Gun Rights Group Says ATF Circumventing Court Ruling That Strikes Down Pistol Brace Rule

The senior vice president of Gun Owners of America is accusing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) of attempting an end-run around court orders blocking enforcement of its own 2023 rule regulating pistol stabilizing braces.

The ATF denies violating any court orders, saying it is enforcing the existing prohibition on short-barreled rifles (SBRs).

The brace is a device invented in 2012 to assist disabled shooters with aiming large-format pistols based on rifle frames, such as the AR-15. It connects the rear of the pistol and the shooter’s forearm to steady their aim.

In April 2020, the ATF introduced a regulation of the devices. The rule was adopted on Jan. 31, 2023, because braces were being used to convert legal pistols into illegal SBRs, according to the ATF.

In December 2024, an unidentified GOA member emailed the ATF about attaching a brace to a recently purchased pistol.

Related Stories

“However, I have encountered conflicting information regarding whether this modification would require the firearm to be registered as an SBR. Could you please provide clarification on the applicable regulations?” the GOA member asked in the email.

The ATF’s Dec. 12, 2024, response raised eyebrows.

An email from the ATF’s Firearms Industry Programs Branch (FIPB) acknowledged the June 13, 2024, decision to vacate the pistol brace rule. The agency denied violating that order, stating that it was enforcing a pre-existing federal law against short-barreled rifles (SBRs).

“Federal law requires a pistol with an attached stabilizing brace or stock be registered as a short-barreled rifle (SBR),” the FIPB email stated.

“The District Court’s order does not prohibit enforcement of the National Firearms Act (NFA) or Gun Control Act (GCA).

“ATF remains responsible for enforcement of statutory provisions pertaining to a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length under the NFA and ‘short-barreled rifles’ under the GCA.’”

Under the NFA, possession of SBRs can result in fines of up to $10,000 and 10 years in prison.

Luis Valdez, GOA’s Florida director, said the ATF is trying to circumvent the court by reinterpreting the NFA and GCA.

“They’re claiming that the ability to shoulder a handgun makes it a short-barreled rifle,” Valdez told The Epoch Times.

GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt sent a letter to Megan Bennett, assistant director of the ATF’s Office of Enforcement Programs and Services, on Jan. 9, 2025.

In the letter, Pratt took issue with the ATF’s claims.

“FIPB advised this GOA member that if a pistol is equipped with a stabilizing brace, then it is an SBR as a categorical matter—irrespective of multiple courts’ orders that ATF not enforce that reasoning, and even despite the rule’s factorial test and ATF’s assurance that only ‘certain weapons equipped with ‘stabilizing braces’ would be SBRs under that test,” Pratt wrote.

In response to an email seeking comment, William Ryan, an ATF official, directed The Epoch Times to the agency’s Public and Governmental Affairs Directorate.

That office did not respond by press time.

On Jan. 13, Valdez said the ATF had not responded to Pratt’s letter either. He said the ATF’s response would factor into what action GOA takes.

“If we have to go through the courts, we’ll go through the courts,” Valdez said.

The rule was controversial from its inception.

Despite several open letters from the ATF stating that braces did not convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, the final rule reversed those decisions.

President Joe Biden called for the rule in April 2020 after 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado, were killed by a man using a gun with a stabilizing brace.

Several gun rights groups, businesses, and individuals sued the ATF, ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, and Attorney General Merrick Garland over the rule.

The lawsuits were combined into Mock v. Garland, which led to a preliminary injunction in April 2024—and eventually, the District Court decision to vacate the rule.

On Aug. 15, 2024, the government filed notice that it would appeal against that decision.