Lemme Try To Explain Better

Way back when, in 2010 or 2011 the first person to design a stabilizing pistol brace looked at what they were creating.

They'd read about how ATF went after people with Broomhandle Mausers and Hi-Powers who'd put the stocks which were designed for the guns on them.

Note: This was before the ATF granted the exemption for original and original design stocks for C&R guns.

Since his design wasn't going to be used like a stock, but did stick out the back like a stock, he asked ATF for clarification.

If it was ruled that it made an SBR, then there would be no point in continuing his work.

ATF ruled that it wasn't a stock.

What's important here is that the ATF ruled, back then, that it wasn't a stock in the exact same way that it just ruled that is today.

If your entire objection to the recent ruling is that they don't have the authority to rescind that earlier ruling because they've no legislative authority...  You're also saying that the earlier ruling exempting braces from being stocks is illegitimate because ATF has no legislative authority.

I didn't want to be right about it, but I did say we'd be where we are today about seven years ago.

What we do have today is 10-40 million people who were led to believe they weren't doing anything wrong by the very agency seeking to punish them for listening to them.

It really should be a slam dunk to get legislation passed to keep it from happening... yet.

Even if it'd die in the senate and be vetoed, we should still be introducing a bill making SBR's legally no different from any other rifle.  Get our representatives out there talking about the injustice of punishing people who made the mistake of trusting a government agency.

Inform people that the only reason for SBR's being on the NFA is because it was designed with the idea that pistols would be banned completely.