I share the same thoughts. I have a pistol posted for sale but being I may have to pay the $200 anyways, I debate on pulling the ad, keeping it and just going ahead and making the lower an SBRThe implementation (or initiation date) has been pushed to Dec 2022. My personal opinion is: they chose that date to wait to see the outcome of the midterms in Nov. If GOP retakes House/Senate, they (ATF) knows all their actions will be reconsidered, scrutinized, or removed all together. Elections have consequences aye?
It's never EVER been about safety. It's about taxing guns to death and controlling it to the point of being too burdensome for people to want to deal with them anymore. Overregulating to the point of deletion. The craziest part is that the ATF has NO AUTHORITY to create, alter, or implement rulings. They do it though...and when Dems control Congress, they never stop them or tell them to stay in their lane. What's also remarkable is how willing Americans are to just abide by their unlawful rulings and mandates. Until a judge rules on braces in an official case law, NOTHING the ATF says or does (regarding braces) is legal or justified.Beating the dead horse, but I just dont get it. What or who does it hurt having a brace ? Just seems like a waste of our tax dollars going after law abiding gun owners when the ATF could be putting that effort and money into chasing bad guys.
No it probably won't but foe me as a disabled veteran it really benefits me with a shoulder injuryThe problem really is the National Firearms Act to begin with which established the regime of differentiating SBRs from more conventional length rifles. This won’t win me any friends on this forum, but the ATF isn’t wrong in assessing braces are simply stocks by another name. I have never seen an “AR pistol” with brace ever fired one handed or one armed. Frankly, it’s not really possible. Everyone I’ve ever seen uses a brace as a stock. ATF’s pickle is that they have consistently held braces aren’t stocks for NFA purposes and now want to change direction after so many years. That‘s problematic and I think is why they are willing to offer a free amnesty which, all things considered, is not an unreasonable compromise. But the real solution is to simply repeal the NFA’s requirement that an SBR be registered with the ATF along with the payment for a tax stamp. My braced-pistol SBRs (and, yes, they are registered) are no more dangerous that my 16 in barreled sporting arms. The NFA serves no real safety purpose.