This is relevant to the Pistol Brace rule.

The simple truth is that short rifles and short shotguns were never a problem, and continue to not be a problem today. The 1934 National Firearms Act originally wanted to restrict handgun ownership, and the clauses relating to SBRs and SBSs were simply to close the loophole of a person cutting down a rifle or shotgun to get around a handgun prohibition. That handgun (effective) prohibition was removed before the legislation was passed, but the SBR/SBS parts were left in. And thus for 89 years we have has the ridiculous legal situation in which a handgun is fine, a long gun is fine, but something in between is prohibitively regulated.

Read the rest.

The pistol brace ban started with Bumpstocks and then binary triggers. If this isn’t stopped now, all manner of features and accessories will be banned until you’re left with nothing but a flintlock. But if you read the ruling carefully, they’ll be banning all rifle stocks soon, starting with the standard six-position AR stock.

Guns.com:

With the possible removal of silencers/suppressors from National Firearms Act control, a number of legal questions around the devices emerge.

The current mechanism for change, H.R.3799 — the Hearing Protection Act — is stuck in the U.S. House but would likely see a stronger reboot in the next Congress in 2017. If a new bill gains enough momentum to make it through Capitol Hill and onto the waiting desk of President Trump, it would leave a few things undecided if signed into law with its current language.

Today, some 42 states have legalized suppressor ownership for civilians, several within just the past few years. As the HPA simply removes the items from the purview of the NFA, the states that ban them now can continue to ban them into the future. On the other hand, states that currently allow ownership could move to restrict it should the items no longer be shackled with requirements for tax stamps, registration and extensive waiting periods caused by paperwork.

“It’s no different than the states that prohibit the sale of machine guns or even certain Title I firearms,” Adam Kraut, an attorney specializing in Second Amendment rights with the Firearms Industry Consulting Group, told Guns.com.

While on the outset this fact would seem to hurt the legislation, it largely removes much of the steam from anti-gun lawmakers hailing from states that currently ban suppressors such as California and Illinois …

Oh, I would never underestimate the ability of collectivists to control everything.  Visit Guns.com and read the rest of the article, which is an interesting analysis of other questions, such as what happens to the current registry of suppressors if the law were to pass?

This is all well and good, and I hope we see progress on this front.  I mainly hope that not because of the hearing protection such devices provide (since one can currently wear hearing protection when shooting), but mainly because wearing such devices inhibits proper man-machine interface.  For example, do you find it rather difficult to get a good cheek weld on your rifle if you’re wearing muffs?  Or another way of asking it is this.  Do you find that you are modifying the way you would do things naturally because you are wearing muffs?

Again, this is all well and good.  But what about my SBR?  I want to see SBRs removed from the NFA list.  Are you listening?  I want SBRs removed from the NFA list.  You didn’t hear it that time either?  Okay.  I WANT SBRs REMOVED FROM THE NFA LIST!!!!!