The United States Federal Government has finally entered into a legal agreement on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces” rule, marking the official end of the rule.
The settlement was in the case of Mock v. Bondi (formerly known as Mock v. Garland), which was filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Maxim Defense against the DOJ and ATF. The suit challenged the legality of the pistol stabilizing brace rule. The plaintiffs claimed that the rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA is a law that governs the creation of federal regulations through the rule-making process.
After former President Joe Biden took office, he ordered the ATF to reconsider its stance on pistols equipped with stabilizing braces. For years, the ATF considered pistols equipped with braces as Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) firearms, meaning that they could be transferred or owned like any other GCA gun. President Biden wanted these firearms to be regulated like National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) items. That would require registering the firearm with the ATF, submitting fingerprints and photos, engraving the gun, and paying a $200 tax stamp fee.
After being ordered by Biden to change the rules, the ATF unveiled a proposed rule. The proposed rule included Worksheet 4999. Worksheet 4999 was a point system to help gun owners know if their pistols with stabilizing braces were viewed as short-barreled rifles (SBRs) by the ATF. An SBR is a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches. Hundreds of thousands of comments were submitted by the gun-owning community about the proposed rule. The ATF is supposed to consider these comments when crafting the final rule.
When the final rule was unveiled, the rule bore no resemblance to the proposed rule. Worksheet 4999 was completely missing. The rule effectively classified nearly all pistols with stabilizing devices as SBRs. A final rule doesn’t have to be identical to a proposed rule. But, it must be a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. If it is not a logical outgrowth, then the rule violates the APA. This point is what the plaintiffs argued, as well as the ATF’s overstepping of its power by attempting to enact law through executive fiat.
At the Federal District Court level in Texas, a federal judge would find in favor of the plaintiffs and vacate the rule. The Department of Justice (DOJ) would appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. They would ask the Circuit Court to stay the lower court’s decision, but that was denied. This appeal was filed during the final months of the Biden Administration.
After President Donald Trump took office, the DOJ asked for a 60-day pause in the case to review the government’s actions. This request came after President Trump’s executive order to review any cases that violate an American’s right to bear arms. The government would decide that the case violated the Second Amendment and enter into an agreement with the Plaintiffs. The defendants voluntarily dropped their appeal, stipulating that neither side would seek legal costs. The decision means that the pistol brace rule is officially dead.
This voluntary dismissal of the government’s appeal is just the latest example of the government’s more pro-gun stance. Whereas the last administration put their full force behind trying to infringe on Americans’ firearms rights, the current administration is looking at rolling back some of those infringements.
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.
