IF we assume, and that’s one big honkin’ IF, that there’s any logical reason to restrict pistols with shoulder stocks or SBRs in the first place, then the position the ATF is taking on them makes sense in that context. The claims by users and the industry that the braces exist to enable the disabled, and my particular favorite, disabled veterans, to shoot handguns, is silly on its face, as anyone who’s spent any time on YouTube can attest. I’ve watched dozens, maybe hundreds of videos where people are shooting pistols with braces, and I’ve yet to see anyone that looks disabled in any of them, and few if any where they shoot them any way except from the shoulder. Same goes for what I’ve seen at the range. In “common use”, they’re SBRs (with short stocks), despite the claims to the contrary.
Equally silly however, is that we’re still saddled with a nearly 90 year-old law written during the gangland era to address stuff being used by criminals like Clyde Barrow (chopped BAR), and guns that are long out of production and now almost priceless relics like Lugers and Broomhandle Mausers, plus sawed-off shotguns. That law deprives us of the use of some very utilitarian firearms, while as usual not affecting criminals one whit. Somehow too, we’re now permitted what looks suspiciously like sawed-off shotguns, as long as we call them “pistols”, kinda-sorta. Wonder how long before they take a swing at those.
The real problem is that the Congress has abandoned its responsibility to write clear, sensible legislation and also to defend its proper position as a co-equal branch of the government. I have a sneaking suspicion that the ATF may win this round unless the courts find that they allowed the braces to come into “common use” with their earlier back-door lawmaking. That would cause some heads to explode in D.C.
The most important thing you said is "in common use". In Caetano, SCOTUS ruled the 200,000 stun guns in circulation constituted "common use". Estimates range between 10 and 40 million braces in use, that's "common use". Additionally, the ATF is now equating braced pistols with SBR's, which is a tacit admission SBR's are "in common use". Per Bruin, once something's "in common use" it can't be "dangerous AND unusual". That which is in common use can't at the same time be "unusual". Therefore SBR's are protected arms and it now becomes the burden of the state to prove there were equivalent laws in 1791 that would justify the regulation of SBR's.
Spoiler alert: 1934 is not 1791.
I think the AFT may have stepped in it Bigly. I suspect there are judges in the Northern district of Texas and the 5th Circuit that would agree with me.
