President Joe Biden’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been handed another loss over its Final Rule redefining braced pistols as “short-barreled rifles,” subjecting them to regulation under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

On Friday in the case Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 8th Circuit found the pistol brace rule to be unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule. The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of 25 states, a stabilizing brace manufacturer, a firearms manufacturer as well as a number of other entities.

In the ruling, the court wrote: “The plaintiffs—a stabilizing-brace manufacturer, a firearm manufacturer, a gun association, an individual owner of braced weapons, and twenty-five states (collectively, the Coalition)—sued to enjoin the Final Rule, arguing it exceeds the ATF’s statutory authority under the NFA and GCA and is arbitrary and capricious. The district court denied the Coalition’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Coalition appeals that denial. We conclude the Coalition is likely to succeed on the merits of its arbitrary-and-capricious challenge, so we reverse and remand to the district court.”

One bone of contention between the plaintiffs and the federal government was the lack of any standard within the rule that would determine whether a braced pistol could be shouldered.

“Thus, the Coalition is likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that this step is arbitrary and capricious; 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 ruling stated. “That the regulated parties wish to see more specific metrics does not mean they wish to skirt or circumvent the law, as ATF insinuates. They may simply wish to comply with the law, by producing or equipping stabilizing braces that do not have a rear surface area that allows for shoulder firing a weapon.”

Officials from the states forming the coalition were delighted upon hearing the 8th Circuit Court’s ruling enjoining enforcement of the Final Rule.

“As Attorney General, I will defend the Constitution every single time, especially when the Biden-Harris Administration moves to eradicate Missourians’ Second Amendment rights,” Andrew Bailey, Missouri attorney general, said of the ruling. “The Constitution was meant to be a floor, not a ceiling, for our God-given rights. We will continue to do everything in our power to safeguard Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms against encroachment by unelected federal bureaucrats.”

U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer, from another coalition state, North Dakota, was equally gratified with the court’s findings.

“Today’s ruling by the Eighth Circuit is a major victory for the United States Constitution and another major blow to this overbearing federal bureaucracy, particularly the Biden-Harris administration that tramples on our rights every single day,” Sen. Cramer said. “Congratulations to Attorney General Drew Wrigley on carrying this ball across the finish line for law-abiding North Dakotans. It is an honor to be able to block for him, just a little bit, and for our citizens. Way to go, Team Wrigley and North Dakota, and all the other states that stood up for our Constitution, for the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens of North Dakota and the great country that we are a part of.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

42 COMMENTS

  1. Won’t matter much if the whore and the coward “win” in November. The whore has stated flatly that she intends to issue an executive order banning guns.

    • I don’t think it’ll carry much weight. Who will enforce it? It’s like issuing an Executive Order banning peanut butter. (Not that we won’t be in a crapload of trouble if they do win.)

    • she cant issue a ‘constitutional and legal’ executive order banning guns. Its just ‘feel good’ rethroic for the left winger anti-gun.

      She and Tim Walz thinks she can do it by executive order.

      In fact during her failed campaign for president in 2019-2020, (before she dropped out and Joe picked her for his VP) she said she would use executive order to confiscate if she was elected. Even then she was too radical for even Joe, for in that debate even Joe Biden (among others in the public and legal and constitution sectors) responded to her and told her such an executive order was unconstitutional and illegal and her response to Joe at that point was basically ‘lets do it together’. So that’s been her plan all along and I have no doubt she was behind the scenes driving Joe for executive orders and actions beyond even his own marxist socialist tyrannical leanings.

      What she doesn’t realize, and apparently Joe did, is that the public is not bound by an executive order to do something that is not codified already in law or that would be against the constitution or that would be against the constitution even if codified in law. And such executive order would automatically be null and void upon issue. Or in other words she can’t, as even Joe knew he could not, use an executive order or law or even the constitution to invoke/create or make people participate in a ‘mandatory buy back’ or submit to confiscation, or even ban firearms – this is not Canada nor any other country.

      This is why Joe issued executive order directing the ATF to do something, because those government employees in the executive branch are subject to the presidents executive orders and those not government employees or not in the executive branch are not subject to executive order. As anti-gun as Joe was, with his rhetoric about how he banned AR-15’s previously (which he actually didn’t) and how he was gonna do it it again, If it had been as simple as an executive order don’t ya think he would have done it? But no he did not do it because he knew no one was bound by such an executive order (and really not even those in the executive branch because such an order has no actual foundation in law or constitution by any stretch of the imagination), even by creative re-interpretation, which is why ATF had to create basically ‘defacto law’ in their rule making by being creative with re-interpreting to their advantage what does already exist in law and those rule making ‘defacto laws’ are being shot down at SCOTUS.

      • With regard to pistol braces, Biden seems to have managed to order it retroactively, as the first version of the redefinition came out in December 2020 when Trump was still president.

    • (since the first reply is hung up in moderation, here is an ‘altered’ version to possibly avoid this insane moderation)

      She can’t issue such a executive order.

      She and Tim Walz thinks she can do it by executive order.

      In fact during her failed campaign for president in 2019-2020, (before she dropped out and Joe picked her for his VP) she said she would use executive order to confiscate if she was elected. Even then she was too radical for even Joe, for in that debate even Joe Biden (among others in the public and legal and constitution sectors) responded to her and told her such an executive order was unconstitutional and illegal and her response to Joe at that point was basically ‘lets do it together’. So that’s been her plan all along and I have no doubt she was behind the scenes driving Joe for executive orders and actions beyond even his own mar… x.. ist soci… alist tyran …nical leanings.

      What she doesn’t realize, and apparently Joe did, is that the public is not bound by an executive order to do something that is not codified already in law or that would be against the constitution or that would be against the constitution even if codified in law. And such executive order would automatically be null and void upon issue. Or in other words she can’t, as even Joe knew he could not, use an executive order or law or even the constitution to invoke/create or make people participate in a ‘mandatory buy back’ or submit to confiscation, or even ban firearms – this is not Canada nor any other country.

      This is why Joe issued executive order directing the ATF to do something, because those government employees in the executive branch are subject to the presidents executive orders and those not government employees or not in the executive branch are not subject to executive order. As anti-gun as Joe was, with his rhetoric about how he banned AR-15’s previously (which he actually didn’t) and how he was gonna do it it again, If it had been as simple as an executive order don’t ya think he would have done it? But no he did not do it because he knew no one was bound by such an executive order (and really not even those in the executive branch because such an order has no actual foundation in law or constitution by any stretch of the imagination), even by creative re-interpretation, which is why ATF had to create basically ‘defacto law’ in their rule making by being creative with re-interpreting to their advantage what does already exist in law and those rule making ‘defacto laws’ are being shot down at SCOTUS.

      • “She and Tim Walz thinks she can do it by executive order.”

        Of course she can issue an executive order to the executive branch. Not “constitutional”? So sue. And be sure to have prepaid legal assistance to defend oneself in court, ’cause your natural, human and civil rights are only those one can successfully defend.

        As the old saying goes, “The ride is the punishment”.

        • Issuing an order in the executive branch can’t ban firearms or order confiscation of firearms or implement a ‘mandatory buy back’ confiscate firearms legally or constitutionally.

          If it were that simple it would have been attempted already and thousands of ‘law enforcement’ and/or military would be dead or seriously wounded along with (probably a greatly lesser number of) civilians, and we would be involved in a civil war.

          This is not Canada or another country, we have a constitution for a reason, we are a ‘constitutional republic’ and we have natural and inherent rights that are part of us and some of those are codified in writing in the Bill of Rights. We are not ‘a democracy’ where the majority or the ruling elite (e.g. government) gets to decide what rights we have or control our rights like they do in Canada and the U.K. and other countries. The people here don’t just roll over and go “Duh, OK, take my rights away” – we shoot back to defend our rights and lives and that’s exactly what would happen and maybe not everyone but there will be at least a few million do it to start with and it would grow.

          • An EO banning/confiscating firearms can be issued for any reason, any time. For such an event, there are two “wins”: it was done; it was declared illegal. Both conditions energize the Dim’s base(s).

            The Bruen decision tells us all we need to know; there is no personal cost to defying the SC. An EO is no different.

            We are watching “End of Empire”, and nothing ever prevented such.

            Note: A “moral victory” is a loss.

        • Her rethoric about an executive order for banning or mandatory buy back is BS. Its something to get votes and money thrown at her, these idiots don’t realize she can’t actually do that with an executive order and even if she tried would not get away with it.

          • “…she can’t actually do that with an executive order and even if she tried would not get away with it.”

            Just “doing it” amounts to “getting away with it”.

            • “getting away with it” means the action actually happens, it can’t. The moment such an order was created it would be illegal and unconstitutional and in effect would not exist. The president simply does not have that power, it is in effect creating ‘law’.

              Although the president can issue executive orders, and such orders have a certain weight of law, they are not law nor do they apply to those outside the executive branch as a law or weight of law thus they have no power outside the executive branch. Plus, an executive order can only apply to things which are already codified in the constitution as a power of a president and no where in the constitution does the president have power to ban firearms or implement a ‘mandatory buy back’ or confiscate firearms.

              Basically, like I said before, if they did have that power they would have already done it. Even Joe Biden recognized that, she said it during their debate years ago before she dropped out of the race for president and Joe stated it plainly to her it could not be done because such an executive order is not constitutional (and that’s because the president does not have that power).

              Remember every time Joe said he would do what ever was in his power to ban? That’s what he was basically referring to, his powers constitutionally – ya don’t think he would have issued such an executive order if it was in his power to do so? Basically, because Joe did not have that power he resorted to having the ATF, by executive order since they were in the executive branch, do creative re-interpretation to create defacto law and SCOTUS is shooting those down because such a move is unconstitutional. And that’s how Joe tried to get around the thing that he can’t ban or ‘confiscate’ or ‘mandatory buy back’ by executive order because the president simply does not have that power no matter how many such executive orders to do it they sign.

              • “The moment such an order was created it would be illegal and unconstitutional and in effect would not exist. The president simply does not have that power, it is in effect creating ‘law’.”

                In a textbook, you would be correct. But, to borrow from an old cowboy movie, “Tell it to the judge”.

                As it stands, there is no appealing to enforcement authorities, to stand down in the face of a lesson on constitutional law.

      • You use a good bit of verbiage, to state that no one in the US is bound to obey an unlawful order. The president can issue unlawful orders all day long, and NO ONE has to obey them. The Nazi trials pretty well established that, for all the world, and for all time. “I was just following orders” will take a man straight to prison. Or the gallows.

      • .40 cal Booger,

        Your statements about the legality or illegality of executive orders are true. Nevertheless, what matters more than truth is whether executive branch enforcers (or their surrogates) care about the legality / illegality of orders, especially if their paychecks and pensions are on the line.

        Many, many years ago a very close friend of mine shared a pearl of wisdom regarding government claims of law versus actual law in a courtroom before a judge, “The law is whatever the judge says it is at your trial.”

        And that dovetails nicely with Sam I Am’s sentiments:
        1) You better have $100,000 or more on-hand to blow on attorneys and appeal if a lower court accepts an unconstitutional executive order in your case.
        2) Even if you eventually prevail in the courts (easily requiring Appellate level or even U.S. Supreme Court level), you will have endured countless sleepless nights, missed countless hours of work/business, countless hours of family time, countless hours of quality leisure time, and spent 10s or even 100s of thousands of dollars for that “victory” (of sorts), which I can argue is no victory at all. In other words, “The process is the punishment.”

        As others have stated, the real problem here is that that the politicians and bureaucrats who push this garbage on us never pay any significant personal penalties for their egregious actions. Nothing will change unless politicians and bureaucrats face a very high probability of paying a very high price for screwing over the populace.

    • At some point there may be a patriot order banning tyrants, as in circa 1776. These assholes will continue to do this bullshit until there is personal risk, liability, repercussions for them. As said many times, patriots fund the whole shit show….pro-2A via donations, anti-2A via taxes.

      • “At some point there may be a patriot order banning tyrants, as in circa 1776.”

        Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy I and II argue otherwise. We are way beyond the boogie, Lou.

  2. It’s getting to where lower court decisions are relatively unimportant; 2A, and related cases, are always appealed to the SC. The SC would prefer to not accept 2A cases, but rather spend time deciding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in other matters.

  3. The support for cackles is fake. And it’s done to make the election look so close democRats can get away with once again cooking the books. They know cackles and tampon are are shtheads but it’s their shtheads and they will lie cheat M855and steal for power. If the complete and total cackling buffoon is “installed” then it’s time for Trump States to secede. Enough is Enough.

Comments are closed.