U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, appointed by former President Donald Trump, has intervened to halt the enforcement of a rule banning pistol braces by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), in a significant blow to the Biden administration’s push for stricter gun control
Judge Kacsmaryk, labeling the rule as “not lawful,” acknowledged the ATF’s concerns about public safety, shedding light on the complexities surrounding firearm regulations and their enforcement.
The case, Britto v. ATF, challenges the pistol brace rule under the Administrative Procedures Act, with Judge Kacsmaryk indicating that the plaintiff’s case stands a strong chance of success, potentially leading to the overturning of the ATF rule.
More Read
In reference to the Mock v. Garland case, addressing a similar ban, the court asserted that the government’s implementation of the Final Rule failed the “logical-outgrowth test” and violated the APA, categorizing it as unlawful.
Judge Kacsmaryk further emphasized potential harm to various stakeholders, including brace owners and manufacturers facing financial jeopardy due to the estimated ten-year cost of the rule exceeding one billion dollars.
A separate ruling in late October extended a preliminary injunction against the ban. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans found that the ATF finalized the rule without providing the public a meaningful opportunity to comment, rendering it invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The legal battle against the pistol brace ban originated with preliminary orders from federal judges, temporarily preventing implementation only for specific groups in limited jurisdictions.
Last month’s ruling in Texas, arising from a lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty on behalf of the National Association for Gun Rights Inc. and Texas Gun Rights, contested the ATF’s requirement for gun owners to register and pay a tax.
The lawsuit argued that such demands, affecting approximately 40 million gun owners, violated the Second Amendment infringement clause of the Constitution. Non-compliance could lead to severe consequences, including a 10-year prison sentence and fines up to $10,000. The rule also redefined pistols with stabilizing arm braces, commonly used by disabled veterans for enhanced control, as “short barrel rifles.”
This legal saga underscores the ongoing tension between gun control measures and constitutional rights, with each ruling shaping the landscape of firearm regulations and their enforcement.
