The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the enforcement of an ATF rule reclassifying pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles, finding the rule to be vague and likely exceeding the agency’s legal authority
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reversed a lower court decision, temporarily blocking the enforcement of a controversial federal rule that reclassified pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles, subjecting them to stringent regulations under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.
The plaintiffs, which include the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, multiple states, firearm manufacturers such as SB Tactical, and individual gun owners, argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) Final Rule, issued in January 2023, is not only beyond the agency’s legal authority but also “arbitrary and capricious,” violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
The rule sought to impose NFA regulations on pistols equipped with stabilizing braces, devices originally designed to assist disabled shooters. Under the rule, millions of firearms that had been lawfully possessed would now require registration, or their owners would face potential criminal penalties.
The court noted that the ATF did not define what constitutes sufficient surface area for a firearm to be shouldered, leading to a situation where most braced pistols could be classified as short-barreled rifles under the new rule. This lack of clear guidance, the court suggested, leaves gun owners and manufacturers in a precarious position, unsure whether their actions might inadvertently violate federal law.
“The ATF has articulated no standard whatsoever for determining when a stabilizing brace’s rear surface area would allow the shouldering of a weapon,” the circuit court ruled.
Moreover, the court criticized the ATF for relying on marketing materials and community usage as factors in its classification decisions, without providing a consistent or logical framework for how these factors would be evaluated. The court found that such a vague and subjective approach could result in inconsistent enforcement, further complicating compliance for those affected by the rule.
The ruling additionally addressed the legal significance of two accompanying slideshows released by the ATF, which were intended to illustrate how the Final Rule would be applied. The court determined that the slideshows represented final agency actions with direct legal consequences, yet they lacked any detailed explanation of how the ATF arrived at its classifications, further supporting the argument that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.
“The consequence of the ATF’s about-face is that many individuals, relying on the ATF’s previous classifications, were apparently committing felonies for years by possessing braced weapons,” the ruling states. “The court found that the ATF’s reliance on marketing materials and community usage as factors for determining a weapon’s classification were ‘vague and subjective,’ leading to potentially inconsistent and unfair enforcement.”
The ruling is being celebrated as a victory by the coalition of plaintiffs that included the state of Florida, which actively challenged the rule, asserting that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority.
“In October, we issued an advisory opinion disagreeing with the Biden-Harris administration’s unlawful and overreaching gun regulation,” Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody wrote on X. “Today, we beat them in court. The Second Amendment is alive and well in Florida.”
While the Eighth Circuit’s decision does not represent a final resolution of the case, it does prevent the ATF from enforcing the rule while the legal challenge proceeds. The case will now be remanded to the district court.