This all goes to the intent of the brace in the first place - a wrist support for the paraplegic. If YOU weren't missing an arm and THEN used it in a way contrary to it's purpose, filmed yourself doing so, and then asked further questions in a letter for clarification after someone already got an answer, who is to blame? Mostly brace owners. Brought it on yourselves.
It was never intended to be a shoulder stock and the ATF is simply saying that, again. They didn't say before that it was legal, their position was that it was misuse, and now they are on paper as to further stating that it creates the issue of it becoming an SBR if so used.
Why is this so difficult to understand? A pistol does not have a stock for shoulder use. It's the shooters who deliberately misuse the item who created the issue, NOT those who avoided purchasing them.
For those who were applying for a stamp, or who never intended to purchase a brace, there's no problem at all.
For those attempting to circumvent the ATF and rub their face in it, too, what were you thinking? I'm beginning to see the point so many have made - why poke the bear?
Because they don't have enough self discipline to stop themselves and have to test boundaries over and over to see what their limits are.
However unpopular this post may be, I agree 100% with Tirod on this one. Even though we all wish we didn't have to abide by any ATF rules, putting the toothpaste back into the tube isn't going to be as quick and simple as skirting the NFA. The have reversed decisions before; why is this such a surprise now?
The exact reason WHY the overwhelming majority of people are drawn to and purchase/install the brace is so that they can have a compact, shoulder fired weapon with a barrel shorter than 16" without having to go through the NFA process. For those of you with handicaps for which the brace is being used as described by the maker, then you are in fact the
minority.
These braces are being used as a workaround to the SBR, and to pretend otherwise is to admire the
Emperor's New Clothes.
Similarly, over at AR15.com, people were so distraught over the fact that the ATF said No-Go to their suppressor baffle "muzzle brake." Some chose to argue in endless circles about the minutiae of the classifications. At the end of the day, the reason they desired them was precisely because they could be used to manufacture or assemble a working suppressor. "How is this different than a muzzle brake" they said. Puh-lease!
SIG Sauer (previously SIGArms) has taken it upon themselves to push the boundaries of the NFA. Now, the spirit of these efforts is an admirable thing, but in reality, each and every consumer is forced to take both the glory and the risks as a package deal.
I'd much rather spray an attacker in the face with Wasp Killer than pepper spray. Unfortunately, if I use that product for self defense, it would likely land me in prison b/c my use was inconsistent with the product's labeling, and in doing so it turned it from a household product into a deadly weapon. Stupid law? Maybe so, but I have other daily battles to fight.