17 states join GOA/GOF and sue ATF’s new firearms rule on 80 percent/kits

Update to Mock v Garland (ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12633434
LiveLife said:
FPC intends to seek clarification as to who is covered under the scope of the injunction.
Click to expand...
Ex FPC attorney discuss 5th Circuit's response to FPC request for clarification who are actually covered (scope) by the preliminary injunction:
 
Last edited:
Update to Palmer v Lombardo (NV self-built firearm and parts ban) - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...137176/Palmer_v_Lombardo_Order.pdf?1685137176

9th Circuit remanded FPC's lawsuit challenging Nevada's ban on self-built firearms and parts "to the district court solely to develop the historical and factual record" in light of Bruen:

... Applying this court’s prior two-step test to evaluate Second Amendment claims, the district court concluded that A.B. 286 survived intermediate scrutiny because it is a “reasonable fit” to Nevada’s “substantial or important interest” in preserving “the ability of law enforcement to conduct serial number tracing.”

After Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal, the Supreme Court abrogated (abolished) the two-step framework applied by the district court.

Under Bruen: [W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

As with other pre-Bruen Second Amendment determinations, the parties did not fully develop the historical and factual record. Accordingly, we remand to the district court solely to develop the historical and factual record. We direct the district court to make findings as to:

(1) whether A.B. 286 conforms to “this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,”
(2) whether it is possible in Nevada to lawfully add a serial number to a self-manufactured unserialized firearm and/or unfinished frame or receiver, and if so, how and under what circumstances;
(3) whether it is possible in Nevada to lawfully obtain serialized self-manufacturing and/or self-assembly firearm kits, and if so, how and under what circumstances; and
(4) what kind of self-manufacturing Plaintiffs want to engage in.
​
We give the district court leave to make additional findings as to other factual issues it believes are relevant, under Bruen, to Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims. The district court shall allow such discovery as it deems appropriate and shall have the discretion to conduct all proceedings and enter such orders as it deems necessary or appropriate to make the findings referenced above. The district court shall make these findings at its earliest convenience.

REMANDED.​
 
Update to Mock v Garland preliminary injunction "scope" of who are actually covered - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12635819
LiveLife said:
FPC intends to seek clarification as to who is covered under the scope of the injunction.

(Likely those who were members when the lawsuit was filed) but not clear whether new members are covered and likely FPC will seek further clarification
Click to expand...
Court responded to FPC's request for clarification - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...er_on_Motion_for_Clarification.pdf?1685129339
  • IT IS ORDERED that appellants’ opposed motion for clarification of the motion panel’s May 23, 2023, order is GRANTED.
  • ... term ‘Plaintiffs’ to include the customers and members whose interests Plaintiffs Maxim Defense and Firearms Policy Coalition (‘FPC’) have represented since day one of this litigation is correct.
  • ... term “Plaintiffs in this case” includes the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members.
  • Any relief beyond what is explicitly requested, which arguably would be tantamount to a nationwide injunction, is DENIED.
I am not a lawyer, just a layperson but to me, clarification sounds like the preliminary injunction applies to membership at the time of filing of lawsuit but not new members.

And this from FPC FB page - https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1662605448833552385

We wanted and asked for a nationwide injunction to cover everybody everywhere. That was denied. On appeal, the Court limited the relief to what was clarified in the Order​
 
Last edited:
Update to Mock v Garland preliminary injunction "scope" of who are actually covered - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12636679

FPC posted this on their website - https://secure.anedot.com/firearmspolicycoalition/march2023_joingaw?sc=joingaw

"It's official: the injunction granted in FPC's pistol brace lawsuit applies to ALL FPC MEMBERS

All FPC Members are covered by this injunction."
​
So looks like FPC claiming "All FPC Members are covered by this injunction" could express to mean "since day one of this litigation" of court's clarification as members onboard on the day of filing and new members since the day of filing.
 
I wonder what ATF's response would be to 5th Circuit's clarification of preliminary injunction on pistol braces ... ;)

Update of court's clarification to Mock v Garland preliminary injunction.

FPC posted this on their FB page - https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1663224533770473474

Our friend and 2A scholar, @fourboxesdiner, made an excellent video about our Mock v. Garland pistol brace case and injunction. Check it out at https://youtu.be/XrllNyNa8lU​

Mark W. Smith, a constitutional attorney, discuss the "scope" of preliminary injunction as to who are actually covered in reading the court's clarification - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...er_on_Motion_for_Clarification.pdf?1685129339
  • Not giving legal advice, just flagging issues of the preliminary injunction and clarification given by the court
  • 5th Circuit court of appeals covers Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana
  • Initial preliminary injunction was issues by "motion" panel used on-call for emergencies
  • "Merits" panel of 3 judges who will preside over the duration of the case and make the final ruling issued the clarification to extend and expand the "scope" of preliminary injunction
  • Named plaintiffs are covered (Individual named plaintiffs and their family members residing in the same household that pistol braces are kept)
  • Maxim Defense Industries and customers are covered
  • "Likely yes" for residents of 5th Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana) who are not customers of Maxim Defense or FPC member because if the case prevails for the plaintiffs, court decision of highest court of these states will protect ALL residents of these states
  • Firearms Policy Coalition members who are residents of Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana are covered
  • FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are covered
  • New FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are likely covered as there was no limitations placed by the court on membership (Similar motion was raised for the bump stock case in 2019 but the anti 2A judge specified in the injunction the words "bonified members" to limit the scope of PI but in Mock v Garland case, such limitation was not placed and simply the word "members" was used - 11:50 minute of video)
  • At 17:00 minute of video, future/potential customers of Maxim Defense Industries, not just of pistol braces but any other product sold by Maxim Defense Industries, which could be the entire country, could be covered as the footnote of the court clarification of one member of three judge "merits" panel objecting to expand to "customers" from "motion" panel's order that limited to "plaintiffs" points out that Maxim Defense Industries must keep selling products under the PI or they will lose money/go bankrupt which means all future/potential customers must be protected to purchase from Maxim Defense Industries, that is the entire country:
*One member of the merits panel would not clarify the motion panel’s order to extend the injunction to “customers.” [2 other judges overruled one objecting judge as majority] The motion panel’s injunction was limited “to the Plaintiffs in this case.” There is no authority in the motion panel’s order to extend the injunction to an infinite number of non-parties to this case on the theory that, for full relief to be afforded to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs must be permitted to sell products to an undefined set of downstream purchasers. Full adversary briefing will assist us to confirm our court’s equitable powers under the Constitution.​

 
Last edited:
Update of court's clarification to Mock v Garland preliminary injunction.

FPC clarified on their FB page that motion panel's Preliminary Injunction and merits panel's clarification reflects original brief's meaning of representing all members (members who donate monthly, one time, occasionally to include lifetime members when offered) - https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1663304124740546560

The “since day one” was directly quoting from our brief, where we said that we have been representing all of our members from the very beginning of the case. It’s being misinterpreted because it lacks the context of the rest of our brief. See: http://firearmspolicy.org/mock

We read the order to mean that the injunction applies to all FPC members since we have always represented all of our members in this case, not a subset of members.​
 
Following preliminary injunctions for Mock v Garland and SAF v ATF, another pistol brace case is issued preliminary injunction - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12635126

Update to TX/GOA v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12548001

GOA, GOF, State of Texas secure preliminary injunction against Biden pistol brace ban - https://www.gunowners.org/goa-gof-s...ry-injunction-against-biden-pistol-brace-ban/

Judge Drew B. Tipton issued a preliminary injunction against the Biden Pistol Brace Ban in a lawsuit brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the State of Texas. This injunction applies to all members of Gun Owners of America and individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies.

This new rule from the ATF, which was slated to take effect on June 1st, stood to make millions of Americans felons overnight if they were caught in possession of an unregistered braced firearm. Researchers estimate that up to 40 million of these firearms are currently owned by law-abiding citizens.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“This assault on millions of Americans was just the latest example of President Biden trying to weaponize the DOJ against law-abiding gun owners, and we doubt it will be the last. We are incredibly grateful to Judge Tipton for hearing the pleas of our members who were facing serious prosecution simply for owning a piece of plastic – all because of an arbitrary reclassification by the ATF. GOA and our millions of members nationwide will continue to fight back against this rogue anti-gun administration at every turn in defense of our rights.”
​
Sam Paredes, on behalf of the board for GOF, added:

“While Congress was slow to act on this wide-reaching rule, GOF stepped in to defend the millions of Americans facing legal jeopardy. We are proud to have helped partially halt this rule, and hope it sends a message to anti-gunners hellbent on continuing the assault on the Second Amendment.” ​
 
From TX/GOA v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) preliminary injunction - https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/Tipton-Order.pdf

The Court is aware of several other cases where private plaintiffs are challenging the same Final Rule on identical or similar grounds. Recently, in one such case ... Mock v. Garland ... A motions panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit enjoined the Final Rule pending the expedited appellate review of the district court’s decision in Mock.

The Fifth Circuit’s preliminary injunction extended only to the plaintiffs in that case. A few days later, the Fifth Circuit clarified that the preliminary injunction also applies to the customers and members whose interests the Mock plaintiffs have represented since day one of the litigation and to the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members.

The Court finds the same relief afforded to the Mock plaintiffs is appropriate for the private Plaintiffs in this case—Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, and Brady Brown. This is because the motion in Mock and the Motion before this Court are substantially similar. Both motions seek an injunction enjoining enforcement of the Final Rule on the grounds that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Second Amendment.

... Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction ... Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule against (1) the private Plaintiffs in this case, including its current members and their resident family members, and (2) individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland. It is SO ORDERED​
 
And another preliminary injunction against pistol brace rule in Britto v ATF - https://twitter.com/FPCAction/status/1664083602525634562

There are at least seven substantially similar cases pending in federal court — including three in this District.

Mock v. Garland ... Fifth Circuit’s preliminary injunction, however, only covers the plaintiffs of the Mock case. In response to the Fifth Circuit’s preliminary injunction pending appeal, the Dallas Division granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. See Second Amendment Foundation v. ATF

In line with the Dallas Court’s decision, and because appellate review of the Rule is now expedited, this Court FINDS that the same relief ordered by the Fifth Circuit should be granted to Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case, consistent with its subsequent clarification order.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion and issues a preliminary injunction as to the Plaintiffs in this case only, pending resolution of the expedited appeal of Mock. The Court may order additional briefing at a later date in accordance with the Fifth Circuit’s decision. SO ORDERED​
 
Update to SAF v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12635126

Court clarification to preliminary injunction issued on 5/25/23 to include "members" without limitation in light of Mock v Garland court clarification of preliminary injunction - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209.65.0.pdf

In Mock, an emergency motions panel for the Fifth Circuit granted a “Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal” but limited the injunction to the “Plaintiffs in th[at] case.”

In a subsequent motion, the Mock plaintiffs asked the Fifth Circuit to clarify the injunction’s scope.

The Fifth Circuit clarified that the injunction pending appeal also applied to the plaintiff organizations’ “customers and members,” ... The court further indicated that the purpose of the clarification was simply “to preserve the status quo ante” for the “parties and persons within the reasonable scope of the motion panel’s injunction pending appeal.” (citing Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979)).

... Thus, consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s order on clarification, the Court clarifies its Order to confirm that the preliminary injunction entered in this case provides relief to both SAF and its members ... Accordingly, SAF’s members are reasonably within the scope of the Court’s preliminary injunction pending the Mock appeal.

... Accordingly, the Motion for Clarification is GRANTED, and the Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 62) applies to both SAF and its members.

SO ORDERED​
 
So there are 4 preliminary injunctions at play blocking ATF pistol brace rule as of 6/1/23 with one more pending that could cover half the country (25 states) and due to 5th Circuit motion panel issuing preliminary injunction with merits panel issuing clarification, other district cases should follow (7 cases total):
So plaintiffs, members, customers and residents of 5th Circuit are covered by the preliminary injunctions:
  • Members of FPC/GOA/SAF
  • Customers of Maxim Defense Industries (Not just pistol brace but any product sold by them)
  • Residents in 5th Circuit states of Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana

Case to watch next is FRAC v ATF as it covers residents of 25 states (List of states in the link) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12548001

Motion for Preliminary Injunction already filed - https://www.fracaction.org/_files/ugd/054dfe_367be5523b57448ba71ce8c771e87475.pdf
  • States covered are: WEST VIRGINIA, NORTH DAKOTA, ALABAMA, ALASKA, ARKANSAS, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA, IOWA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEW HAMPSHIRE, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, UTAH, VIRGINIA, and WYOMING
 
Last edited:
After casting doubt whether new FPC members are covered by the preliminary injunction in this video, Washington Gun Law is now singing a different tune stating that ALL members of SAF and FPC are covered by the injunctions (2:50 minute of video):

"Bottom line is does this injunction cover SAF members? Yes it does. And it does so because the court here is of the opinion that 5th Circuit's injunction did in fact cover all of FPC members."
​
And at 5:55 minute of video,

"... does include all the FPC members ... [SAF] is suing on behalf of all of the members, the injunction in SAF v ATF applies to all SAF members ... yes, does it appear as of Thursday, 6/1/23, that being a member of FPC or being a member of SAF ... will actually get you enjoined from the pistol brace rule according to two courts ... answer appears to be YES."​



This change falls in line with what constitutional attorney outlined on 5/29/23 that "New FPC members who are not residents of 5th Circuit states are likely covered as there was no limitations placed by the court on membership" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12637757

And on 5/30/23, FPC posted clarification that FPC was representing all members, "not a subset of members" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12638546

The “since day one” was directly quoting from our brief, where we said that we have been representing all of our members from the very beginning of the case. It’s being misinterpreted because it lacks the context of the rest of our brief. See: http://firearmspolicy.org/mock

We read the order to mean that the injunction applies to all FPC members since we have always represented all of our members in this case, not a subset of members.​
 
Last edited:
Representative Jack Bergman applauds 2A victory - https://bergman.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1096

“Law-abiding citizens should not be punished by the ATF if they require a pistol brace to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. This rule would prevent Veterans and many others who rely on the assistance of a brace from using a pistol – and that is unacceptable. I applaud the injunction and hope the Biden Administration receives this message loud and clear: law-abiding Americans don’t deserve to be stripped of their right of self-protection, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that doesn’t occur."

6/2/23 - US District Court effectively halted an overreaching rule from the Biden Administration that would have placed millions of Americans with pistol braces in legal jeopardy. The ATF had issued a new ban of those pistols which, had it not been for the District Court’s injunction, would have gone into effect on June 1st and forced law-abiding gun owners to either endure an expensive and complicated process of registering the braced pistols or to destroy them altogether.

Those who could not or would not comply with that excessive regulation would be saddled with $10,000 in fines and/or face up to 10 years' imprisonment.

Representative Jack Bergman (R-MI) has staunchly supported the Second Amendment and opposed this heavy-handed bureaucratic rule since it first emerged, issuing a letter to the Department of Justice when the rule was proposed. He also cosponsored H.J. Res. 44, to directly overturn the ATF’s pistol brace rule, and H.R. 646, the SHORT Act, which would remove short-barreled rifles and shotguns from the list of NFA-regulated firearms.​
 
At 4:20 minute of video, Washington Gun Law repeats "members" of FPC/SAF/GOA are covered by the injunctions without limiting/specifying new vs current vs at the time of filing.

 
So even with 0.6% registration, we are already surpassing "in common use" according to Supreme Court's Caetano ruling. ;)

ATF Says a Quarter Million Guns Registered Under Pistol-Brace Ban - https://thereload.com/atf-says-a-quarter-million-guns-registered-under-pistol-brace-rule/
  • The ATF told The Reload on Friday it has received just over a quarter million applications to register pistol-brace
  • That number represents just a fraction of the braced guns believed to have been sold ... ATF estimated that three to seven million ... Congressional Research Service puts the number much higher at somewhere between 10 and 40 million
  • That puts the registration rate for pistol-brace-equipped guns at between .6 percent and eight percent.
  • ... millions of gun owners don’t have to worry ... because of recent injunctions issued by a collection of federal judges ... that blocks the ATF from enforcing its rule against FPC members or Maxim Defense customers ... SAF members ... GOA members.
  • The Fifth Circuit panel ... Hearings in the case are set to begin on June 29th
 
Another preliminary injunction issued against ATF pistol brace rule in Watterson v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) filed by Texas Public Policy Foundation - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.219996/gov.uscourts.txed.219996.37.0.pdf

The Fifth Circuit’s upcoming opinion will likely answer pertinent legal issues that face the Court. In light of the Fifth Circuit’s injunction in Mock, the Court believes the proper recourse is to issue an injunction that enjoins Defendants from enforcing the rule against Watterson pending the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief Under 5 U.S.C. § 705 or, Alternatively, for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. #7) is hereby GRANTED in part. It is further ORDERED that Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule against Plaintiff in this case. The preliminary injunction shall remain in effect pending resolution of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Mock v. Garland.​
 
Last edited:
Update to Cargill v Garland (ATF bump stock ban) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-2#post-12614023

In January of this year, 5th Circuit ruled 13-3 that bump stock was not a machinegun and Final Rule on bump stock violated APA requirements - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...hat-congress-not-atf-declares-what-the-law-is

"plain reading” of section 5485(b) “reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of "machinegun.” The definition of machinegun … establishes two conditions that must obtain in order for a weapon to qualify. The weapon must operate “automatically” and “by a single function of the trigger.” According to the statute’s unambiguous language, neither condition obtains as applied to a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a non-mechanical bump stock. The failure of either condition is sufficient to entitle Cargill to judgment.

... The APA specifically sets forth standards by which courts must review agency actions—arbitrary and capricious, abuse of discretion, in excess of statutory authority, and so on ... The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the APA. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to enter judgment for Cargill." - https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/5th-Cir-en-banc-opinion.pdf
​
And here we go, ATF has appealed the bump stock case to the Supreme Court - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-976/268622/20230607180529147_22-976 Garland v Cargill Brief in Opp.pdf
 
Last edited:
Update for pistol brace cases - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12639857

Latest preliminary injunction was issued against ATF pistol brace rule in Watterson v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) filed by Texas Public Policy Foundation - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12644897

Armed Scholar/attorney Anthony Miranda who worked with FPC discuss various cases:
  • ATF pistol brace rule is in full effect as of 6/1/23 except for those covered by preliminary injunctions
  • Tax-free amnesty for SBR registration has ended with only 255K applications received viewed as small percentage of potentially tens of millions of pistol braces indicating possible mass non-compliance and/or lack of public awareness of change in ATF pistol brace rule
  • For Mock v Garland, 5th Circuit hearing will start on 6/29 and FPC will argue whether the preliminary injunction should have been nationwide
  • District court cases' preliminary injunctions are pending 5th Circuit ruling on Mock v Garland
  • House will vote next week on H.J. Res. 44, that is unlikely to pass the Senate with certainty that Biden will veto but may apply political pressures on some politicians
 
Update for SAF v ATF case - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12639857

NRA Files Papers in Legal Challenge to ATF “Pistol Brace Rule” - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...rule-defends-members-against-arbitrary-attack
 
Last edited:
NRA is jumping in because they see a potential win. That will be a bonanza when they can claim "your NRA taking it to the Feds! "

They should have been first.

I am saying this as a Patron level Patriot Life NRA Member.
 
10th lawsuit filed against ATF pistol brace rule in NAGR/TGR v ATF - https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/2023-06-08-ATF-NAGR-TGR-Complaint98.pdf

Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a new federal lawsuit against the Biden Administration on behalf of over 200,000 firearm owners across America in coordination with National Association for Gun Rights Inc. (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights, Inc. (TGR).

Lawsuit argues that a new rule from ATF usurps Congressional authority by significantly expanding the definition of “rifle” under federal law, imposing potential criminal liability on millions of Americans for exercising their Second Amendment rights.

This new lawsuit comes after WILL secured a preliminary injunction for its clients in Britto V. ATF (First ATF pistol brace lawsuit filed). Earlier this year, ATF adopted a new rule requiring 40-million gun owners to either give up their pistols or place their name on a registry and pay a tax. Under the new rule, ATF re-defines pistols with stabilizing arm braces as “short barrel rifles.”

Law-abiding citizens who do not register their pistols with ATF, or who are unable to navigate ATF’s notoriously slow red-tape-plagued process, face up to 10 years in jail and a potential $10,000 fine. ATF says gun owners must either register their firearm, “turn the firearm into your local ATF office,” or “destroy the firearm” before May 31st, 2023. That deadline has now passed and the rule is in effect.

The stabilizing arm brace is an accessory that attaches to the rear of the gun and allows the rifle to be fired one-handed. It was created in 2012 to assist disabled veterans, so that they could fire guns with safety and accuracy.
​
 
LiveLife said:
H.J. Res. 44, to directly overturn the ATF’s pistol brace rule, and H.R. 646, the SHORT Act, which would remove short-barreled rifles and shotguns from the list of NFA-regulated firearms.
Click to expand...
Update to Congressional effort to reverse ATF pistol brace rule - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12640764

Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), Second Amendment, and veterans advocacy groups issued statements on Rep. Clyde’s Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to block the Biden Administration’s unconstitutional pistol brace rule ahead of its expected vote on the House Floor [Tuesday] - https://scalise.house.gov/press-rel...orters-Release-Statements-on-Pistol-Brace-CRA

“The Biden Administration has unleashed unelected bureaucrats in the ATF to criminalize firearm ownership for millions of Americans. This is an unconstitutional assault on the Second Amendment ..."​


The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) is notifying House Members that they will be scoring [Tuesday’s] procedural rule vote on H.J. Res. 44, a resolution to nullify ATF’s ban on pistol braces - https://nationalgunrights.org/resou...congress-ahead-of-tuesdays-pistol-brace-vote/

“Congress should have acted sooner,” said Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights. “And now millions of brace owners are at risk of being fined and losing their freedom because Congress dragged their feet for months.”

“This is no time to play politics on the House floor. Every Republican in the House should support moving this resolution onto the Senate, and that is what we expect to happen. We will be scoring the rule vote. H.J. Res. 44 must move forward”​


Urge Congress to Overturn ATF’s Brace Rule - Please contact your federal legislators today and encourage them to vote “YES” on the disapproval resolution - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20230608/take-action-urge-congress-to-overturn-atf-s-brace-rule

H.J.Res.44, sponsored by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), is a disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that would invalidate ATF’s brace rule and block the agency from reissuing the same rule in the future. The U.S. Senate may consider companion legislation sponsored by Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) shortly thereafter.​


And as anticipated, White House threatens to veto GOP resolution against its pistol brace ban - https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4045638-white-house-pistol-brace-ban/

The White House on Monday renewed its support for the Biden administration’s pistol brace ban, threatening to veto a resolution that has been linked to the House conservatives’ revolt.

The GOP resolution disapproves of the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule relating to “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’” which the Biden administration released in January ... That marks a change from 2012, when the ATF said pistol attachments do not change the classification of a pistol.​
 
Congress demands ATF director answer additional pistol brace rule questions by June 29 in a new letter.

Congressman Moran Leads Letter to ATF Urging for the Repeal of Pistol Brace Reclassification Rule - https://moran.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=132

On January 31, 2023, the ATF issued a rule reclassifying pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as “short-barreled rifles”, and thus being subject to regulations under the National Firearms Act. With this rule, 99% of brace-equipped pistols would be subject to burdensome regulatory requirements that require lawful gun owners to register their pistols, pay hefty filing fees, or otherwise destroy their firearm under threat of federal criminal charges.

The last time a gun was reclassified by the ATF under the National Firearms Act, the grace period to register those firearms was open for seven years. For this rule, the ATF provided only a 120-day grace period, which ended on May 31st, 2023. Only 250,000 pistols were registered during the compliant period – an 8% compliance rate, at most.

For over a decade, millions of lawful gun owners have used these common braces with the ATF assuring them that attaching a stabilizing brace would not alter the classification of their firearm. The Supreme Court has affirmed that only Congress carries the authority to define what conduct does or does not carry criminal penalties. While an agency may at times issue interpretations of unclear laws that Congress has passed, Congress clearly defined what constitutes a short-barreled rifle – that definition does not include a stabilizing brace attached to a pistol - https://moran.house.gov/UploadedFil...r_to_ATF_re_Grace_Period_Extension_6.8.23.pdf​

Director Dettelbach,

We write with deep concerns regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive’s (“ATF”) recently published major rule entitled: “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with an Attached Stabilizing Brace” hereinafter referred to as the “Rule” and its implementation. This rule, which reclassifies millions of pistols into “short-barreled rifles” under the National Firearms Act (NFA), is troublesome on multiple fronts. The Rule contradicts the ATF’s prior determination made during the Obama Administration, on which millions of gunowners have relied over the past decade. The Rule has also been enjoined by two federal district courts, but these injunctions are not nationwide injunctions. It’s only fair that all similarly situated persons be treated the same even if they are not expressly covered by these injunctions until, at the very least, the legal issue is resolved by the courts. Furthermore, the Rule includes the 120-day grace period for lawful gun owners to register their lawfully purchased pistols as “short-barreled rifles” with the ATF. This grace period was well short of previous grace periods instituted in cases where a gun was reclassified under the NFA.

To that end, we call on you to rescind this Rule which would make felons of millions of law-abiding Americans. In issuing this Rule, the ATF has abused its rulemaking authority by criminalizing a piece of plastic that assists users in operating firearms with more precision – an action which directly opposes its 2012 determination that stabilizing braces do not automatically subject pistols to regulation as “firearms” under the National Firearms Act. Furthermore, we call on you to extend the grace period for covered gun owners to register their firearms with your agency. The shortened grace period for the pistol brace rule will ultimately lead to less compliance and the risk of turning millions of lawful firearms owners felons overnight, including military servicemembers and others stationed abroad for extended periods of times. Congressional offices already received reports of at least one instance where a military service-member deployed overseas is unable to register their firearm back home, and thus, under this ruling, will be now labeled as a felon while defending American interests abroad.

The last time ATF sought to reclassify a firearm was in 1994, when the USAS-12, Striker 12, and Streetsweeper shotguns were reclassified as “destructive devices” under the NFA. The covered grace period for these firearms to be registered lasted until 2001. Your agencies’ registration period represents a 6 year and 8 months difference in registration grace periods from the last time firearms were reclassified and forced to be registered.

It is apparent that the ATF has not done enough to communicate to and educate the general public on these rule changes and the potential consequences of not being in compliance with the new requirements. Millions of lawful firearms owners are seemingly unaware that overnight they became felons. We are extremely concerned about ATF’s decision to not allow for more time to educate the general public on the new compliance for this rule, which leads us to speculate whether ATF instituted a shortened timeline by design.

Once the Biden Administration gave the order to go through with this ill-advised policy, ATF gave an extremely shortened timeline for gun owners to comply with its overreaching Rule. Congressional Republicans made clear through numerous hearings, letters, and comments that we strongly disagree with the Biden Administration’s attempts to carry out the pistol brace rule and ATF’s overreach in attempting to make laws without Congress.

For the sake of law-abiding firearms owners across the country and Americans serving overseas, we call on you to extend the timeline for grace period registrations for lawful gun owners to fall into compliance with the ATF Pistol Brace Ruling.

Please answer the below questions by June 29, 2023:
  1. What was the impetus for the grace period to only be 120 days?
  2. Did the White House have any input on how long the registration period would be? If so, please provide all documents and communications concerning this decision.
  3. What efforts were made by the ATF to inform gun owners of the Pistol Brace rule and the risks of noncompliance?
  4. Has the ATF undergone efforts to accommodate military service-members stationed overseas on the compliance of the Rule?
  5. Will you extend the grace period to assure lawful gun owners, including those stationed overseas for extended periods of time, are not classified as felons?
  6. How many firearms were registered within the 120-day grace period?
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.


Sincerely,

Nathaniel Moran

Sam Graves, Lance Gooden, Dusty Johnson, Carlos Gimenez, Mike Johnson, Andrew Clyde, Adrian Smith, Richard Hudson, Diana Harshbarger, John R. Moolenaar, Andy Biggs, Larry Bucshon, M.D., Ryan Zinke, Jeff Duncan, Clay Higgins, Ralph Norman, Dan Crenshaw, Cliff Bentz, Julia Letlow, Chuck Edwards, Glenn “GT” Thompson, Robert J. Wittman, Tim Walberg, Pete Sessions, August Pfluger, Aaron Bean, Jodey Arrington, Guy Reschenthaler, Brian Babin, D.D.S., David Rouzer, H. Morgan Griffith, Morgan Luttrell, Roger Williams Wesley Hunt, Brad R. Wenstrup, D.P.M., Andy Barr, Jake LaTurner​
 
Update to Congressional effort to reverse ATF pistol brace rule - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12647627

House approved the legislation in 219-210 vote, sending it to the Senate. Two Republicans, Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) voted against the legislation, while two Democrats, Jared Golden (Maine) and Mary Sattler Peltola (Alaska), supported the measure - https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4048379-house-passes-pistol-brace-legislation/

Rep. Clyde's Resolution to Strike Down ATF's Unconstitutional Pistol Brace Rule Passes House with Bipartisan Support - https://clyde.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=897

"Every day, millions of Americans — including many service-disabled veterans — rely on stabilizing braces to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms. Yet through the ATF’s rule, the Biden Administration is attempting to circumvent Congress’ sole legislative authority by using executive fiat to turn these law-abiding gun owners into criminals for simply attaching this beneficial brace to their firearm.

By passing H.J.Res. 44 today, the House has sent a resounding message to both the judicial system and the nation that it firmly rejects the ATF’s unconstitutional rule and executive overreach, unapologetically defends service-disabled veterans’ unalienable right to keep and bear arms, and refuses to back down in the fight to protect all Americans’ Second Amendment liberties. I thank Rep. Richard Hudson for co-leading this vital effort with me, and I applaud our colleagues for joining us in taking a stand against the ATF’s brazen overreach and unlawful pistol brace rule.

It’s now time for the Senate to follow suit by swiftly passing H.J.Res. 44 — sending this essential legislation to the White House and forcing the President to choose between defending one of our greatest natural rights or intentionally attempting to disarm our nation and dismantle our Second Amendment freedoms."​
 
Update to Mock v Garland - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-3#post-12639857
LiveLife said:
Congress demands ATF director answer additional pistol brace rule questions by June 29 in a new letter
Click to expand...
Interestingly, 5th Circuit has scheduled 60 minutes of oral argument to begin on Thursday, June 29, 2023, at 10:00 am in the En Banc Courtroom for Mock v Garland.

FPC opening brief - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...iffs-Appellants'_Opening_Brief.pdf?1686006917

ATF opening brief - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi..._v_Garland_Brief_for_Appellees.pdf?1686930528
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LiveLife
ATF pistol brace rule lawsuits
2 3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
8K
LiveLife
LiveLife
LiveLife
ATF bump stock lawsuits
Replies
13
Views
2K
giggitygiggity
G
LiveLife
  • Locked
Congress demands ATF explain why pistol brace doesn't violate 2A in light of Bruen
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
5K
Odd Job
Odd Job
LiveLife
  • Locked
ATF goes after sellers of 80% parts/kits and sued before new rule is to go into effect on 8/24 / FRT
Replies
2
Views
782
LiveLife
LiveLife
LiveLife
Antonyuk v. Nigrelli - Supreme Court Will Rule On States Defying Its NYSRPA v. Bruen Decision
2 3
Replies
56
Views
6K
jstert
jstert
Back
Top