ATF pistol brace rule lawsuits

JERRY said:
will someone with a law degree plainly state yes or no; does this latest injunction protect all non-prohibited Americans from arrest on the batfe pistol brace rule?
Click to expand...
Watch from 7:35 to 8:25 minute of video which is same as what was posted on post #81 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-4#post-12754567
www.youtube.com

How ATF's Pistol Brace Rule Just Died

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, finally catches up on yesterday's HUGE news that a court has issued a nationwide injunction against ATF's Pistol ...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

And from Colion Noir.

The ATF BRACE RULE is DEAD and now you all can go back to putting all the sweet SB Tactical braces on your AR and AK Pistols without worrying if you're breaking the law or having to pay a $200 dollar tax and waiting for three months. WELL Kind of!​
​
Judge Kacsmaryk in the Britto v. ATF case stated this: "The Court is certainly sympathetic to ATF's concerns over public safety in the wake of tragic mass shootings. The Rule embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society. But public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful. This Rule is Not. For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the motion and STAYS the rule in it's entirety."​
​
HOWEVER, if you were one of those poor souls that Registered your gun during that 120 day period. Those guns are now officially considered SBR's which means you can put a stock on them but now you can't cross state lines with it unless you get permission from the ATF.​
​
www.youtube.com

Breaking News: ATF Pistol Brace Rule Is Dead

📲 Subscribe to @ColionNoir Here: http://bit.ly/3OTkrgBBreaking News! The ATF BRACE RULE is DEAD and now you all can go back to putting all the sweet SB Tac...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Last edited:
LiveLife said:
Watch from 7:35 to 8:25 minute of video which is same as what was posted on post #81 - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-4#post-12754567
www.youtube.com

How ATF's Pistol Brace Rule Just Died

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, finally catches up on yesterday's HUGE news that a court has issued a nationwide injunction against ATF's Pistol ...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

And from Colion Noir.

The ATF BRACE RULE is DEAD and now you all can go back to putting all the sweet SB Tactical braces on your AR and AK Pistols without worrying if you're breaking the law or having to pay a $200 dollar tax and waiting for three months. WELL Kind of!​
​
Judge Kacsmaryk in the Britto v. ATF case stated this: "The Court is certainly sympathetic to ATF's concerns over public safety in the wake of tragic mass shootings. The Rule embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society. But public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful. This Rule is Not. For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the motion and STAYS the rule in it's entirety."​
​
HOWEVER, if you were one of those poor souls that Registered your gun during that 120 day period. Those guns are now officially considered SBR's which means you can put a stock on them but now you can't cross state lines with it unless you get permission from the ATF.​
​
www.youtube.com

Breaking News: ATF Pistol Brace Rule Is Dead

📲 Subscribe to @ColionNoir Here: http://bit.ly/3OTkrgBBreaking News! The ATF BRACE RULE is DEAD and now you all can go back to putting all the sweet SB Tac...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
Click to expand...
Ah, an explanation in layman's terms. Thank you.
 
I really hope this is put to bed, but until there's a law in place what's keeping ATF from just coming up with a different set of rules or guidelines? Their role is to enforce the existing laws, not interprete them (that's the judicial branch) nor create them (that's the executive branch).
I've been on this roller coaster for many years, and seen the ATF switch directions too many times.
If they're trying to enforce a law that doesn't exist, they should be held accountable.
 
wesmonster said:
I really hope this is put to bed, but until there's a law in place what's keeping ATF from just coming up with a different set of rules or guidelines? Their role is to enforce the existing laws, not interprete them (that's the judicial branch) nor create them (that's the executive branch).
I've been on this roller coaster for many years, and seen the ATF switch directions too many times.
If they're trying to enforce a law that doesn't exist, they should be held accountable.
Click to expand...
I think you mean Legislative Branch for enacting laws.
 
wesmonster said:
...until there's a law in place what's keeping ATF from just coming up with a different set of rules or guidelines? Their role is to enforce the existing laws, not interprete them...
Click to expand...

I think it's time that to learn a little something about administrative agencies.

  1. Administrative agencies are created by legislative process. A legislature (in the case of federal agencies that would be the Congress) passes a law establishing the agency and defining the nature and scope of its authority. And the legislature can change the law and thus change the nature and scope of the agency's authority.

  2. The conduct of administrative agencies is regulated by statute (in the case of federal agencies see Part I of Title 5 of the United States Code).

  3. Administrative agencies basically have two types of functions: quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial.

    • In their quasi-legislative role, they adopt regulations which have the force of law and have broad applicability.

      • In order to adopt regulations, the agencies must be specifically authorized by statute. Regulations are subject to challenge if they are inconsistent with the statutory authority.

      • In general agencies must follow certain procedures to adopt regulations. In the case of federal agencies these procedures are set out in 5 USC 553. These procedures generally included a requirement that proposed regulations be published for public comment before adoption.

    • Regulatory agencies also perform quasi-judicial functions. These functions include such things as issuing licenses, authorizing or declining to authorize acts of entities licensed by them or subject to their jurisdiction, and adjudicating charges of misconduct by persons or entities subject their jurisdiction. Examples of quasi-judicial regulatory agency action include: a medical board revoking a physician's license for a breach of professional obligations; a department of insurance issuing a company a license to operate an HMO; a department of consumer affairs licensing real estate brokers fining a real estate broker for an unlawful failure to properly maintain a trust account; or the ATF rejecting an application for an FFL.

      These are quasi-judicial because they involve determining the facts of a particular matter, identifying and interpreting the applicable law and making a decision by applying the law to the facts. In most cases, an adverse quasi-judicial act of a regulatory agency is subject to multiple levels of appeal. For example, the physician unhappy about losing his license to practice medicine usually first has a right to an administrative hearing conducted by the agency. If he's still unhappy, he can seek judicial review.
 
LiveLife said:
​
HOWEVER, if you were one of those poor souls that Registered your gun during that 120 day period. Those guns are now officially considered SBR's which means you can put a stock on them but now you can't cross state lines with it unless you get permission from the ATF.​
Click to expand...
I was one of those “poor souls” that did a Form 1. I paid $20 for fingerprints and now I have a new SBR. But if I put the brace back on isn’t it a pistol again under this injunction, since everyone else’s brace is also now a pistol again?

It’s Schrödinger’s gun.
 
Elkins45 said:
I was one of those “poor souls” that did a Form 1. I paid $20 for fingerprints and now I have a new SBR. But if I put the brace back on isn’t it a pistol again under this injunction, since everyone else’s brace is also now a pistol again?
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR

The way I understand it, if you registered braced pistol as SBR and put a stock and now put a pistol brace, you have a SBR with a pistol brace. If you registered braced pistol as SBR and kept the pistol brace, you still have a SBR with a pistol brace (If you want to transport SBR with pistol brace without concern for states with SBR rules, you can notify ATF to "un" SBR your pistol with brace.

If you did not register but was a member of 2A organizations covered by the preliminary injunctions and now under nationwide injunction, you have a pistol with pistol brace without concern for transporting through states with SBR rules.

If I am not understanding this correctly, someone correct me.
 
Last edited:
LiveLife said:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random layperson posting on THR

The way I understand it, if you registered braced pistol as SBR and put a stock and now put a pistol brace, you have a SBR with a pistol brace. If you registered braced pistol as SBR and kept the pistol brace, you still have a SBR with a pistol brace (If you want to transport SBR with pistol brace without concern for states with SBR rules, you can notify ATF to "un" SBR your pistol with brace.

If you did not register but was a member of 2A organizations covered by the preliminary injunctions and now under nationwide injunction, you have a pistol with pistol brace without concern for transporting through states with SBR rules.

If I am not understanding this correctly, someone correct me.
Click to expand...
I’ll just keep the stock on my new SBR and put the brace on another lower. That’s an easy way to be sure, not that there’s much of a chance it will ever matter to anyone.
 
Elkins45 said:
I was one of those “poor souls” that did a Form 1. I paid $20 for fingerprints and now I have a new SBR. But if I put the brace back on isn’t it a pistol again under this injunction, since everyone else’s brace is also now a pistol again?
s
It’s Schrödinger’s gun.
Click to expand...
I have been thinking about this. There would seem to be a "work around" to get back to a "braced pistol" for ARs, but you need to be carefull.

It is my understanding that at any time, you can take a "registered SBR" lower, put a 16" or greater barrel on it and treat it as a regular rifle with no restrictions.

The current injunction lets you take a short barrel upper and a brace and put it on any lower that is not either "originally sold as a rifle" or on the SBR register. This will get you back into a legal braced pistol (for now anyway).

However, as long as your "registered SBR" AR lower has a short barrel on it, I do not think it would be prudent to treat it as a braced pistol regardless of stock configuration.

For non-AR platforms an easy "work around" to get back to a braced pistol seems likely to be less practical.

You can have a gun taken off the SBR register. However, this seems risky for any braced gun unless the rule gets tossed permanently.
 
P Flados said:
I have been thinking about this. There would seem to be a "work around" to get back to a "braced pistol" for ARs, but you need to be carefull.

It is my understanding that at any time, you can take a "registered SBR" lower, put a 16" or greater barrel on it and treat it as a regular rifle with no restrictions.

The current injunction lets you take a short barrel upper and a brace and put it on any lower that is not either "originally sold as a rifle" or on the SBR register. This will get you back into a legal braced pistol (for now anyway).

However, as long as your "registered SBR" AR lower has a short barrel on it, I do not think it would be prudent to treat it as a braced pistol regardless of stock configuration.

For non-AR platforms an easy "work around" to get back to a braced pistol seems likely to be less practical.

You can have a gun taken off the SBR register. However, this seems risky for any braced gun unless the rule gets tossed permanently.
Click to expand...
The $50 solution is just to buy a new lower and transfer the old parts over, including the brace. I'm not about to give up my 'free' SBR lower given that I paid $200 for my first one.
 
P Flados said:
I have been thinking about this. There would seem to be a "work around" to get back to a "braced pistol" for ARs, but you need to be carefull.

It is my understanding that at any time, you can take a "registered SBR" lower, put a 16" or greater barrel on it and treat it as a regular rifle with no restrictions.

The current injunction lets you take a short barrel upper and a brace and put it on any lower that is not either "originally sold as a rifle" or on the SBR register. This will get you back into a legal braced pistol (for now anyway).

However, as long as your "registered SBR" AR lower has a short barrel on it, I do not think it would be prudent to treat it as a braced pistol regardless of stock configuration.

For non-AR platforms an easy "work around" to get back to a braced pistol seems likely to be less practical.

You can have a gun taken off the SBR register. However, this seems risky for any braced gun unless the rule gets tossed permanently.
Click to expand...
Just buy another AR pistol, add a brace and be happy.
 
Update to Mock v Garland (ATF pistol brace rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-4#post-12757089

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced the filing of their motion for summary judgment - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...-in-lawsuit-challenging-atf-pistol-brace-rule

The motion follows the Fifth Circuit determining that the rule is likely illegal and remanding the lawsuit back to the district court, which issued a preliminary injunction in October.​
​
“The Final Rule violates the APA because it is not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule, exceeds the Agencies’ statutory authority, is arbitrary and capricious, and violates rights and powers protected and established under the U.S. Constitution,” argues the motion. “Each of these would independently be enough for this Court to vacate the Final Rule. Taken together, they demonstrate blatant disregard for the obligations placed upon them by Congress when promulgating rules and regulations that operate to impose potential criminal penalties on law- abiding Americans.​
​
“Both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit have already determined that we’re likely to win this case and that ATF’s attempt to unilaterally reclassify millions of firearms and turn millions of Americans into felons overnight is likely unlawful and unconstitutional,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and counsel for Plaintiffs in this case. “With this brief, we’ve officially begun the process of having the Court formally strike down ATF’s rule once and for all.”​
 
Update to Mock v Garland (ATF pistol brace rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-5#post-12762792

Update to Britto v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-4#post-12758066

LiveLife said:
  • If ATF chooses to appeal the Britto preliminary injunction to 5th Circuit, odds are not in ATF's favor because 5th Circuit just ruled ATF violated APA for Mock case and any additional request for stay would likely be denied by 5th Circuit
  • ATF could approach the Supreme Court for an emergency stay as the Supreme Court recently issued 5-4 decision to grant the stay for VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule); however, VanDerStok stay request was for summary judgement while Mock/Britto are for preliminary injunction
Click to expand...
Ex FPC attorney discuss updates to Mock and Britto cases:
www.youtube.com

Supreme Court 5-4 Emergency Order Set To Block Short Barreled Rifle & Pistol Brace Decision?

In this video I breakdown an important update in the ATF pistol brace lawsuits including the current nationwide injunction!Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.ap...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Update to SAF, Mock, Britto, Texas Gun Rights Inc. and State of Texas v ATF cases.

This update was posted under FPC's Mock v Garland page under "5th Circuit (Granting of Preliminary Injunction)" - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mock

Federal government/DOJ/ATF requested to consolidate above pistol brace cases and set unified briefing schedule and lawyers for all plaintiffs did not oppose the motion to consolidate cases - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...rland_20_Motion_to_Consolidate.pdf?1703112615

And 5th Circuit granted consolidation of cases and briefing schedule - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...30-2_Order_Consolidating_Cases.pdf?1703268312

IT IS ORDERED that Appellees’ unopposed motion to consolidate this case with Mock v. Garland, Britto v. Bureau of Alcohol, Texas Gun Rights v. Bureau of Alcohol, and State of Texas v. Bureau of Alcohol is GRANTED.​
​
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellees’ unopposed motion to establish the proposed briefing schedule is GRANTED.​
 
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a random poster on THR.

So with 5th Circuit granting consolidation of cases, I am thinking nationwide preliminary injunction under Britto is maintained.

And sale of pistol stabilizing braces are back in full swing 👍 (Scroll down to "Live Inventory Search" and click the down arrow next to "Price" for lowest priced listing) - https://gun.deals/search/apachesolr_search/pistol stabilizing brace

Pistol braces starting at $29 (Save 15% with 2024 discount code) - https://www.righttobear.com/pistol-braces-stocks-and-pistol-buffer-tubes/?sort=priceasc
 
Last edited:
Never quite understood the postal brace thing, but I do hope this gets eventually decided in favor of freedom
 
Update to consolidated SAF, Mock, Britto, Texas Gun Rights Inc. and State of Texas v ATF cases - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-5#post-12793261

This update was posted under FPC's Mock v Garland page under "5th Circuit (Granting of Preliminary Injunction)" - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/mock

ATF files opening brief with 5th Circuit - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6710/attachments/original/1706030417/2024.01.22_Appellants'_Opening_Brief.pdf?1706030417

ilbob said:
Never quite understood the [pistol] brace thing, but I do hope this gets eventually decided in favor of freedom
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layperson posting on THR and retired federally certified and CA licensed surveyor of healthcare facilities (hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, rehab hospitals, clinics, dialysis centers, ICFs, nursing homes, hospices, state run facilities).

Consider pistol brace as "adaptive device/equipment".

For those with physical limitations, adaptive devices are used to accommodate limitations for them to pursue "activities of daily living". So while wheelchairs, canes, ramps, elevators, etc. aid in mobility; optical devices such as glasses, large print books, large font setting for computers/tablets/smartphones, binoculars, monoculars, scopes, night vision, red dot, fiber optic sights aid those with visual limitations. And ambidextrous magazine releases, slide locks, safeties, left handed bolt action rifles, ambi AR charging handles and left/universal spent case ejection ports (Steyr AUG, FN P90, Just Right Carbine, left handed ARs, etc.) aid those who are left handed.

Pistol braces aid those with physical limitations pursue "shooting activities". For those who have physical limitations to drive 3" screws into dimensional lumber with screw drivers, there are "adaptive devices/equipment" such as ratchet wrenches and comfortable pistol grip power drill/drivers. Even hex Allen wrenches come in long handle versions to "aid" those lacking physical strength. And when arthritis makes using a can opener difficult, there are "adaptive devices/equipment" for that.

Second Amendment did not say "Right to keep and bear arm" only for right handed people or those with 20/20 vision nor younger/stronger shooters without strength issues or physical/medical issues like arthritis. Just as technological improvements "aided" more people use First Amendment free speech (email, texting, etc.), technological improvements "aid" more people use Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
Update to Mock v Garland at district court level - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-5#post-12793261

Ex FPC attorney discuss FPC pointing out big error made while ATF tries to obtain summary judgement from lower court with Anti-Injunction Act argument because unlike the Texas suppressor lawsuit, pistol brace rule is about APA and ATF acting beyond the authority delegated by Congress as already ruled by the 5th Circuit (Jump to 5:33 minute of video) - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6710/attachments/original/1705530753/2024.01.07_108_P's_(FPC)_Reply_ISO_MSJ_and_Opposition_to_D's_MSJ.pdf?1705530753

The Court has already recognized that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling establishes “that Plaintiffs have demonstrated, a fortiori, an actual success on the merits of their APA challenge to the Final Rule.” ...​
​
The Agencies’ various arguments cannot avoid this result. The Agencies offer one new theory that the Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”) bars jurisdiction over the case because the National Firearms Act imposes a $200 “transfer tax” on all firearm transactions that are properly within its coverage, and the Final Rule would massively expand that coverage. The AIA does not apply here ...​
​
The Court should enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on all claims, vacate the Final Rule,and issue a complementary permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from treating braced pistols as “rifles” subject to the NFA ...​
  • The Anti-Injunction Act Does Not Apply To This Suit Because Plaintiffs’ APA Challenge To The Final Rule Has (At Most) A Tangential And Incidental Impact On The NFA’s Regulatory Tax.
  • The Fifth Circuit’s Logical Outgrowth Ruling Is Binding On This Court.
  • The Agencies Exceeded Their Authority When Redefining “Rifle” To Include Braced Pistols.
  • The Final Rule Is Arbitrary And Capricious.
  • The Final Rule Violates The Second Amendment.
  • The Final Rule Is Void For Vagueness.
  • The Final Rule Violates The First Amendment And The Constitution’s Structural Protections.
SCOPE OF RELIEF​
​
This Court Should Issue The “Default” Remedy Of Vacating The Final Rule, And It Should Issue An Injunction To Provide Complete Relief To Plaintiffs.​
​
A. This Is Not A “Rare” Case​
B. A Permanent Injunction Is Necessary To Supplement Vacatur And ProvideComplete Relief For The Agencies’ Unlawful Action.​
​
CONCLUSION​
​
For the reasons set for the above and in Plaintiffs’ opening brief, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; vacate, in its entirety, the Final Rule and its amendment of 27 CFR §§ 478.11 and 479.11; and enter a permanent injunction against Defendants from enforcing their “interpretation” of federal law contained in the Final Rule against Plaintiffs.​
www.youtube.com

BREAKING!!! ATF Massive Mistake Admits Suppressor & Brace Rule Tax Claims Are Invalid!

Important update in the pistol brace lawsuits. ATF now uses the Texas made suppressor lawsuit win to their advantage. BlackoutCoffee: https://www.blackoutcof...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Update to FRAC v ATF (ATF pistol brace ban / Backed by 25 states) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-pistol-brace-rule-lawsuits.920838/#post-12667777
  • Currently, there is nationwide injunction under Britto case that was consolidated with Mock case for 5th Circuit - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-5#post-12815985
  • Arguments were presented to three judge panel of the 8th Circuit last week with very little push back from the judges that possibly indicates favorable ruling for plaintiffs
  • Referencing Mock case, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC)/SB Tactical and 25 state attorneys presented arguments that ATF violated APA because it was arbitrary and capricious
  • Another argument was made that pistol braces fall outside of the plain text of what SBR is under the statute
  • Reference made regarding 8th Circuit ruling against ATF for bump stocks under APA
  • Interestingly, panel judge could not determine whether a braced pistol was in compliance or not according to confusing ATF Final Rule
  • When a judge asked if a pistol that was clearly a pistol had a brace added but then the brace was removed, ATF's response was once a braced pistol is registered under the NFA, it will forever remain a SBR even though pistol with brace removed was clearly a pistol to the judges and that was concerning :oops::oops::oops:
  • Judges asked the plaintiffs what kind of preliminary injunction they seek and response was nationwide injunction
www.youtube.com

ATF Stripped of Power To Enforce Short Barreled Rifle & Pistol Brace Rule! More Coming!

In this video I discuss the current nationwide brace injunction and important updates on the current attempts to override it!1stPhorm: www.1stPhorm.com/armed...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
Last edited:
Update to NRA v ATF (Pistol brace rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-2#post-12667803

US district court judge Sam Lindsay grants preliminary injunction for NRA members against ATF pistol brace Final Rule - https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1511894/order-granting-preliminary-injunction-003.pdf

Before the court is The National Rifle Association of America’s [NRA] Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”), filed July 24, 2023. For the reasons herein explained, the court grants the Motion ...​
​
[NRA] brought this action ... against [ATF]; ... Director of the ATF; [DOJ]; and [US AG] (collectively, “Defendants”), for alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.​
​
The Fifth Circuit in Mock focused on the plaintiffs’ claim that the Final Rule violates the APA ...​
​
... For the reasons explained ... court, therefore, grants the NRA’s Motion and request for a preliminary injunction, and it enjoins (prohibits/blocks) the ATF; Steven Dettelbach, in his official capacity as the Director of the ATF; the United States Department of Justice; and Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as the United States Attorney General from enforcing the Final Rule against the NRA’s members pending the final resolution of this action on the merits ...​
​
It is so ordered​
​

NRA Scores Legal Victory Against ATF; “Pistol Brace Rule” Enjoined From Going Into Effect Against NRA Members - https://www.nraila.org/articles/202...ed-from-going-into-effect-against-nra-members

The National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) announced a major legal victory today, as a Texas court enjoined the “pistol brace rule” from taking effect against its members. The legal win is the most expansive ruling of its kind to date – protecting millions of NRA members across the nation.​
​
The NRA filed suit in the Northern District of Texas on July 3, 2023, against the ATF, the U.S. Department of Justice, and Steven M. Dettelbach, in his official capacity as director of ATF (“Defendants”), seeking to enjoin the ATF’s unconstitutional rule, which would have reversed its long-standing position that pistol braces do not transform pistols into rifles subject to onerous registration and taxation requirements under the National Firearms Act.​
​
On March 29, 2024, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay agreed with the NRA that it has “associational standing” to pursue this case because it is a traditional membership organization whose members rely on the NRA to protect their gun rights. In other words, the NRA is the voice of its members.​
​
Further, Judge Lindsay applied the Fifth Circuit’s earlier holding in Mock v. Garland that the ATF failed to go through an appropriate notice-and-comment period before issuing its “pistol brace rule,” making major revisions to the rule without acknowledging the hundreds of thousands of negative comments from the NRA and its members across the nation, thus rendering it likely unlawful.​
​
“This is a major victory for the NRA, its members, and all who believe in Second Amendment freedom,” says NRA President Charles Cotton. “From day one, we vowed to fight back against President Biden and his rogue regulators – and to defeat this unlawful measure.”​
​
The legal win protects millions of NRA members across the nation who seek to use a pistol brace to safely use a firearm, including many lawful gun owners with disabilities. The ATF’s unconstitutional rule would have reversed its long-standing position that pistol braces do not transform pistols into rifles subject to onerous registration and taxation requirements under the National Firearms Act.​
​
The NRA successfully argued its members face irreparable harm from the new rule, which subjects law-abiding gun owners to penalties, fines, and potential prison sentences for the use of a legal plastic apparatus on some firearms.​
​
“The NRA has emerged as a leading voice in opposition to this unlawful attempt to limit Second Amendment freedom,” says NRA counsel William A. Brewer III. “When it was determined NRA members could not benefit from other injunctions, the Association moved to the tip of the spear in the advocacy and prevailed in obtaining sweeping relief for its members.”​
​
As noted in the court’s ruling, dated March 29, 2024, the NRA has obtained preliminary injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” (the “Final Rule”) against law-abiding NRA members. First announced in January 2023, the Final Rule was set to go into effect June 1, 2023. The NRA gained recognition of the irreparable harm its members face from the draconian measure.​
​
The NRA represents millions of members across the nation in preserving the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners, including hundreds of thousands of members in Texas. The NRA has approximately 350,000 members in Texas – the #1 state for NRA members.​
​
As explained in the NRA’s Complaint, many of its members were being irreparably harmed by the Final Rule, because under the rule they are forced to modify their firearms, destroy them, register them, or surrender them to the federal government under threat of criminal prosecution. Pistol stabilizing braces allow users to strap their gun to their forearm or place them on their shoulders for more stability. Millions of these devices are used by gun owners across the nation—particularly disabled veterans who need braces to safely use a pistol.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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
citizenconn
  • Locked
ATF New Pistol Brace Rule now dropping in December 2022
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
20K
Capybara
Capybara
LiveLife
17 states join GOA/GOF and sue ATF’s new firearms rule on 80 percent/kits
2 3 4 5
Replies
116
Views
10K
LiveLife
LiveLife
Pat Riot
  • Locked
ATF Rule on Braces Published Jan 31, 2023
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
125
Views
5K
rust collector
R
Back
Top