A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a U.S. regulation aimed at restricting the ownership of pistol braces, gun accessories, is likely illegal. This decision is considered a victory for a gun rights group that had challenged the rule.
The ruling, delivered by a 2-1 panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in New Orleans, concluded that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had finalized the rule in January without affording the public a meaningful opportunity to comment on it.
Consequently, the panel determined that the rule was invalid under the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
Despite not immediately halting the enforcement of the rule, the court instead referred the case back to U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, Texas.
It will now be up to Judge O’Connor to decide whether to issue an order to block enforcement while the case proceeds.
If an order is issued, its applicability will be a point of decision, whether it will be valid nationwide or solely limited to the plaintiffs involved in the case.
Numerous federal judges have previously issued preliminary orders to prevent the enforcement of the rule, which was introduced by President Joe Biden’s administration and faced legal challenges from various gun rights groups.
US pistol brace rule likely illegal, federal appeals court rules https://t.co/Ge0S4R2J1t pic.twitter.com/JDc7hHdPPI— Reuters World (@ReutersWorld) August 2, 2023
However, these orders only extend to members of the respective groups within the jurisdictions of those specific judges.
The legal challenge was mounted by the Firearms Policy Coalition. Cody Wisniewski, the group’s legal representative, celebrated the ruling, referring to it as “a huge win for peaceable gun owners across the nation.”
Both the ATF and the U.S. Department of Justice declined to provide comments on the matter.
Initially introduced in 2012, pistol braces were marketed as accessories to attach pistols to the user’s forearm, offering stability and facilitating use for individuals with disabilities.
Over time, many users discovered that these braces could also be positioned against the shoulder, similar to a rifle stock.
The contentious rule categorizes certain firearms equipped with pistol braces as short-barrel rifles, taking into account factors such as their size, weight, and manufacturers’ promotional materials.
Short barrel rifles are subject to specific registration procedures, longer waiting periods for purchase, and increased taxes due to their potentially greater danger compared to handguns.
Furthermore, Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, in his written opinion, highlighted the stark contrast between the ATF’s final rule and the proposed rule offered for public feedback in 2021. He likened the change to a “rug-pull on the public.”
Meanwhile, Circuit Judge Don Willett expressed in a concurring opinion that the rule likely contravened not only the Administrative Procedure Act but also the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms.
Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson dissented from the majority, arguing that the final rule did not necessitate public comment since it primarily interpreted a law enacted by Congress.
The judges who participated in the ruling, Jerry Smith and Don Willett, were appointed by Republican former presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, respectively. In contrast, Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson was appointed by Democratic former president Barack Obama.
