Update to
FRAC v Garland (ATF pistol brace ban / Backed by 25 states) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-pistol-brace-rule-lawsuits.920838/post-12961235Immediate Nationwide Block of ATF Short Barreled Rifle & Pistol Brace Rule! Now What? - FPC attorney Anthony Miranda explains decision which strikes down the ATF pistol brace rule nationwide and how the ATF is responding in other cases -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poECGEm0G44Stay order -
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66802066/117/firearms-regulatory-accountability-coalition-inc-v-garland/Before the Court is the “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of Related Case” filed on October 28, 2024...
For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the motion (Doc. No. 114). All proceedings in this case are hereby STAYED pending the issuance of a ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mock v. Garland, No. 24-10743 (5th Cir.)
The parties shall advise the Court as to the status of that case no later than seven (7) days following an order on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of November, 2024.
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
- Another huge win against ATF and their attempt to expand definition of SBR
- 8th Circuit recently ruled that pistol brace rule is invalid because the two-step analysis that was used by the ATF to determine if something ... that has a brace on it is an SBR. That two-step process that ATF is engaging in is in fact arbitrary and capricious
- 8th Circuit found ATF not defining what qualifies as rear surface area and then also not qualifying and defining what market practices are that means that this rule must be struck down in its entirety
- The plaintiffs are now asking for the entire case to be held and ultimately tied with another case ... in the 5th Circuit, Mock versus Gardland case and that case involves a nationwide block and vacature of the pistol brace rule
- In this case FRAC (Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition), which is a 2A organization, along with SB Tactical, one of the largest producer of pistol braces. And then also 25 states sued the ATF in North Dakota.
- In this case, the district court originally denied the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff then appealed that denial up to the 8th Circuit and recently a three judge panel in the 8th Circuit ruled and found the preliminary injunction should have been granted by the lower court because there was a likelihood of success on the merits of this case
- The 8th Circuit found the pistol brace rule is arbitrary and capricious in its application and therefore violates the APA
- The 8th Circuit came to the ruling by a different conclusion, ultimately the same result but there was a different analysis based on the APA. First ... found that there was a big issue with the two-step process that ATF created which determines whether or not a firearm with a pistol brace on it is actually an SBR
- ATF first focuses on whether or not there is rear surface area that can be shouldered and then the second thing they look at is whether or not there is a marketing and community standard that treats these types of attachments as intended to be shouldered
- In the opinion, the 8th Circuit stated that the Coalition alleges this step is arbitrary and capricious because ATF refused to include more specific metrics on the minimum surface area required for shouldering ... "We agree with the Coalition the ATF has articulated no standard whatsoever for determining when a stabilizing brace's rear surface area would allow the shouldering of a weapon that the regulated parties wish to see more specific metrics does not mean that they wish to skirt or circumvent the law as the ATF insinuates. They may simply wish to comply with the law by producing or equipping stabilizing braces that do not have rear surface area that allows for shouldering firing of a weapon"
- So the 8th Circuit found that the vague standard used by the ATF talking about rear surface area that could be shouldered but providing no metrics or no additional information on what qualifies as rear surface area ... that was a violation of the APA
- They then also found a major issue with some of the vague Community use and marketing standards
- One of the big issues with the 8th Circuit and what they found with this process is the fact that the ATF is trying to attribute third party conduct and intent to a specific individual so just because someone else would use a pistol brace a certain way maybe shoulder it does not mean that that's the way that the product was intended to be used and that doesn't mean that's how you as an individual will use that
- And based on that, they found that plaintiffs here FRAC were likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments because this did violate the APA
- The FRAC case challenged the new ATF rule but there were other challenges that are currently going on like the Mock versus Garland case and in that case, judge Reed O'Connor in a federal district court in Texas issued a final merits decision, which ultimately vacated the pistol brace rule in its entirety nationwide and that is what's currently protecting everyone nationwide
- Judge O'Connor also found that ATF violated the APA because the final rule was not a logical outgrowth from the proposed rule and that was one of the main basis that he used to strike down the ATF rule
- The Mock case was recently appealed to the 5th Circuit and oral arguments are pending in that case
- The plaintiffs in the FRAC case have now decided to directly tie their lawsuit in their case to the pending arguments and the hearing that are set in the 5th Circuit Mock case
- Essentially what they're arguing is that the 8th Circuit should stay this case because if the 5th Circuit rules against the ATF in Mock and upholds the nationwide vacature of this rule and again that would be applying nationwide, that would mean now that the 8th Circuit lawsuit is moot and the case could be dismissed in favor of FRAC
- And again that would lead to a domino effect where you would get a win in the 5th Circuit and then you would get a win also in the jurisdiction of 8th Circuit and the district court would have to rule in favor of the FRAC plaintiffs
- Interestingly, ATF opposed that request to stay the case because they wanted this case to proceed forward even though they keep suffering loss after loss.
- They wanted this to move forward because they don't want the two cases tied together. They wanted them separate because they want to be able to lose in the 5th Circuit, which they likely will lose in the 5th Circuit, but they don't want that loss in the 5th Circuit to result in an ultimate loss also out of the 8th Circuit
- In their opposition to the stay, the ATF argued that although a single district court in another circuit has entered an order to vacate the rule nationwide, that order is not binding on this court and will not necessarily overtake plaintiff's claims in this case particularly because the Court's merits analysis focused in part on the logical outgrowth claim, a claim not presented in this action so the ATF conceded that the Mock decision found that the brace rule violated the APA and that ruling resulted in a nationwide vacature of the rule
- So the ATF for the first time is conceding that there is a nationwide vacature of this rule
- They argue, however that the Mock decision was based on the logical outgrowth analysis and not the arbitrary and capricious standard but what the ATF fails to recognize is that if the brace rule is vacated completely for a violation of the APA, it doesn't really matter what grounds it's vacated if it's vacated nationwide, it's vacated nationwide
- And the lawsuit in the 8th Circuit in the district court in North Dakota is no longer valid and no longer needs to move forward and the 8th Circuit agreed with FRAC and ruled against the ATF once again
- The 8th Circuit ruled that the stay of this case should be granted pending the Mock decision and pending what the 5th Circuit says in the order
- 8th Circuit stated that in its motion the plaintiffs explain why they believe a stay is appropriate. - - - First they contend ATF does not dispute that the federal district court in Texas has entered an order that vacates the rule nationwide
- Second they argue that ATF does not dispute that the district court's vacature order operates on the status of agency action and thus is not party restricted and affects persons in all jurisdictions equally
- Thus the ATF agrees that if the 5th Circuit sides with the federal district court on the merits, the default remedy is vacature such that there will be no rule left for the plaintiffs to challenge
- Basic principles of judicial economy efficiency and common sense strongly favor a stay pending the 5th Circuit decision on the vacature; therefore, it was granted in favor of the plaintiffs and the case is stayed and is going to be tied essentially with what happens in Mock versus Garland out of the 5th Circuit
- So that's another big loss for the ATF
- What will likely happen now is that the ATF, if they lose again in the 5th Circuit in the Mock appeal, that will make another big domino fall in favor of us the pro 2A side and that would happen in the jurisdiction of the 8th Circuit ... in this ... FRAC case because these two cases in some ways are now tied together
- Now overall the good news is that the nationwide block of the rule is still in place and in this FRAC case and the ATF admits that yes the pistol brace rule is vacated and block nationwide as of right now
