What? No Way! Sheeple didn’t overwhelm a Government web site to tell Big Brother that they owned something that Big Bro all of the sudden said that can’t have? That’s disgusting, citizens should crawl on their knees to the local authorities and beg for the opportunity to keep things they’ve owned for ears. 
To be fair, I would wager the #1 reason for the relatively small numbers is that the majority of braces pistol owners have no idea any of this is even happening. They legally buy a gun off the shelf at the gun store (FFL) and that’s that as far as they are concerned
Most people don’t keep an eye out to see if something they bought 100% legally is suddenly a federal felony to possess
Why do they say noncompliance??? The options are to a)register, b)load these guns and braces into boats and sink them. People simply chose the latter.
It is impossible, but would be interesting to know, how many of the 250,000 are folks that were already thinking about building an SBR and took advantage of the free stamp.
I suspect that is the case for a significant number of people who went that route. They get a free tax stamp out of the deal for something they were considering paying for anyways.
For many of the rest of the people who decided not to register their legally purchased property as newly redefined regulated and restricted items, I suspect many were unwilling to file paperwork saying they owned items that the ATF and other anti self defense folks are clearly trying to regulate out of existence one rule change at a time.
Though I think the noncompliance headline isn’t accurate either. Most folks who actually heard about the ruling probably chose the other compliance options the ATF said would keep them in compliance for the moment with their current daily whims of what is legal and what is not. So they all get to be legal for a little longer until the ATF arbitrarily decides to again attempt to turn them all into felons.
At the end of the day the brace was neat to have but it makes zero difference in the way you run the gun anyway. All you have to do is take the brace off and the buffer tube stays in place? Ok… 
But I believe most folks that own one are watching court after court setting precedents for this being a piss poor and purely politically motivated rule and will just sit on it waiting for it to get to SCOTUS where it will probably be a significant blow to the power of the ATF in general and to Biden in particular.
I have followed the evolution of the “AR pistol” over the past decade or so. I saw the braces come in and then they were ruled “OK” for 10 years or so. It was inevitable that they would ban them. The part that always worried me was the “Constructive possession” in the 86’ law. If you had the parts you were in “constructive possession” of an SBR/MG/AOW/fill in the blank.
So back in the late 80’s early 90’s it was nothing to pick up all the “full auto” parts to make an M-16 EXCEPT the “auto sear”. The safety, disconnector, hammer, carrier and even the “3rd pin”. Somebody got hemmed up for having a FA carrier and it was found out that Colt had sold a bunch of AR’s with FA carriers and internals, it was further adjudicated that a MG part did not make a MG unless you had the auto sear and your lower was cut for it. Every body was fat dumb and happy because you could run “Mil Spec” surplus parts on the cheap, just don’t cross that line.
With the advent of the SOCOM rifles with 14.5", 11", 10" and 7.5" tubes the pistol thing became real. Somebody decided to make a “brace” to enhance one armed fire ostensibly for wounded warriors and other disabled. But you weren’t allowed to shoulder the brace. Yeah right! Then it was ruled you “could” incidentally shoulder it. Then braces were acceptable. Then adjustable braces were approved for pistol use, again to aid the disabled. I knew it was an SBR, so did everyone else, especially with the LEGO adaptability of the AR platform. That said it was LEGAL for 10 years, yet the ATF never said anything that you had to have a disability to own one.
Conversely to operate a hand controlled motor vehicle there is a whole crap ton of stuff you have to prove to get it built and use it.
Now back to “Constructive Possession”: If I have a 20" A2 rifle and a 7.5" upper with no lower in the same vicinity I am in “Constructive Possession” of an SBR per the law. If I have a pistol or “Multi” lower attached to my pistol upper I’m good as long as they are built. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how I could be in “Constructive Possession” of an SBR as the difference is two pins and a swap.
The whole pistol thing to me always smelled like a set up.
Then there is the whole argument that the AR-15 platform does not meet the definition of a rifle receiver based on how it’s constructed. Which requires the barrel to be screwed into or pressed into the receiver which contains the firing assembly. It could be argued that ALL AR’s are pistols as the barrel assembly is separate from the “frame” containing the firing assembly.
Things that have bothered me from the git go that kept me from playing on the fringes of “intended” definitions.
Cheers,
Craig6
“Should it pass, President Joe Biden has promised a veto. Overriding a presidential veto would require two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.”
House passes resolution to overturn new federal gun regulation; Biden vows veto (yahoo.com)
It is interesting this falls under the “entertainment” tab of Yahoo
I’ve always been told SBRs became regulated in 1934 due to gangster use of them and easier “concealablility” under a trench coat. This link gives a completely different perspective of how SBRs accidentally got included in the National Firearms Act:
Why Are Short Barreled Rifles Actually Regulated in the US? (forgottenweapons.com)
From the article:
“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.”
I have come across that explanation in several places as well.
That explanation of how this actually came to be makes a whole lot more sense out of why the whole SBR/SBS/braced pistol conundrum makes no sense at all. It is all nonsense.
I can maybe see some arguments for wanting to have increased regulations regarding machine gun ownership. But placing those same excessive limitations on some semi automatic weapons based on some arbitrary barrel length numbers makes no sense at all and doesn’t make anyone any safer.
I gotta go with shall not be infringed on this one, too
Yeah, I know, you don’t convince “them” by simply quoting the Constitution.
But on a practical level, setting an arbitrary rate of fire limit will also not make anyone safer.
(and even if it did, making people safer still doesn’t justify control laws)
I didn’t say I would agree with those arguments. Just pointing out that I could see someone coming up with some possible arguments that were not as completely nonsensical as saying that a rifle with a 16 inch barrel is safe for everyone to own while one that has a 15” barrel is a “dangerous” weapon requiring additional fees, restrictions and regulations.
As much as I don’t have any personal interest in owning a fully automatic weapon, I would agree that the 2A protects the right of others to own one. It is clear the authors intended for citizens to at the very least have personal firearms with equal capabilities to the ones carried by soldiers in standing armies.
A local forums, some guys were saying they did about a dozen each since they were free.
I would image many who did were already planning on it.
I plan on doing the SBR but will have the class 3 dealer do it for me where they will assemble it when complete.
That explains the current rise in sea levels… 
“Stupid should hurt more” 
