So what’s new on the legal front with regard to pistol stabilizing braces? Well, as we anticipated in an earlier blog, the Department of Justice did in fact appeal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s ruling in Britto v. ATF to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. One of the ATF’s main arguments is that the Northern District of Texas Court shouldn’t have applied the ruling from Judge Reed O’Connor (also of the Northern District of Texas Court) in the Mock v. Garland case in determining issuance of the nationwide injunction that’s currently in place. You may remember that relief in the Mock v. Garland case included an injunction for members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and others.
Now if that all sounds a bit like legalese word salad, that’s because it kinda is. NGL The short and sweet of it all is that we gun owners still enjoy a nationwide injunction on the pistol stabilizer brace ban that the ATF tried to put in place. The ATF is appealing the injunction at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Do they stand a chance of winning? Doubtful. The ATF has lost two big cases at the 5th Circuit in recent years: the bumpstock ban and the ghost gun ban. And those cases weren’t nearly the clear-cut violation of the 2nd Amendment that this overreach is.
So what’s next, you ask? As we wrote before, the consensus within the legal community is that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will support the injunctive relief and issue a permanent injunction in the coming months. The various lawsuits against the ATF will continue for some years. No doubt that the issue will find itself in front of the U.S. Supreme Court at some point. In the meantime, Americans will be protected by the injunctions
Pistol stabilizers improve the shooter’s safety and accuracy as the AR pistol is stabilized on their forearm for support. Examples of a pistol stabilizer:
Last Wednesday, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the United States District Court in the Northern District of Texas granted injunction relief (an injunction) to prevent the ATF from enforcing the ATF’s Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces rule-nationwide. What does this mean? In short, as far as pistol braces go, we’re back to 2021.
To obtain this injunction, the plaintiffs needed to satisfy four rules:
They must be likely to prevail on the merits.
They would suffer irreparable harm if denied.
The injury outweighs any harm that would be caused if the injunction is granted.
The public interest supports relief.
Judge Kacsmaryk also noted that the rule would cause horrendous strain on companies who produce stabilizing braces. “Additionally, ATF admits the 10-year cost of the Rule is over one billion dollars,” he wrote. “And because of the Rule, certain manufacturers that obtain most of their sales from stabilizing braces risk having to close their doors for good.” Here at Shockwave, we are very thankful for all the support our customers and 2nd amendment organizations have provided to help keep the fight going. We wouldn’t still be here without you.
In the ruling Judge Kacsmaryk stated,“[T]he Court is certainly sympathetic to ATF’s concerns over public safety in the wake of tragic mass shootings. The Rule ’embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society,’” Judge Kacsmaryk wrote in Britto v. ATF. “But public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful. This Rule is not.”
There are two main items he noted in his ruling for injunctive relief:
The ATF did not follow the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
He wrote, ‘[t]he controlling law of this case is that the Government Defendants’ promulgation of the Final Rule ‘fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA’ and ‘therefore must be set aside as unlawful’ under the APA,’”
The ATF is violating the 2nd Amendment.
He added,“Absent injunctive relief, the Final Rule will impair and threaten to deprive them of their fundamental right to keep and bear commonly used arms as a means of achieving the inherently lawful ends of self-defense. See U.S. CONST. AMEND. II (providing that the ‘right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’).”
Here at Shockwave we worked tirelessly with U.S. Congressman Bilirakis, U.S. Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, and U.S. Senator Rick Scott to help overturn this rule through the power of the vote. While it won in the House, it did fail in the Senate. So, it was back to the courts to help stop this overreach. Throughout the recent months there have been many injunctions set in place for Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, FPC, and more. However, in order to be protected you would have needed to be named plaintiff or a member of one of these originations. With this new nationwide injunction from Judge Kasmaryk, that is no longer the case. All Americans are protected.
We are very thankful for all the hard work these 2nd amendment organizations do to help support companies like us and law abiding citizens who enjoy their 2nd amendment rights. So where do we go from here? Most certainly the Justice Department will appeal this ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The consensus among the legal community is that they will support the injunction relief and issue a permanent injunction in the coming months. As to the various lawsuits themselves? These will be a long endeavor and will likely take years to work through the legal system. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court will probably hear them. In the meantime, Americans will be protected by the injunctions.
Shockwave offers four different pistol stabilizers.
Pistol stabilizers improve the shooter’s safety and accuracy as the AR pistol is stabilized on their forearm for support.
Recent Comments