guess because the ATF doesn't like the piece of plastic on the end of a gun, they'll just make tens of thousands of people felons. What a fucking joke. >
  
  Wasn't the brace originally created to allow one-armed veterans to continue target shooting? The ruling does nothing to reduce the violence of a shooting, all it does is disproportionately impact disabled veterans. >
  
  Disabled Veterans are some of the governments favorite people to hurt intentionally. >
  
  All my braced pistols are angry… good thing this will get struck down >
  
  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. >
  
  Curious.....how many people downloaded the files so they can 3D print this part? And how many people have used oil filters as a suppressor aka, silencer? >
  
  Well, the answer is everyone. The files are publicly available. But at this juncture, there'd be no point to printing a brace when it'd be the same penalty to install a stock, or make it a machine gun. >
  
  "A stabilizing brace is an attachment to a pistol that functionally turns it into a short-barreled rifle, similar to a sawed-off shotgun"
  ...I don't even know where to start >
  
  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. >
  
  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. >
  
  But republicans finally did overturn Roe v Wade… >
  
  And it was a huge loss for them politically. >
  
  fumbling around to find something to keep people mad GAS STOVES! These mfs coming after you're beloved stove ppl.  Hard /s >
  
  this should trigger some people >
  
  You can buy a rifle at 18. You can buy a pistol at 21. Pistols are a bigger threat in public than rifles. So we're going to be safer by.... Not letting people turn pistols into rifles? >
  
  Lmao, if they wanted to stop gun violence they would go after handgun crime in the cities. This is just ATF trying justify their existence without any meaningful effort involved. >
  
  Oh Thank god! This will definitely curb gun violence. Everyone relax. The shootings will cease now. >
  
  I suspect the courts will reject this one, but I'm jumping on the free tax stamp offer immediately. I had planned to SBR anyway, so I might as well save $200 per gun. >
  
  Good luck, wait times are about to go through the roof >
  
  I should be able to beat the overwhelming majority of applications since I have everything necessary to efile. >
  
  I know guys personally that have already been waiting 3+ months for e-file form 1s. Form 1 wait times have been increasing all year due to the introduction of e-file form 4s earlier this year. If you're going to do it, sooner is definitely better than later, but I certainly wouldn't bet on any application being processed quickly now >
  
  I feel safer already, and I'm sure the ghosts of those Texans appreciate all we are doing for them. >
  
  New rule on pistol attachments to boost thoughts and fucking prayers, I guess. >
  
  It ain't the attachments that's undermining gun safety. People in possession of guns are doing that just well enough. >
  
  The rules doesn't apply to people that use them for disability purposes. >
  
  Even with a disability, there is still paperwork and rules. >
  
  I don't think SBRs should be an NFA item (Silencers, too) but I also think that if these are the rules we live under then nobody who is familiar with how braces have been being used should be surprised that they are being included in the SBR regulations. It's been an open secret of a loophole for years. >
  
  
  It's been an open secret of a loophole for years.
  
  That the ATF explicitly approved. How is that a loophole? >
  
  A brace doesn't do shit unless it's full auto and even then its really inconvenient unless it's a very regulated SBR. >
  
  So stupid. Just implement universal background check.