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.
You certainly employ a lot of the popular gun-grabber 'buzz words'.
Who talks about "loopholes"? I NEVER hear gun owners use the term. There's the supposed "gunshow loophole", and the "Charleston loophole", and the "boyfriend loophole" - all gun-grabber terms, and all based on the default assumption that people shouldn't be able to buy guns without specific, one person/one gun at a time, government permission.
And who commonly conflates legal weapons with illegal (or nearly impossible to legally own) weapons? That's a basic gun-grabber tactic. They tell us semi-auto AR15's are the same as M4s/M16s; gun owners know they aren't. Gun-grabbers insist that semi-auto AKMs are "weapons of war"; gun owners know there isn't a single military organization on the planet that uses semi-auto AKMs. And you tell us legal handguns with braces are really SBRs; most gun owners know the difference.
Finally, gun-grabbers routinely suggest that gun owners have evil motives for buying firearms (the list of examples is nearly endless). Your repeated suggestions that everyone buying a pistol with a brace is attempting to circumvent federal law sounds awfully similar.
Maybe you just like gun-grabber terminology; or maybe you're an attorney: who knows (or cares). If I exercise my right to keep and bear arms, it has nothing to do with "loopholes". And if I choose to own a pistol equipped with a brace, OR a properly documented SBR, rest assured, I know the difference...