{"id":107483,"date":"2025-02-12T20:16:17","date_gmt":"2025-02-13T02:16:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=107483"},"modified":"2025-02-12T20:16:17","modified_gmt":"2025-02-13T02:16:17","slug":"107483","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=107483","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Despite ATF\u2019s Pistol Brace Ban Being Vacated, the Rogue Agency is Still Trying to Jail People Who Use Them.<\/a><\/p>\n

Documents filed in an ongoing prosecution for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle are raising new concerns about ATF\u2019s enforcement policy concerning pistols with attached stabilizing braces. The government\u2019s assertions of authority are truly breathtaking, claiming they can use the terms of an invalid rule to interpret the underlying statute and enforce it against U.S. citizens in felony prosecutions.<\/p>\n

We have been\u00a0reporting on<\/a>\u00a0the saga of ATF\u2019s ill-fated 2023 administrative edict,\u00a0Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached \u201cStabilizing Braces,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0ever since\u00a0the rule was proposed<\/a>. The final version of that regulation reversed more than a decade of prior statements by ATF that attaching a stabilizing brace to a pistol did not create a short-barreled rifle (SBR) regulated under the National Firearms Act. Instead, ATF would use a series of vague and open-ended criteria to determine if the braced pistol was intended to be fired from the shoulder. But the rule provided no guidance to owners of such pistols how the criteria would be applied. Instead, ATF essentially claimed, \u201cWe\u2019ll know an SBR when we see it.\u201d<\/p>\n

The pistol brace rule drew numerous legal challenges \u2013\u00a0including by the NRA<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 and several different courts found it defective on various grounds. A series of injunctions against its enforcement issued until, on June 13, 2024, a federal judge in Texas\u00a0vacated the rule<\/a>\u00a0altogether. Owners of braced pistols breathed a sigh of relief as the threat of felony prosecution seemingly abated.<\/p>\n

Last month, however,\u00a0we reported<\/a>\u00a0on an alarming email to a gun owner sent by ATF\u2019s Firearm Industry Programs Branch. The owner had asked ATF if attaching a stabilizing brace to a CZ Scorpion pistol would turn it into an SBR subject to the NFA. FIPB\u2019s reply stated: \u201cFederal law requires a pistol with an attached stabilizing brace or stock be registered as a short barreled rifle (SBR).\u201d<\/p>\n

The FIPB response also acknowledged that enforcement of ATF\u2019s pistol brace rule was enjoined, and asserted, \u201cWhile the appeal is pending, ATF is complying with the Court\u2019s order.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet ATF\u2019s idea of \u201ccompliance,\u201d according to the email, was to assert an even broader authority to treat ALL braced pistols as SBRs (not just ones fulfilling the \u201cfactoring criteria\u201d specified in its rule), based on the agency\u2019s reading of the underlying statutes.<\/p>\n

After our reporting on that email, ATF quickly\u00a0issued another statement<\/a>, walking back the categorical statement about braced pistols. \u201cATF agrees that the statement \u2018Federal law requires a pistol with an attached stabilizing brace or stock be registered as a short barreled rifle (SBR)\u2019 is overbroad.\u201d But the follow-up also continued to assert that ATF remained responsible for enforcing the underlying statutes.<\/p>\n

\u201cA firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder that meets the statutory definition of a short-barreled rifle contained in the NFA must be made and transferred in accordance with the requirements of the NFA,\u201d it stated. It did not, however, elaborate on how the agency would make this determination with respect to braced pistols or how owners of such guns might know whether ATF considers their firearms SBRs subject to the NFA.<\/p>\n

Last week, however, NRA was made aware of a pending prosecution for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle that answers this question in a shocking way. Documents the government filed in that case acknowledge ATF\u2019s enforcement of the underlying statute continues to be informed by the terms of the agency\u2019s illegal rule. The case is\u00a0U.S. v. Taranto<\/a>\u00a0in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"United<\/p>\n

Taylor Taranto was charged, among other things, with illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle under the NFA for having a CZ Scorpion EVO 3 S1 pistol with an attached SB Tactical stabilizing brace. The firearm was submitted to ATF\u2019s Firearms & Ammunition Technology Division, Field Response Branch, for a \u201ctechnical examination,\u201d which determined it was an SBR. In doing so, the examination used several of the \u201cfactoring criteria\u201d in ATF\u2019s invalidated rule, including the pistol\u2019s weight, its surface area for shouldering, its length of pull, and its sight configuration.<\/p>\n

Taranto\u00a0moved<\/a>\u00a0to have the SBR count dismissed, noting that the ATF rule on which it was based had been enjoined and vacated.<\/p>\n

The government\u2019s\u00a0opposition to this motion<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 filed on July 25, 2024 \u2013 indicated that it didn\u2019t cite the rule in its charges against Taranto and was instead relying on its authority to enforce the underlying statute. Yet, incredibly,\u00a0it admitted that it was still using the rule\u2019s criteria in its statutory analysis.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It stated:<\/p>\n

Although the rule is stayed (and, now, vacated), ATF is not barred from continuing to enforce the underlying statute as it always has: by making case-by-case determinations about whether particular braced firearms constitute \u201crifles\u201d under the statute. And of course, because the rule reflects ATF\u2019s best understanding of the statute, those determinations will naturally tend to look substantially like the determinations that would follow from applying the clear framework outline in the rule.<\/em><\/p>\n

Taranto\u2019s attorneys were incredulous in\u00a0their reply<\/a>\u00a0to the government\u2019s filing, stating: \u201cThe government\u2019s opposition has taken a truly astonishing position.\u201d They continued:<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding these repeated losses [on the validity of the braced pistol rule], the government believes it can continue with this prosecution because it is purportedly not relying on the now-vacated Rule, just relying on the legal conclusions embedded in it. Yet, in the next breath, it claims that Mr. Taranto had fair notice that he had to register the braced pistol because of that very Final Rule. The government\u2019s positions are contradictory, unfair, and most importantly not legally sound.<\/em><\/p>\n

To date, the motion to dismiss remains unresolved. Nevertheless, Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney under whose authority the government filed its July 25, 2024, opposition,\u00a0has since resigned<\/a>. Graves had also charged Taranto with offenses related to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Those charges have since been dismissed.<\/p>\n

As Taranto\u2019s attorneys note in their briefs, there is nothing in the NFA\u2019s statutory text about braced pistols. ATF\u2019s authority over such items arises purely from ATF\u2019s own extrapolations, memorialized in its rule, and found invalid by multiple courts.<\/p>\n

It is outrageous that ATF is now thumbing its nose at the federal judiciary by claiming that its faulty reasoning is\u00a0still<\/em>\u00a0operable, so long as ATF doesn\u2019t cite the rule itself as authority for that reasoning. Federal courts have held the reasoning and methodology of the rule was arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutionally vague. Thus, that same reasoning can\u2019t be used to prosecute Americans for made-up felonies under the pretext that it\u2019s a faithful reading of the statute.<\/p>\n

Matthew Graves was infamous for his strained interpretations of the law in his zeal to prosecute political protestors present in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021. One of his tactics was\u00a0invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0itself. His office\u2019s interpretation of the NFA fares no better.<\/p>\n

To date, there has not been a ruling on Taranto\u2019s motion to dismiss his SBR count. Whether the government will continue pushing this legal theory remains to be seen. In the meantime, this episode shows the continued need for reform at ATF, which under the prior administration internalized the role of anti-gun enforcers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Despite ATF\u2019s Pistol Brace Ban Being Vacated, the Rogue Agency is Still Trying to Jail People Who Use Them. Documents filed in an ongoing prosecution for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle are raising new concerns about ATF\u2019s enforcement policy concerning pistols with attached stabilizing braces. The government\u2019s assertions of authority are truly breathtaking, claiming … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107483","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bureaucraps","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107483","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=107483"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107483\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":107484,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107483\/revisions\/107484"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=107483"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=107483"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=107483"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}