According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Firearms Industry Programs Branch of the Office of Enforcement Programs and Services, the Bureau can still enforce the ban on pistols equipped with stabilizing devices.

“On December 12, 2024, a member of Gun Owners of America received a response to the question posed to ATF, signed not by any identifiable ATF official, but rather generically ‘FIPB,’ standing for ATF’s Firearms Industry Programs Branch (attached with personal information redacted),” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt wrote to Assistant Director, Office of Enforcement Programs and Services Megan Bennett. “In this December 12, 2024 email, FIPB adopted a legal position about pistol braces that is (i) at odds with the opinions of various courts to have considered the Rule, (ii) likely in violation of various injunctions against ATF’s enforcement of the Rule, and (iii) in conflict with the statute and even the Final Rule itself.”

The shocking letter was sent to a Gun Owners of America (GOA) member. The GOA member inquired to the ATF about the legality of a pistol equipped with a stabilizing pistol brace. The ATF recently tried to implement a new rule that would reclassify almost all pistols with stabilizing devices to short-barreled rifles (SBR), requiring the owners to get a $200 tax stamp and register their gun under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Once the final rule was unveiled, almost every gun rights group sued the ATF to prevent the rule from going into effect.

These legal challenges have been successful. The courts largely found that the ATF overstepped its power by trying to enact the new rule at the behest of President Joe Biden. Courts have found that the Bureau violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The courts have issued injunctions against the enforcement of the rule. Almost every company that produced braced pistols before the rule made them again.

The ATF claims that although it is barred from enforcing the rule, it can still enforce its interpretation of the statute. The problem is that the rule is the ATF’s new interpretation of the statute. Before the rule, the ATF allowed braced pistols by issuing multiple approval letters. This workaround seems to depend on semantics. GOA wrote a letter to the ATF to remind them that this action violates the court orders.

“Not only is this spurious theory too cute by half, but also it likely violates the orders of the numerous courts who have expressly stated that ATF may not enforce the legal theories advanced in the Rule,” Pratt wrote to Bennett. “For ATF to claim to enforce those same theories under the statute but not under the Rule is a distinction without a difference, and one that demonstrates FIPB’s contempt for these federal courts and the rule of law.”

Moreover, the Firearms Industry Programs Branch goes beyond the rule. They claim that any pistol equipped with any brace is an SBR. Pistols equipped with braces must be registered with the NFA Division of the ATF, and will cost a gun owner $200 for a tax stamp. The enjoined rule allows for some pistol braces to be equipped with pistols without registration. The Office of Enforcement Programs and Services seems to think the rule did not go far enough. They claim all pistols with stabilizing devices are subject to registration.

The courts have not looked favorably on government agencies disregarding their orders. An injunction is to keep the status quo. This interpretation of the statute is new and, therefore, not the status quo. The ATF needs to either reverse its policy or explain how it thinks it is justified to change its interpretation, especially without notice.

No matter the Firearms Industry Programs Branch policy, they cannot take enforcement action. An administrative agency cannot overrule the judicial branch. Many think the ATF is an out-of-control agency that wants to play by its own rules. This situation is more proof of that. Ms. Bennett and her employees might not like what the courts have to say, but they are not free to ignore the courts. Any enforcement action would be met with a swift rebuke by the courts. This response seems like a scare tactic to threaten Americans into doing what the ATF wants.

GOA reached out to the Office of Enforcement Programs and Services Assistant Director Megan Bennett about her office’s policies but has not heard back from her at the time of this writing. AmmoLand News reached out to the ATF for comment but hasn’t heard back either.

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.