[Anduril]

The thinking on YouTube 2A lawyers is that the regulation is too complicated for judges (let alone the average gun owner) to know what will be prohibited and what will not.
It's a 293-page regulation that is essentially based on "factoring criteria".

Liberal judge will be concerned that it will convert the unknowing public into felons.
Conservative judges won't be happy with NFA making laws via regulation (without Congress).

So, this is probably DOA in the courts.

At least, that's essentially what I saw on YouTube about all this.
Disclaimer: I don't own a pistol brace.

 

[Anduril]

This is worth watching:

 

[Anduril]

So i just bought one a few months ago, what are my options? I usually just buy regular firearms, this was a little out of my comfort zone. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

I would keep it, for now. Do nothing.
This regulation won't live very long before the courts kill it.

 

[Anduril]

That’s what I was thinking. Do nothing for now and see what the courts say about it.

This exactly !!

But don't give up the discussion here and elsewhere.
The more confusing this new regulation is (or can be made to be), the better.

 

[Anduril]

The video I posted in #24 is really worth the 15 minutes to watch. (Especially starting at the 10:08 mark.)
Ian does a fantastic job describing how things got to this point.

Essentially,
Way back when... anti-gunners proposed a $200 tax stamp on firearms. (many multiples of what the actual firearms / suppressors cost at that time).
All firearms (at least as originally envisioned).
And as there was no provision in the regulation to adjust the fees, it's still $200 today.

But then, prior to enactment, handguns were carved out of the NFA -- essentially leaving a solution with no corresponding problem.
That specific problem being: People cutting down rifles to make concealable handguns.
Which, you wouldn't do if you could just buy a handgun.

So -- all this wrangling over short-barrels, and pistol braces is totally meaningless.
Ian, in his video does this subject much better justice that I have here and shows examples of firearms large, medium, and small, with only the one in the middle falling under the proposed NFA restrictions.

Bottom line: There is no reason for the act.

The NFA scheme regarding short-barrels and braces should be dismantled in its entirety.

 

[Anduril]

Someone should make a handgun with a ridiculously long grip (factory standard), such that it's the same length as a braced pistol (a/k/a "short-barreled rifle").
Then sit back, and watch ATF squirm.