FPC and FPCAF File Supplemental Brief in Lawsuit Challenging ATF Pistol Brace Rule

[Elderberry]

Firearms Policy Coalition 8/18/2023

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced the filing of a supplemental district court brief in Mock v. Garland, their lawsuit challenging the ATF’s pistol brace rule. The brief follows the Fifth Circuit determining that the rule is likely illegal and remanding the lawsuit back to the district court with instructions to reconsider the other preliminary injunction factors within 60 days. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that Plaintiff Maxim Defense, as well as everyone in the chain of commerce with it, has and will continue to suffer irreparable harm if the Final Rule is not enjoined,” argues the brief. “The market for stabilizing braces and pistols with stabilizing braces (‘braced pistols’) has essentially evaporated. Assuming Maxim Defense can even survive if the Final Rule is not enjoined, Maxim Defense and the rest of the industry will continue to lose countless millions of dollars that cannot be recouped.”

“The Fifth Circuit has already ruled that we are likely to win this case on the merits, but now we are further demonstrating to the District Court just how destructive ATF’s ‘Pistol Brace’ Rule has been to the industry and how much harm it has caused,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel in this case. “Importantly, we also address the necessary scope of an injunction, which we maintain should apply universally and nationwide–it was ATF that chose to promulgate a nationwide rule that, with the stroke of a pen, turned millions of peaceable people into felons, so it is their burden to bear that their unlawful rule should not be enforced against a single person or entity for the pendency of the litigation.”

More: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-and-fpcaf-file-supplemental-brief-in-lawsuit-challenging-atf-pistol-brace-rule

[Smokin Joe]

Regardless of outcome of the suit, the BATFE has achieved its goal to first, harm the industry, and second, to make gun owners off balance if they are trying to stay legal. Like the bump stock rules, where the stock went from legal to illegal, even though it in no way alters the function of the firearm itself (semi-automatic actions remain semi-automatic, they are just fired more efficiently).

This, along with State Laws, creates a cloud of uncertainty, and those wanting to be free from worry about what will be banned next (and not wanting to invest in something they would legally be required to surrender with the next edict), will cause markets for firearms being targeted by the press and special interest anti-gun groups to slacken. Perhaps. The effect could be just the opposite.

But whatever you do, don't use your credit/debit card, buy with cash while that is still an option.