The ATF has posted the rule changes for pistol braces, and it's pretty much what we thought. It more or less felonizes 99.9% of brace owners.
Here's the thing, though, you don't have to give up the brace. You just have to take the sights off and stuff like that. It's almost kind of like California compliant ARs in that sense. They're not taking away people's braced pistols, just dictating to the nth degree what accessories they can have.
So this is going to be interesting to see how our legislators react to it, for several reasons. First of all, it technically doesn't trigger the new law, because nothing has been banned and no new laws have been made. The law regulating stocks goes back to 1933, and the law allowing them to make rules goes back to 1968 I want to say, both of which are expressly protected in our bill (wasn't that nice of them?).
Effectively, though, they have banned braces. Or at least made it to where hardly anyone is going to want them anymore, besides maybe that one ostensibly fictitious disabled person nobody has ever seen who actually uses it for its advertised purpose.
If we hold our legislators' feet to the fire, though, this could potentially be a good thing. If they're forced to defend braces from this overreach, then it will have nullified a federal gun law at a state level. What it will effectively do is expressly permit something that the federal government considers to be an SBR, potentially paving the way for nullifying the NFA altogether.
Don't let them cave on this issue. They wanted their brownie points for reelection, and now it's time for them to earn it.
Here's the thing, though, you don't have to give up the brace. You just have to take the sights off and stuff like that. It's almost kind of like California compliant ARs in that sense. They're not taking away people's braced pistols, just dictating to the nth degree what accessories they can have.
So this is going to be interesting to see how our legislators react to it, for several reasons. First of all, it technically doesn't trigger the new law, because nothing has been banned and no new laws have been made. The law regulating stocks goes back to 1933, and the law allowing them to make rules goes back to 1968 I want to say, both of which are expressly protected in our bill (wasn't that nice of them?).
Effectively, though, they have banned braces. Or at least made it to where hardly anyone is going to want them anymore, besides maybe that one ostensibly fictitious disabled person nobody has ever seen who actually uses it for its advertised purpose.
If we hold our legislators' feet to the fire, though, this could potentially be a good thing. If they're forced to defend braces from this overreach, then it will have nullified a federal gun law at a state level. What it will effectively do is expressly permit something that the federal government considers to be an SBR, potentially paving the way for nullifying the NFA altogether.
Don't let them cave on this issue. They wanted their brownie points for reelection, and now it's time for them to earn it.