Adventures in Gun Control Loopholes
One of the most entertaining aspects of the gun control debate in the United States is seeing just how many policy questions get bogged down with endless and increasingly acrobatic rules lawyering from both sides. The example I want to highlight in this post is the topic of what are generally known as “pistol braces”.
Basically, in the US, there are federal laws against “short-barreled rifles” or SBRs. If something has a stock and has a barrel shorter than 16", then it's an SBR. Consider for example what the “civilian legal” version of the MP5 looks like. SBRs are still legal, but you have to get special permission from the feds through the ATF which requires a $200 tax stamp and roughly 6-8 months for your background check to process. It's a giant pain in the ass that not too many people are excited to pursue it.
A lot of people want a small and zippy “rifle” without the hassle of jumping through federal hoops. Shortened versions of AK pattern rifles like the AK Draco have been around for a long time and easily available without ATF approval, but that’s because they’re legally “pistols”, not “rifles”. But shooting rifle-caliber ammunition (especially something as high-powered as 7.62x39mm) through a pistol form-factor without the benefit of a stabilizing stock is Not Fun™. So those things have always been relegated to a curiosity due to impracticality.
Enter pistol braces. Remember how I said that SBRs need a "rifle stock"? Well, legally, pistol braces are not rifle stocks. This was a legal quirk that was quickly exploited by eager manufacturers. After some lawyerly back and forth, the ATF acquiesced and gave the green light to "pistol braces" and everyone and their mother started buying one. Here is what a pistol brace looks like compared to a rifle stock. Can you tell the difference?
Ostensibly, pistol braces are OK because they're designed to assist one-handed shooting by wrapping the brace against someone's forearm for stabilization. Here's what it looks like in action. Approximately 0.00% of pistol brace owners ever use it like that. Ever since the ATF gave the green light on "unintended uses", everyone who has a pistol brace just uses it as a quasi-stock.
It's all just a really really silly slice of the gun control debate. The gun enthusiasts love following rules to the T, but of course can't help rules-lawyering their way out of conundrums. The ATF is stuck trying to figure out how to legally split hairs. Meanwhile, anyone without a passing familiarity about firearms is probably confused about the de facto implementation of their nominally preferred policies.