The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that ATF’s Final Rule regarding most pistols with stabilizing braces being classified as short-barreled rifles is arbitrary and capricious. The case, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland (“FRAC”), was decided on August 9 by Judge Steven Grasz.
In the decision, illustrations were provided, including one showing a shooter with the brace’s strap wrapped around his forearm and a cuff supporting the forearm, allowing for easier handling of a heavy pistol with one hand. At its peak popularity in 2020, there were seven million braces owned by the public. Many more were sold between then and the publication of the Final Rule in 2023. The ATF had previously deemed the braces legal. However, as noted by the court, “The consequence of the ATF’s about-face is that many individuals, relying on the ATF’s previous classifications, were apparently committing felonies for years by possessing braced weapons.”
The first step of the ATF rule involves determining if the rearward attachment of a brace allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, but it does not provide specific mathematical guidance as a standard. The court criticized ATF’s implication that setting actual dimensions would lead to rule circumvention, stating that parties may simply wish to comply with the law rather than evade it.
The rule’s second step evaluates how a brace is marketed and its use in the community, basing criminal liability on third parties’ intent, which a possessor may be unaware of. The court raised concerns about the lack of specificity in evaluating these criteria and the circular reasoning involved in determining community use.
ATF provided two “Slideshows” of photographs of braced pistols, classifying all as likely short-barreled rifles without explaining the reasoning behind this decision. The court criticized ATF’s burden-shifting argument, comparing it to shouldering a rifle by the barrel.
The court found the Final Rule arbitrary and capricious, remanding the case to the district court for reconsideration of a preliminary injunction. Judge Bobby Ed Shepherd dissented, citing the vacatur of the Final Rule in Mock v. Garland as a reason to not issue a preliminary injunction.
Despite the vacatur in Mock v. Garland, the government had threatened prosecution in the Supreme Court oral argument regarding bump stocks. This highlights the uncertainty surrounding regulatory actions in the firearms industry.
Gun owners all over the country enjoy cracking open a cold one next to the fire with their loyal dog by their side. During a recent Supreme Court hearing, Justice Alito raised concerns about bump stock owners potentially facing criminal prosecution despite a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deeming it legal.
In another case, Attorney General Garland has appealed a district court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit, which could potentially reverse the vacatur ruling. The government is still pursuing cases against individuals in possession of braced pistols, even after the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.
The lack of consensus among different circuit courts adds complexity to the legal landscape surrounding gun ownership. The Supreme Court may be faced with deciding on numerous gun-related cases in the near future. However, it begs the question whether society truly benefited from the ATF’s classification of braced pistols as pistols rather than short-barreled rifles.
Source link
