zoo One must have the specific intent described in the corpus delecti (elements) of the statute to be guilty of the crime. We’re talking about pistol braces, right?
Wrong.
The judge/jury decides if the accused had specific intent and his guilt. If it makes it that far the accused has already spent considerable $$$ on his defense. So the ride may be expensive.
Just because you don't plan to use your shoulder stock as a shoulder stock doesn't change the law.
Not just pistol braces are at issue.
Being prosecuted when following the letter of the law is clearly a case of unlawful shenanigans on the part of a tyrannical authority.
While the accused may think they were following "the letter of the law", I'll bet 99% of those who bought "arm braces" never read a single paragraph of ATF regs or the NFA, instead relying on the information provided by the manufacturer. And that's scary.
Since 1934 the NFA has required a tax on pistols with a shoulder stock. So "the letter of the law" is eighty six years old. The manufacturers and sellers of "arm braces" are relying on an ATF determination letter that represents ATFs current opinion on the legality of the arm brace design that was submitted.
Those determination letters are not law or regulation and subject to change at any time. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of these determination letters and believe it or not.......no central file, registry or database where they can be viewed. Why would they not be published or part of public record? I believe because ATF would be embarrassed at the conflicting opinions they are giving out.
Often a determination letter is issued only to have one a few months or years later with a different determination. Being an FN/Browning Hi Power collector I'm aware of these conflicting determination letters on attaching a shoulder stock to certain Inglis Hi Power pistols:
1981 letter saying reproductions are okay:
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter58.txt
1999 letter saying reproductions require NFA tax:
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter70.txt
More than a few Hi Power collectors hold to the belief that the 1981 letter is law and conveniently ignore the 1999 letter.
To accuse the victims of such unlawful prosecutions of taunting the system is the equivalent of blaming rape victims for being raped, AB.
I disagree. That's a common statement when someone points out that the victim of a property crime might bear some responsibility for the actions that made them a victim.
Man next door sends $5000 via Western Union to a Nigerian prince to get his inheritance.
Kid leaves his bike in the front yard, bike is stolen.
Store owner leaves his doors unlocked, store is ransacked.
Gun show seller leaves his guns unsecured, someone walks off with one.
Rich guy who's had too much to drink, with a bankroll and a Rolex leaves a bar in a sketchy area, gets robbed in the parking lot.
Dad leaves his loaded pistol in nightstand, four year old finds it and a tragedy occurs.
Not a one of us would say "You can't blame the victim!!!" in the above examples. Yes, there is a victim in each, but there is an assumption of risk, a negligent act or lack of action in each of those. That's wholly different than rape or sexual assault where the overwhelming majority are NOT committed by strangers.
. You Texas boys do your homework. 
