Gun Rights Organization Claims ATF is Bypassing Court Decision that Invalidated Pistol Brace Regulation
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) firmly refutes claims of breaching a court order that annulled the controversial pistol brace regulation established in 2023.
The Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America (GOA) has accused the ATF of attempting to bypass court rulings that impede the enforcement of its own 2023 regulation governing pistol stabilizing braces.
The ATF stands by its assertion of not violating any court orders, stating that it is merely enforcing the existing laws regarding short-barreled rifles (SBRs).
The stabilizing brace, created in 2012, is designed to aid individuals with disabilities in aiming large-format pistols derived from rifle platforms, such as the AR-15. It is a device that connects the rear of the pistol to the shooter’s forearm, enhancing stability during aim.
In April 2020, the ATF introduced regulations concerning these devices. The rule, adopted on January 31, 2023, was justified by the ATF as necessary because such braces were facilitating the conversion of legally owned pistols into unlawful SBRs.
In December 2024, a member of GOA reached out via email to the ATF regarding the implications of attaching a brace to a new pistol they had acquired.
Related Stories
In the email, the GOA member sought clarification regarding whether this modification necessitated registering the firearm as an SBR.
The ATF’s response on December 12, 2024, raised some eyebrows.
An email from the ATF’s Firearms Industry Programs Branch (FIPB) recognized the court’s June 13, 2024, decision to vacate the pistol brace rule. Nonetheless, the agency stated it had not violated that order and maintained enforcement of existing federal laws concerning SBRs.
“Federal law mandates that a pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace or stock be registered as an SBR,” the FIPB email clarified.
“The District Court’s order does not prevent the enforcement of the National Firearms Act (NFA) or the Gun Control Act (GCA).
“The ATF is still responsible for enforcing the statutory provisions concerning firearms that have barrels shorter than 16 inches in length under the NFA, and for addressing ‘short-barreled rifles’ per the GCA.”
Possession of SBRs under the NFA can incur penalties of up to $10,000 in fines and a imprisonment term of 10 years.
Luis Valdez, GOA’s Florida director, asserted that the ATF is attempting to sidestep the court’s ruling by redefining the interpretations of the NFA and GCA.
“They assert that the ability to shoulder a handgun qualifies it as a short-barreled rifle,” Valdez informed The Epoch Times.
On January 9, 2025, GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt sent a letter to Megan Bennett, the assistant director of the ATF’s Office of Enforcement Programs and Services.
In this letter, Pratt expressed his concerns regarding the ATF’s claims.
A pistol stabilizing brace in an undated photo. Michael Clements/The Epoch Times
“FIPB informed this GOA member that any pistol fitted with a stabilizing brace is automatically categorized as an SBR—regardless of the numerous court orders instructing the ATF not to adhere to that rationale, and in contradiction to the rule’s factorial test and ATF’s earlier assurance that only ‘certain weapons equipped with stabilizing braces’ would qualify as SBRs under that test,” Pratt wrote.
In reply to a request for comment, ATF official William Ryan referred The Epoch Times to the agency’s Public and Governmental Affairs Directorate.
This office had not provided a response by the time of publication.
On January 13, Valdez noted that the ATF had also not replied to Pratt’s letter. He indicated that the ATF’s subsequent response would influence the actions taken by GOA.
“If necessary, we will pursue legal options,” Valdez stated.
The rule faced controversy since its introduction.
Despite several communications from the ATF asserting that braces did not convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, the final rule contradicted those earlier statements.
Following the tragic incident in Boulder, Colorado, where 10 individuals were killed by a gun operated by a user with a stabilizing brace, President Joe Biden pushed for the establishment of this regulation in April 2020.
Numerous gun rights organizations, companies, and individuals filed lawsuits against the ATF, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, and Attorney General Merrick Garland concerning the regulation.
These legal challenges culminated in the Mock v. Garland case, which resulted in a preliminary injunction in April 2024, and ultimately, the ruling by the District Court to vacate the regulation.
On August 15, 2024, the government announced its intention to appeal the court’s decision.
