Congress, am I right?
Here’s a video of a Republican repeatedly calling Democrats stupid because of the Biden administration’s decision to ban pistol braces because the ATF has determined that they are almost always being used to convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle.
Y’all conservatives need to come up with some new fuckin jokes.
Yes, a pistol brace could be used by someone to help them overcome a physical issue that would otherwise prevent them from using a handgun. That’s true. However, it is also true that the percentage of pistol braces that were used in that way is less than 1%; from a statistician’s perspective, it is zero.
I think that Senator Kennedy believes that what he is saying is true, and I suppose there are some common definitions of the word “pistol” that would make it true. However, it is clear that Senator Kennedy is either ignorant of the content of the law regarding short-barreled rifles or is pretending that he is for some political reason.
BATFE originally took the purpose of a pistol brace at face value and approved them as legitimate accessories (in the spirit of the ADA) that did not violate the National Firearms Act. Later, they determined that all of them were being used as stocks, making all pistols with pistol braces into unregistered short-barreled rifles, so they revoked their approval. The Biden administration encouraged this change because they want to appear to be doing something about mass shootings (they’re not), but that doesn’t mean the decision is wrong. You would have to be stupid to not appreciate that a pistol with a pistol brace will be shouldered, and that makes it a short-barreled rifle according to the definition found in the National Firearms Act — which isn’t BATFE’s fault.
Now, what would be some smart ways to deal with this issue?
- You could require anyone who has a physical disability that makes a pistol brace make sense file some kind of paperwork that includes a doctor’s opinion confirming the situation, and thus allow them an exemption from the NFA’s short-barreled rifle rule.
- You could require that pistol braces could only be used with pistols that fire pistol-caliber ammunition, and those guns would be exempt from the NFA’s short-barreled rifle rule. That would fit with how Senator Kennedy is claiming that he understands the situation.
- You could modify or remove the NFA’s short-barreled rifle rule. This is the option that makes the most sense to me.
What I’m talking about here is legislation — the kind of action that Senator Kennedy could take. In fact, enacting legislation is the jackass’s whole damn job. He isn’t actually trying to do anything about the rule — he’s just trying to score points with his constituency — “owning the libs”. If he’s succeeding, it’s only because his constituents are as dumb as he is.
Side note: He also seems to be saying that you’ve got 120 days to register a braced pistol after you buy it. That’s completely wrong. It was 120 days from the change in the rule. It really sounds like this issue is just now coming to his attention and he’s dramatically misunderstood the situation. If you’ve got a pistol with a brace right now and you haven’t sent in the registration paperwork, you’re actively in violation of the law. I summarized how you can comply here: Changes to the ATF Pistol Brace Rule
The issue with short-barreled rifles isn’t really the ability to conceal. The NFA does nothing to limit concealable weapons as a category (though the original draft did require registration of all handguns, the final form does not mention them) and does not make handguns that fire rifle rounds illegal (they are still legally handguns; see, for example, the Sig Sauer P556). A stock on a weapon simply allows it to be aimed more accurately*. In effect, the short-barreled rifle rule requires registration for the crime of accuracy, which — to me — is truly absurd. Would you seriously want firearms to be less accurate? Do you want bullets to end up in random places?
Moreover, the idea that criminals will conceal short-barreled rifles appears to be the product of fantasy and not fact. In the case cited by the Biden administration (2021 Boulder mass shooting), the shooter used an AR-15-type weapon with a short barrel and a pistol brace, but he made no attempt to conceal it. Certainly, at the time the NFA was originally created, gangsters were using Tommy guns, which were short-barreled guns with stocks that fired pistol-caliber ammunition — but were they concealing them? The shorter Tommy gun configuration was about 32 inches long. Take a 32 inch stick and you’ll find you can hide it under a long coat — this was the fantasy scenario depicted by Hollywood in the 1930’s. Now, though, try to conceal it while getting in or out of a car, and tell me how you conceal it in August.
Anyone with a concealed carry permit can tell you that concealing a firearm is actually difficult — a whole area of expertise that you must develop — and that there are limits. Back in the day, I did try to figure out how to conceal a full-size handgun; it was ridiculous and I gave up on that. I certainly would never try to conceal anything bigger (even an AR-15 pistol without a brace is much bigger than a full-size handgun). Moreover, if you look at mass murders, proper aiming is not required at the distances those monsters shoot their victims.
People buy short-barreled rifles for 3 reasons:
- Convenience: Because they are slightly easier to store and transport.
- Fashion: Because gun culture considers them to be cool.
- Home Defense: Because a pistol-caliber short-barreled rifle is easier to shoot accurately for smaller people making it superior to a handgun for home defense, and rifle-caliber short-barreled rifle is superior to a long-barreled rifle for home defense because there isn’t much space inside most people’s homes. (Yes, I know Biden wants you to get a shotgun, but that’s a whole nother topic.)
Outside and in public buildings (i.e., where mass shootings occur), shorter rifles should not offer a significant advantage over standard-length rifles. If short-barreled rifles were more legal, they might become the “weapon of choice” for many people — but not because they increase lethality or are easy to conceal. Most guns used by mass murderers were also black, and most of the ammunition used by mass murderers featured a brass case; these features are not relevant to the problem.
None of the above is a reason why a short-barreled rifle should require a difficult bureaucratic procedure and a $200 fee, so if anyone is sincerely concerned about the law being stupid, then just repeal the short-barreled rifle portion of the National Firearms Act. Problem solved. While its true that the BATFE shouldn’t be creating legislation, they’ve been stuck enforcing a nonsensical, outdated law and they don’t have a choice.
*You can also use sling tension to stabilize a pistol.