The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced it will review the pistol brace rule.
During a meeting with the Biden transition team in 2020, the ATF stated its two targets were pistol braces and privately manufactured firearms (PMF). The Biden administration must have taken that meeting to heart because shortly after Biden came into office, he announced a slew of anti-gun propositions, including issuing an executive order demanding that the ATF change its classification of braced-equipped pistols. The ATF presented a proposed new rule.
The controversial rule saw the ATF change its stance on pistol-stabilizing devices. For years the Bureau stated that these devices were not stocks and didn’t require additional National Firearms Act (NFA) registration when equipping the item with a pistol. The new rule changed that long-held stance.
The proposed rule had a point system allowing brace owners to determine if their brace pistol was now considered a short-barreled rifle (SBR). ATF Form 4999 was the form used in the proposed rule, and hundreds of thousands of comments were made on the form during the comment period. The point system was utterly absent when the final rule was finally unveiled. The rule made all pistols equipped with currently available braces SBRs.
Owners of braced pistols were given a short window of time to register their firearms as SBRs. This process included additional background checks, submitting fingerprints and passport photos to the ATF, along with pictures of any markings on the pistols. The $200 tax stamp usually required for an NFA item was waived through a tax forbearance. If a gun owner didn’t complete the steps, they would be guilty of a felony and face 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
After the rule was unveiled, multiple lawsuits sprung up, claiming that the rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA says a final rule can differ from a proposed one if it is a logical outgrowth of the original. The plaintiffs in the cases claimed that the two rules looked nothing alike. Moreover, the plaintiffs all contended that the rule was arbitrary and capricious. They claimed the ATF overstepped its power to make the rule.
Before the rule could go into effect, multiple courts issued injunctions against its enforcement. Shortly after, braced pistols returned to the market. The ATF kept fighting the ruling in court but kept losing. The ATF asked the courts to stay the decision until they could appeal, but those requests were denied.
Even after the ATF lost in court, the Bureau issued a letter to a member of Gun Owners of America (GOA) claiming that a CZ Scorpion equipped with a brace would still need to be registered with the ATF’s NFA Division. After pressure, the ATF reversed course on the letter and withdrew its registration demand.
Early in President Trump’s return to the White House, he issued an executive order (EO) demanding the Department of Justice (DOJ) review all legal cases and policies for Second Amendment violations. The ATF falls under the DOJ. The review of the rule is a direct result of that EO.
The rule could be pulled entirely, meaning that the status quo would be kept since it is now legal to own a braced pistol. This repeal would be helpful for gun owners who live in states that ban SBRs. If the rule were allowed to stay, those gun owners would have no choice but to get rid of their firearms, modify their guns, or face legal consequences.
This change is just one step to fix the many anti-gun moves made by the ATF under the Biden administration. The ATF has always claimed to be a partner with the gun industry, but its actions under Biden put the Bureau in an adversarial role. This change is a small step in repairing that relationship.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
