Why do you think I call them ‘bureaucraps’?<\/p>\n
Why is ATF Still Leaving Its Options Open for Prosecuting Owners of Braced Pistols?<\/a><\/p>\n The saga of ATF\u2019s enforcement of the National Firearm Act\u2019s \u201cshort barreled rifle\u201d provisions against braced pistols has been a roller coaster ride of shifting interpretations. NRA-ILA has been keeping up with, reporting on, and advocating for reform the entire time. It seemed we had reached a low point with the publication of the rule\u00a0Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached \u201cStabilizing Braces\u201d<\/em>\u00a0during the Biden-Harris administration. Yet NRA, along with other pro-Second Amendment groups, successfully challenged that rule in court, and its enforcement\u00a0was enjoined against NRA members<\/a>, as well as other plaintiff groups in similar suits. Eventually,\u00a0the rule was vacated in its entirety<\/a>. Unfortunately, that did not provide the lasting relief many had hoped.<\/p>\n Last year, we reported on\u00a0ATF audaciously claiming<\/a>, in the waning days of the Biden-Harris administration, that\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0braced pistols were subject to the NFA. It then quickly\u00a0walked backed<\/a>\u00a0that position as \u201coverbroad.\u201d<\/p>\n But then NRA\u00a0exposed the ongoing prosecution<\/a>\u00a0of Taylor Taranto for possession of an unregistered SBR, based on allegations concerning a CZ Scorpion EVO 3 S1 pistol with an attached SB Tactical stabilizing brace. Taranto moved to have the charge dismissed. In its opposition to the motion, filed during the Biden-Harris administration, the government claimed:<\/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 We reported on that case in February of 2025, and\u00a0the SBR charged against Taranto was dismissed<\/a>, \u201cin the interest of justice,\u201d under the Trump administration that April. The dismissal of Taranto\u2019s NFA charge followed\u00a0an April 7, 2025, announcement<\/a>\u00a0by the U.S. Department of Justice and ATF of a \u201ccomprehensive review of [the] stabilizing brace regulations.\u201d This was supposed to include \u201cconsultations with stakeholders, including gun rights organizations, industry leaders and legal experts,\u201d with the goal of ensuring the resulting policies are \u201cconstitutional and protective of Americans\u2019 Second Amendment rights.\u201d<\/p>\n In the meantime, though, ATF continued to resist attempts by litigants in cases remaining against the rule to obtain final judgments on the rule\u2019s illegality, claiming the issue was rendered moot by the final judgement in the case vacating the rule. This, the agency claimed, rendered the rule \u201cformally nullified and revoked[.]\u201d<\/p>\n A\u00a0March 16 government filing<\/a>\u00a0in the ongoing case of\u00a0Texas v. ATF<\/em>\u00a0has now renewed concerns that the agency reserves the right to continue bringing felony prosecutions under the NFA for possession of unregistered braced pistols. The passage in question is meant to rebut the plaintiffs\u2019 claims that there are still live issues in the case that deserve a final judgment on the merits, rather than dismissal on mootness.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In response to one such argument, the government wrote:<\/p>\n Plaintiffs also make much of the fact that defendants [i.e., the ATF] continue to enforce the NFA\u2019s and the GCA\u2019s regulation of short barreled rifles against some brace-equipped pistols, even though the Rule has been universally vacated. But that should come as no surprise, as that is consistent with how [ATF] have always explained how things work if a court vacated the Rule or enjoined its enforcement. \u2026 At any rate, that [ATF] continue to enforce certain statutory requirements and prohibitions that they have been delegated the authority and responsibility to administer is irrelevant to whether plaintiffs\u2019 APA challenge to the now defunct rule is moot.<\/em><\/p>\n The upshot of this passage is that ATF continues to assert its right to bring felony charges related to the unregistered possession of an SBR in cases solely based on braced-equipped pistols. Worse, the public has no way of knowing which braced pistols ATF believes trigger the underlying statutes. Worse still, one of the citations the government uses in making this point in its brief makes clear that ATF considers this to be the case even with respect to plaintiffs groups, like NRA members, who have obtained injunctions specifically prohibiting enforcement of the ATF\u2019s prior rule against them.<\/p>\n Does this mean a broad crackdown against those in possession of braced pistols is imminent?<\/p>\n It\u2019s impossible to say with certainty, but there are reasons to believe this is not the case. For one, ATF remains under the authority of the U.S. Department of Justice and, ultimately, the White House. Both have given repeated assurances of the intention to revisit the Biden-Harris administration\u2019s aggressive enforcement policies concerning braced pistols. And, as evidenced by the dismissal of the SBR count in the Taranto case, and DOJ\u2019s decision last year\u00a0to drop its appeal<\/a>\u00a0of the decision vacating the Biden-era rule, this has been followed up by concrete action.<\/p>\n It is also standard practice among career lawyers in the U.S. government to make arguments that maintain maximum prerogatives for government decision-making. While senior DOJ and ATF officials are signatories on the brief, it appears it was actually drafted by three DOJ career attorneys who operate under the premise that the government, as their client, should make the minimum concessions necessary to resolve any case challenging its powers.<\/p>\n These career lawyers may only be vaguely aware of the larger political issues surrounding their agencies and may indeed be consciously trying to ignore them. In a bureaucracy as sprawling as the U.S. government, functionaries must, by necessity, have some leeway in discharging their duties without senior micromanagement.<\/p>\n Of course, there is also the more cynical take that career officials may be all too aware of the political priorities of ATF and DOJ senior leadership and may be actively trying to undermine and embarrass their bosses who operate at the political levels. If this view were correct, it would not be the first time Deep State operatives publicly bucked the Trump administration\u2019s pro-Second Amendment inclinations, as in the case of\u00a0Mel Gibson\u2019s restoration of Second Amendment rights<\/a>.<\/p>\n Whatever the case may be, the uproar the issue is generating among supporters of the Second Amendment is certain to come to the attention of senior ATF and DOJ leadership, and perhaps the White House itself.<\/p>\n Swift repudiation of the position taken in the brief and elaboration of official ATF and DOJ policy concerning the legality of braced pistols would certainly go a long way to calming jangled nerves among gun-owning Americans right now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Why do you think I call them ‘bureaucraps’? Why is ATF Still Leaving Its Options Open for Prosecuting Owners of Braced Pistols? The saga of ATF\u2019s enforcement of the National Firearm Act\u2019s \u201cshort barreled rifle\u201d provisions against braced pistols has been a roller coaster ride of shifting interpretations. NRA-ILA has been keeping up with, reporting … 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],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bureaucraps","category-courts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115833","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=115833"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115833\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":115834,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115833\/revisions\/115834"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=115833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=115833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=115833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}