Update to
Britto v ATF (ATF pistol brace rule) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-pistol-brace-rule-lawsuits.920838/#post-12667777
Nationwide injunction issued!
US District Court Judge Issues Nationwide Injunction Blocking Pistol Brace Ban Enforcement -
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/f...ionwide-injunction-blocking-pistol-brace-ban/
Britto v. ATF, which challenges the BATFE rule under the Administrative Procedures Act, has expanded those protected from enforcement. Instead of issuing a temporary hold on enforcement against just those who sued, yesterday US District Judge Matthew Kaczmaryk
put enforcement of the rule on ice nationwide.
As explained in Garland, “[t]he controlling law of this case is that the Government Defendants’ promulgation of the Final Rufle ‘fails fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA’ and ‘therefore must be set aside as unlawful’ under the APA. … It follows, then, that there is no injury that the Government Defendants or public-at-large could possibly suffer from if enforcement of the Final Rule were enjoined.” … Additionally, ATF admits the 10-year cost of the Rule is over one billion dollars. … And because of the Rule, certain manufacturers that obtain most of their sales from the stabilizing braces risk having to close their doors for good.
From the ruling -
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.372602/gov.uscourts.txnd.372602.68.0.pdf
1. Recent Precedent
This Court does not start with a blank slate ... recent case of Mock v Garland provides substantial guidance ... On appeal the Firth Circuit held that the Rule "was not logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule" that the "monumental error was prejudicial," and that it "must be set aside as unlawful." (Page 4)
... the "Fifth Circuit has already decided that the Final Rule violates the APA" (Page 6)
... However, "the government may not simply posit that the regulations promotes an important interest" to justify its regulation (Bruen) ... public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful. This Rule is not.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion and STAYS the Rule in its entirety.
SO ORDERED
November 8, 2023
Matthew J. Kacsmaryk
US District Judge