This video discusses recent legal victories against the ATF concerning their rule on stabilizing braces. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the ATF's reclassification of braced pistols as Short-Barreled Rifles under the NFA and GCA is likely arbitrary and capricious, violating the Administrative Procedures Act. This ruling, alongside previous decisions, strengthens challenges against the ATF's regulatory actions.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the ATF's final rule reclassifying pistol braces as NFA-regulated short-barreled rifles is likely arbitrary and capricious. This decision, following a similar win in the Fifth Circuit's Mock v Garland case, challenges the ATF's regulatory authority under the APA.
The Supreme Court denied review in US v. Peterson, a case challenging the National Firearms Act (NFA) as applied to suppressors. The Fifth Circuit's ruling, which upheld the NFA by likening it to a 'shall issue' licensing scheme, now stands as precedent in that circuit. This decision has significant implications for future Second Amendment challenges to firearms regulations, potentially allowing broader government control over protected arms under the guise of objective licensing.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and ATF are reportedly revisiting and revising the 'frames and receivers' rule and the 'engaged in the business' rule. This follows the DOJ voluntarily dismissing its appeal in a Fifth Circuit case against the ATF, indicating the current rules are on shaky legal ground. A new notice of proposed rulemaking is expected, suggesting a strategic retreat by the government to avoid a definitive court loss and to re-attempt regulation with a revised approach.
