A federal judge in Florida granted a request for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of a new federal gun law related to stabilizing braces and whether they convert firearms into short-barrel rifles.
In part, the judge wrote that the ATF and other defendants, including Director Steven Dettelbach, were not able to meet the standard of showing that the ATF rule falls under “the plain text of the Second Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year that struck down a 100-year-old gun regulation in New York state. That ruling, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, found that carrying a pistol in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
“To satisfy their burden under the strictures of Bruen, defendants must, at the preliminary injunction stage, show that they are likely to prevail on plaintiffs’ challenge that these strictures find analogs in the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Judge Scriven wrote.
The disputed rule classifies some guns equipped with pistol braces as short-barrel rifles, based on several factors including their size and weight and the manufacturers’ marketing materials. Short barrel rifles are subject to special registration, longer waiting periods for purchase, and higher taxes because, according to the ATF, they are potentially more dangerous than handguns.
Those who own those firearms were required to either remove the brace, forfeit or destroy the gun, or register it and pay a registration fee, the rule stipulates.
In August, a 2–1 panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that ATF finalized the rule in January without giving the public a meaningful chance to comment on it. That made it invalid under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, the panel found.
Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith wrote in August that the ATF’s final rule was dramatically different from the proposed rule it offered for public comment in 2021. The judge said that amounted to “a rug-pull on the public.”
Circuit Judge Don Willett said in a concurring opinion that the rule likely violated not only the Administrative Procedure Act, but also the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, an issue that the majority did not address.
Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson dissented, writing that the final rule did not require public comment because it merely interpreted a law passed by Congress.
Pistol braces were first marketed in 2012 as a way of attaching a pistol to the shooter’s forearm, stabilizing it and making it easier to use for disabled people. However, many users found that the braces could also be placed against the shoulder, like the stock on a rifle.
The judge added that “the court is certainly sympathetic to ATF’s concerns over public safety in the wake of tragic mass shootings” but added that “public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful.”
“This rule is not,” he concluded.
[The ATF] rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles,” he added.
