Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "Dumb Laws: Stock YES, Brace NO" video.

@ekscalybur And like attaching a stock to your pistol, attaching a suppressor makes it a lot longer and thus harder to conceal, and thus in the vast majority of circumstances less useful to a criminal. If you have a pistol with both a shoulder stock and a suppressor attached, you're easily tripling its length. Meaning that if a criminal wants to conceal it for use in crimes, he'll need to take off the stock and suppressor to conceal them separately. (And even a detached stock is going to be hard to conceal unless he's wearing a coat or stuffs it in a backpack.) Which brings us back to the criminal just using a regular, non-NFA pistol for his crimes. Because it's not like when he mugs somebody he's going to pause to screw the suppressor back on and get the stock out of his backpack to put it on the pistol. The only crime I can think of where a criminal would take time to assemble his weapon on the spot before shooting is a sniper-style assassination. In which case, he'd be using a takedown rifle to get into his firing position without people noticing he's armed. Nobody's going to snipe with a pistol, even if it does have a stock attached. And remember, takedown rifles are not NFA items.
9
I honestly didn't even know until today that the NFA was originally meant to restrict pistols too. That answers a lot of the "WTF was the point of this provision?" questions about the SBR and AOW sections of the law.
5
@abb1793 Yes, the arm braces are a loophole to get around the SBR restrictions. But the SBR restrictions are a bad law, so I can't get upset about people using that loophole until ATF issued new regulations to close it.
3