US District Court Blocks ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule

The US District Court for the Northern District of Texas struck a blow against the ATF’s new pistol brace definition yesterday. US District Court Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk granted plaintiff Darren Britto’s motion to block the ATF from classifying pistol braces as stocks, giving hope to the owners of the 10-40 million stabilizing braces in the US.

The Context

The National Firearms Act (NFA) regulates ownership of short-barreled rifles (“SBRs,” anything with a barrel shorter than 16 inches) by forcing SBR owners to register them with the federal government and pay $200 to the ATF every year.

Stabilizing braces (also known as “pistol braces”) are an accessory that many gun owners used to circumvent this rule. Because of how the NFA is written, someone can legally buy a rifle-caliber gun with a barrel shorter than 16 inches as a “pistol,” provided the gun has no way to attach a stock to it and has never had a stock attached to it at any point. Then, they can attach a stabilizing brace to the gun, effectively turning it into an SBR.

The ATF issued rules defining pistol braces as stocks on January 31, 2023. Since then, several lawsuits have worked their way through the US court system to challenge these rules. This case, Britto v ATF, is one of them.

About the Case

While there’s only one named plaintiff in this case, there are actually three cited in the text of the ruling. They are three decorated marine veterans who sued that the ATF’s new pistol brace rules are illegal because they:

1. Violate the Second Amendment,
2. Violate the separation of powers and nondelegation principles,
3. Conflict with the NFA’s own definition of what a “rifle” is,
4. Violates the Administrative Procedure Act (a law that dictates how federal entities can make rules), and
5. Is vague.

The court found that the plaintiff’s motion for an injunction to block the rule met the legal standard for an injunction, and granted it on November 8, 2023. You can read the full text of the ruling here.

It’s important for readers to note that this injunction only applies to people who live in the US Fifth Circuit Court’s jurisdiction. If you’re living in Oregon, for example, this court case won’t apply to you for now. However, if it makes its way to the Supreme Court, this case could indeed change gun laws nationwide.

Looking Forward

Don’t bust out your braces just yet. The ATF will almost certainly appeal this decision, sending it to the US Fifth Circuit Court. That’s the same court that made waves recently after it ruled in February that people with domestic violence protective orders could still legally own guns, which sent the case to be heard at the Supreme Court.

You can safely bet that the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in Britto v ATF in the near future, too. We’ll keep an eye on the situation as it develops.