The recent ruling by a three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals represents a significant legal setback for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding its controversial rule on pistol stabilizing braces. In a 2-1 decision, the Eighth Circuit overturned a Federal District Court’s ruling that had upheld the ATF’s rule, which reclassified most pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles (SBRs) under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
This case, *Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) v. Garland*, centers on whether the ATF overstepped its authority by changing its long-standing interpretation of firearms law. For years, the ATF maintained that adding a stabilizing brace to a pistol did not transform it into an SBR, which is subject to much stricter regulation under the NFA. However, under the Biden Administration, the ATF reversed this position, issuing a final rule that would classify nearly all braced pistols as SBRs, making millions of Americans potential violators of federal law.
The Eighth Circuit’s decision is in line with similar rulings from other courts, including the Fifth Circuit, which found that the ATF’s final rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The court criticized the ATF for аbаndоning the proposed rule’s clear point system in favor of a vague and subjective standard, making compliance nearly impossible for gun owners and manufacturers.
The court’s ruling grants a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s enforcement of the rule, marking another victory for gun rights organizations that have been fighting this regulation across various courts. While the ATF may seek further review by requesting an en banc hearing in the Eighth Circuit or appealing to the Supreme Court, the chances of the rule’s revival are increasingly slim. This decision adds to the growing legal challenges against the ATF’s authority to regulate firearms through administrative rulemaking.
