Under the reg, any weapon that "provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder" is a rifle even if it isn't designed, made or intended to be fired from the shoulder....
I emphatically disagree.
This statement flatly declares "any weapon that "provides surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder" is a rifle".
And that, is certainly not true. As I have pointed out, every firearm has a surface area which allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder.
You could, for example put a .44 magnum revolver (or any stockless, braceless handgun) against your shoulder and pull the trigger. It will "go bang"! Congratulations, you have just fired the weapon from your shoulder.
Will you like it? I doubt it. Will it hurt you? very likely. But it CAN BE DONE.
This does NOT make the pistol a rifle, even under the ATF's rules. If you want to play the literal definition game, the LAW as written says "allows firing" which means it can physically be done. SO everything with a rifled barrel NO MATTER WHAT OTHER FEATURES IT HAS OR DOESN'T HAVE is a "Rifle" under the law. That literal interpretation is not what we use, nor, should it be.
Since this is obviously the case, your argument is moot.
Just as the argument that the "expanded" ATF ruling makes something a rifle. IT does not. It is a listing of the factor they are going to look at in order to make the determination if a specific firearm is, or is not legally a rifle. It does not give any explanation of how much weight the different factors will carry in making that determination, only what the factors are.
It does not change the legal classification of anything directly. Separate rulings on the status of individual firearm configurations will determine that.
Right or wrong this is the established process and has been in use regarding NFA items since the NFA was passed.
Put another way, a braced pistol (AR or otherwise) is not automatically an NFA item under the new ruling. It MIGHT BE, IF the brace meets their definition of a stock (using the new listed factors as part of the determination) then it is an NFA item. If it doesn't, then, its not, and is only a pistol, with a brace.
I respectfully submit that if the previous guidance had been consistent, the new rule would not have stated that all previous letters of determination are now cancelled and invalid.
Consistency or inconsistency often doesn't matter, it is a common practice to have new rules render all previous rules invalid. We do it with all kinds of things quite often.
If you're taking things literally, then every new rule is evidence of inconsistency, if it differs in any way from previous rules. And, if it doesn't, why make a new rule???
Always remember that the letter of the law and the intent of the law are not always 100% identical, and focusing on one, without consideration of the other is generally a fallacy.
Which one should take precedence? That should be a matter of common sense, but when it is in dispute, we rely on court rulings. This can be yet another can of worms, but that's our system, and under our system it is the Supreme Court that has the final say on any case it hears.