Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing

[andrewP]

On the one hand, it's quite easy to see that the "disability equipment" angle with braces is primarily an end run around the NFA, but on the other, by allowing them to be classified as accessories rather than stocks, allowing millions of purchases to legally occur, the BATFE painted themselves into a corner regarding the idea that they're stocks.

Any change to their existing position that braces are not stocks is going to be a really hard sell, and is going to infringe upon the rights of millions of Americans. The bit where they tried to claim that a brace could be a brace on one gun and a stock on another was especially absurd. Too bad BATFE, you screwed up and now you have to live with it.

[Rowdy Roddy]

Sneaky bastards will try again.

I feel like the parent of small children in the house and "it's too quiet"

[Holland&Holland]

On the one hand, it's quite easy to see that the "disability equipment" angle with braces is primarily an end run around the NFA, but on the other, by allowing them to be classified as accessories rather than stocks, allowing millions of purchases to legally occur, the BATFE painted themselves into a corner regarding the idea that they're stocks.

Any change to their existing position that braces are not stocks is going to be a really hard sell, and is going to infringe upon the rights of millions of Americans. The bit where they tried to claim that a brace could be a brace on one gun and a stock on another was especially absurd. Too bad BATFE, you screwed up and now you have to live with it.

Run around?

Seriously?

So you do understand that if something is legal then it is not a “run around “. Simply legal.

If you think this way the country is full of tax cheats and unscrupulous business people.

[andrewP]

Run around?

Seriously?

So you do understand that if something is legal then it is not a “run around “. Simply legal.

You're either misunderstanding what I said or being intentionally obtuse. On the assumption that it's the former, I'll try again. I do not for a moment believe that braces were truly designed to allow disabled people to strap an AR to their arm, and I do not believe that the vast majority of people who have bought them have any disability whatsoever or that the braces they've bought have ever been used in any way other than to make an SBR that happens to legally count as a pistol because the BATFE fell for the ruse and made the determination that brace <> stock.

I fully understand that they're legal; that's why I said that the BATFE made a mistake which, millions of legally purchased braces later, they now can't undo. I'm on your side. I'm just not viewing things through an absurdly unrealistic lens.

[yukonjasper]

Sounds like this tack was removed and the ATF is backing away.

[870TC]

info on withdrawal of letter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB15Lw-iLp8

[linksep]

I fully understand that they're legal; that's why I said that the BATFE made a mistake which, millions of legally purchased braces later, they now can't undo. I'm on your side. I'm just not viewing things through an absurdly unrealistic lens.

Agreed, that's why bump-stocks are still legal---because they in no way meet the legal definition of machine gun and the ATF made their bed when they ruled them legal and now have to live with that.