TLDR: A Federal district court has ruled that during the course of a case regarding validity of the ATF’s rule on pistol stabilizing braces the rule may shall not be enforced.
Important Background Info:
What’s a pistol stabilizing brace?
It’s an attachment designed to latch onto the a person’s forearm to stabilize a firearm.
Whats the deal with them?
An early draft of the 1934 National Firearms Act was going to add restrictions to pistols and also had restrictions on short barreled rifles & shotguns to avoid people skirting the rulings on pistols. The pistol part got removed from the final bill but the short barrel rifle/shotgun bit didn’t. The ATF has switched back and forth but their current opinion is that putting a brace on a pistol turns it into a rifle. Most pistols with a brace have short barrels making them unregistered short barreled rifles in the eyes of the ATF.
Not a law but a rule?
The Administrative Procedures Act lets government agencies interpret laws but not make new laws. Agencies must announce a proposed ruling and have a comment period before implementing it. Here the ATF claims the brace meets the definition of a stock, turning guns equiped with them from being classified as pistols into rifles. The plaintiff says this final rule is too different from the proposed ruling they had a comment period on and the braces aught to be protected by the Common Use doctrine.
They have already shown that they will ignore court rulings they dislike.
“May not be enforced” is not an adequate resolution. That leaves law abiding citizens in a state of limbo, where they can be charged with a felony for owning a legally purchased firearm, depending on how a law enforcement officer is feeling that day. This type of situation is ripe for abuse of minority groups.
“Shall not” is better than “may not” for describing this ruling. Just edited the post.
That said, I agree with your sentiment. The law should strive to be more transparent and less arcane.
Oh, well that changes the meaning quite a lot. So what happens if they can’t enforce it, but we already applied for our tax stamp? I applied way back in March and the file looks exactly the same today as when I applied. As far as I can tell nobody has even opened it yet.
I’ll preface this, this is just my prediction. But I believe the plaintiffs will file for summary judgement to get the rule permanently thrown out.
As for you assuming you have a pistol brace equipped firearm you tried to register as an SBR when they offered free tax stamps, your application will likely be declined. I say this because if the rule isn’t in effect your gun wouldn’t qualify as an SBR.
If your gun has a stock it’ll likely still get approved once it gets reviewed.
I efiled a Form 1 Dec 2022 and got mine back in Jan 2023. That was before they decide to let everyone submit applications for guns with pistol braces. I imagine they’re back logged right now.
Thanks for the information. I guess I should have listened to my buddy when he said not to waste time with the form. But I definitely didn’t feel like becoming a felon for something I legally purchased. Yeah, it’s a brace.
