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.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    “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.

    • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      “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.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • FireTower@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.