Of late, most purchases and use of stabilizing braces was precisely to create rifles with short barrels which were legal only because of a semantic between “intent of design” vs “intent of use”. While I applaud the malicious obedience achieving freedom to bypass infringement, it’s annoying that such word games are played by our side in a way assured to lose.
Feel free to follow up this by using the sales figures of stabilizing braces to demonstrate “in common use” in a court case intended to remove short barreled rifles from NFA restrictions.
Are there such stats? If so, the ought to be useful in court.
I’ve heard of “10million”, but not as a fact.
The AATF COULD have denied everysingle one becasue all/any “could be” fired from teh shoulder no matter how short a LOP nor how unsuitable the use would be. Matters ot, the approval letters and AFT back and forth rulings clearly state the “incidental” use from the shoulder does not make an SBR. So, what does? The letter of the law.
Which s rather clear ( even if unconstitutional n most rational minded people), a barrel shorter than 16 (rifle) or 18 (shotgun) and a shoulder stock.
I’ve fired a 450 Bushmaster pistol with a KAK shockwave blade from the shoulder (incidentally of course) and it was not “useful”, now a 556 or similar, and it may be “useful”, but again, the rulings clearly held “incidental or situational” use from the shoulder was not a violation. Just as a long gun, intended to be fired from the shoulder, CAN BE fired from the hands, even though doing so does not make it a “pistol” per the law. Firing your 12 ga pump shotgun from both hands but not the shoulder does not require one to have a license or be in violation of a law regarding pistols, a pox be on the states that require licensing of handguns/ guns period.
There’s a dissatisfying circular argument wrapped up in the “in common use” test for legality: items which are restricted will be largely avoided by most of the general public, e.g. because they don’t want to do the NFA paperwork. This avoidance makes them less “in common use” - which the authorities then seize upon, turn around, and claim that the fact they are not in common use therefore legitimizes and even justifies the ban! But that’s a circular argument, because the lack of common use arose, at least in part, because of the ban.
Circular arguments are terrible foundations upon which to build legislation.