Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk put a preliminary injunction in place against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF’s) AR-pistol brace rule Wednesday, describing the rule as unlawful.
The ATF pistol brace rule targets stabilizer braces attached to AR-pistols, claiming the braces turn AR-pistols into short barrel rifles (SBRs). And since SBRs are regulated under the National Firearms Act (1934), the ATF issued its rule on AR-pistol braces to stop what it saw as a way around SBR regulations.
On January 13, 2023, Breitbart News noted the ATF’s pistol brace rule requires that owners of AR-pistols with pistol braces attached take one of the five following steps:
• Scenario 1: Turn in the entire firearm with the attached “stabilizing brace” to ATF;
• Scenario 2: Destroy the whole firearm;
• Scenario 3: Convert the short-barreled rifle into a long-barreled rifle;
• Scenario 4: Apply to register the weapon under the NFA; or
• Scenario 5: Permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” from the firearm so that it cannot be reattached.
In the case before Judge Kacsmaryk, one of the plaintiffs is Gabriel Tauscher, who deployed overseas in the war on terror, was ambushed in Minneapolis and shot 15 times, then spent 85 days in the hospital and emerged with his left arm partially disabled. He uses a stabilizer brace to help him shoot his gun and claims he will suffer irreparable harm if the ATF pistol brace rule is allowed to stand.
Another plaintiff, Shawn M. Kroll, noted that he owns an AR-pistol which he keeps for recreation and self-defense. Kroll pointed out his pistol is not manufactured to be fired from the shoulder so he uses a stabilizer brace “because it makes the firearm…safer.”
In his decision, Kacsmaryk noted that the “court is not insensitive to the ATF’s concerns over gun industry gamesmanship and attempts to circumvent the rules on SBRs.” But he followed that acknowledgement by quoting Bruen (2022), noting that the government may not justify the passage and/or existence of a regulation by “simply [positing] that the regulation promotes an important interest.”
Kacsmaryk said he is sympathetic to the ATF’s claims that the AR-pistol brace rule was intended to promote safety. However, he admonished the ATF, noting that “public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful.” He then concluded by pointing out that the ATF pistol brace rule “is not” lawful.
He issued a preliminary injunction against the rule and stayed the rule in its entirety.
The case is Britto v. ATF, No. 2:23-cv-19 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
WATCH — “Absolutely Asinine”: Don Jr. Weighs In on DOJ’s Pistol Stabilizer Braces Ban
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. AWR Hawkins holds a PhD in Military History, with a focus on the Vietnam War (brown water navy), U.S. Navy since Inception, the Civil War, and Early Modern Europe. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.