The BATF recently reversed their stance on whether the pistol brace circumvented the NFA in regard to SBR's. They clarified an earlier opinion that they do not.
With all this crap going on around bump stocks, and how while technically legal, they are a device that in many ways allows you to have a gun that "acts as a full auto", without the same legal paperwork and all that of a full auto...
If we go down this path of "evaluating accessories or modifications that bypass the spirit of the NFA"... is it a stretch to imagine them including things like the pistol brace?
Technically, it is allowing you to shoulder a weapon with a barrel less than 16".
My opinion is to just get rid of the stupid 16" rule, as if you can own pistols and rifles anyway, what difference does the barrel length matter?
But assuming that the SBR statute stays in place, is anyone else concerned that them diving into the stupid bump stock "issue", will put a spotlight on other things, like the pistol brace?
With all this crap going on around bump stocks, and how while technically legal, they are a device that in many ways allows you to have a gun that "acts as a full auto", without the same legal paperwork and all that of a full auto...
If we go down this path of "evaluating accessories or modifications that bypass the spirit of the NFA"... is it a stretch to imagine them including things like the pistol brace?
Technically, it is allowing you to shoulder a weapon with a barrel less than 16".
My opinion is to just get rid of the stupid 16" rule, as if you can own pistols and rifles anyway, what difference does the barrel length matter?
But assuming that the SBR statute stays in place, is anyone else concerned that them diving into the stupid bump stock "issue", will put a spotlight on other things, like the pistol brace?