Pardon, I’m not trying to be a wise-ass, but what is the difference between a pistol brace and a collapsible stock? A braced pistol could be considered a short barreled rifle.
๐๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ, ๐โ๐ฎ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ต๐ณ๐บ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ธ๐ช๐ด๐ฆ-๐ข๐ด๐ด, ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ต ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ช๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ง๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ต๐ธ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ข ๐ฑ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ญ ๐ฃ๐ณ๐ข๐ค๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ข ๐ค๐ฐ๐ญ๐ญ๐ข๐ฑ๐ด๐ช๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ค๐ฌ? ๐ ๐ฃ๐ณ๐ข๐ค๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฑ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฐ๐ญ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ข ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต ๐ฃ๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ณ๐ช๐ง๐ญ๐ฆ.
Pistol braces are designed for one handed shooting, and will look kind like a stock, but are either flat, or kind of clip or wishbone shaped to go around the forarm. Many of them appear to be more like stocks though.
If I’m not mistaken there’s also been back and forth on the interwebs regarding the legality of shouldering a pistol brace equipped gun.
Anyone who purchased one of these things who already owned (in this case an AR pistol, but there are other pistols out there that use braces) a pistol could simply remove it and restore the pistol to it’s factory configuration, I don’t see how the ATF can do much about that unless we’re going full bumpstock here. For those guns that came with them installed I don’t know how it’s going to be handled. I would be shrieking about amending the Code of Federal Regulations and creating law without legislation, but that ship sailed in March of 2019, probably a lot earlier than that.
To me, the “brace” term and the very slight differences between its construction and functionality with a true stock is in “how” it is used (or can be used) area. What does that mean? Well, if you readily can use the ‘brace’ which may or not be extendable/adjustable as a SHOULDER BRACED part of the gun, then it’s just a short-barreled weapon.
Most of the ‘brace’ designs have that curve in the widest part of them that is ostensibly meant for the user to ‘brace’ the pistol against the user’s forearm. Some even have strap looking options where I guess the operator could slip his and and forearm through to use it as a truly braced pistol.
In the end, my opinion is the manufacturers clearly designed them so that they can be used as a stock YET! due to definitions that were existing with ATF communications allowed barrels that were much shorter than the minimum 16”/26” (barrel/OAL) 1934 NFA definition.
I know I’ll get flamed over this, but the only thing I can say is that I think the 1934 NFA needs to be repealed in its entirety and that the ATF is a lawless organization operating on BS interpretations, intimidation and un-Constitutional gatekeepers of rights to which they have no right in deciding.
The brace was always a work around to make a short barreled rifle legally a pistol. Thatโs all. No other practical reason for a brace. They arenโt better than a collapsible stock.
More laws, more crime, more govt employees to enforce said crimes.