Your posts here seem to ignore several facts. First, pistol braces did not come into common use simply because "the public" found and exploited "a loophole" - the federal government was an active participant in the process. ATF provided written pre-approval for the manufacture and sale of pistol braces, which clearly differentiated between the braces and shoulder stocks.
Second, neither floppy pieces of foam with nylon straps, nor thin pieces of rigid plastic shaped like knife or axe blades, can be reasonably construed to be shoulder stocks - even if they might resemble such stocks from particular angles of view. That is exactly why ATF approved the accessories in the first place.
Finally, you assume that those who purchase braces do so with "a singular purpose: constructing... a short barreled rifle". Obviously, there is no way for you to substantiate that claim; and it could be said with equal fairness that pistols equipped with braces were purchased or constructed because many owners desired 'a long barreled pistol', that could be more safely & precisely controlled via use of a brace. Frankly, the overall tenor of your posts here reminds me of material from Giffords or Handgun Control Inc, or possibly some ATF bureaucrat trying to rationalize that agency's attempted 180 degree turn on the legality of pistol braces...
Absurd to impute I’m anti gun, especially in this thread.
I just received my approved Form 1 to legally “SBR” a 12” .308 pistol.
I appreciate your argument. I’m addressing what I earnestly believe is sociopolitical problematic with it. You’re saying the right things, but using them in plainly disingenuous ways.
Yes, braces were intended for legitimate use of powerful heavy pistols - by handicapped or extreme niche shooters. They’re very awkward to use. Few indeed would seriously use such a thing as intended, save for handicap or obscure sport. Possible? Sure. Realistic? No. Except…they fill a legal niche, making SBRs legally accessible. I know, having just spent $230 for the NFA paperwork for one. Would have saved $230 by putting a “pistol brace” on it instead, and, like so many others obviously intended to in such a purchase, used it as a plausibly-deniable shoulder stock.
Show me how many “pistol braces” have been sold, and convince me the bulk of them are dominantly used as design intended.
Sure it makes a poor shoulder stock - but it is good enough for most such uses, by those not inclined to file paperwork, fingerprints, and taxes to do so for a proper stock.
If you’d bother reading another of my posts here, you’d see my suggestion how this loophole fiasco can be turned to eviscerating a major fraction of NFA law - hardly the tactic of gun banners.