NRA wins lawsuit against the ATF's move to reclassify brace-equipped pistols

The NRA recently filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) that argues that the agency's rule to reclassify brace-equipped pistols as short-barreled rifles is unconstitutional. 

Originally, these arm braces were designed to assist individuals with disabilities or injuries in stabilizing and controlling the firearm. However, they have also become popular among firearm enthusiasts to enhance accuracy and control when shooting pistols, particularly those with shorter barrels or higher recoil. 

A federal judge blocked the ATF from enforcing its pistol brace rule while the appeals process proceeds. The U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay sided with the NRA in saying that the ATF pistol brace rule “fails the logical outgrowth test and is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and therefore, as a result, unlawful. 

He stated that there is no reason it should not consider the argument and APA claim brought by the plaintiff. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals notes that this claim likely would succeed on the merits. The final requirements for injunctive relief are satisfied. 

There is threatened injury to the NRA’s members, and it outweighs the threatened harm to the defendants (ATF) and enforcement of the final rules does not disserve the interest of the public. 

The pistol braces were first marketed in 2012. The ATF rule contested the classification of certain firearms featuring pistol bracing as short-barrel rifles, based on weight and dimensions, and manufacturer promotional materials. Officials apply special requirements for registration, lengthen waiting periods for purchase, and enhance taxes on short-barreled rifles because they are potentially more hazardous than handguns. 

The ATF argues that firearms equipped with stabilizing braces or other attachments can be submitted to the ATF for reclassification determination. Many of the firearms with a stabilizing brace will likely be classified as ‘rifles’ and can be configured for shoulder fire. 

The Fifth Circuit determined in a 2–1 decision from the previous year that the ATF finalized the rule without providing a substantial opportunity for the public to provide feedback. The tribunal determined that this rendered it inadmissible under the Federal Administrative Procedure Act.