The battle over the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) rule redefining braced pistols as “short-barreled rifles” placing them under the National Firearms Act continues in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Most recently, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) filed a response brief late last week with the circuit court in the case Mock v. Garland, which challenges the constitutionality of the pistol brace rule.
“As noted, there is no harm to ATF from pausing enforcement of the Rule and maintaining the status quo,” the brief states. “The Rule claims to ‘enhance public safety,’ yet ATF pointed to only two braced pistols (out of millions) that have been criminally misused. Even then, there is no evidence that those crimes could not have been committed using a different firearm. Instead, the public interest is served when the law is followed…”
The brief goes on to point out that the district court had already found the rule to be unconstitutional.
“In sum, the district court correctly evaluated the irreparable-harm, balance-of-harms and public-interest factors, which all weighed strongly in Plaintiffs’ favor,” the brief argues. “The Court should affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction ruling, and enter a universal injunction that prevents the Agencies from enforcing the Final Rule.”
Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s president and chief executive officer, as well as counsel for plaintiffs in the case, faulted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for continuing with the case.
“ATF is yet again defending its failed gun control agenda before the Fifth Circuit–this time attempting to erase the injunction we have already secured against its unlawful and unconstitutional Pistol Brace Rule,” Wisniewski said. “In this brief, we address exactly why the Fifth Circuit should again rule against ATF and continue preventing the agency from enforcing the Pistol Brace Rule. In fact, we argue the Circuit should completely prevent enforcement of the Rule against any and all individuals and entities until this case comes to a final resolution.”
Last October, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Fort Worth ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in the case and granted their motion for preliminary injunction.
“The Court finds that Maxim Defense and other commercial FPC members face substantial threats of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief,” that ruling stated. “Namely, they are threatened with: (i) permanent and nonrecoverable costs of compliance with an unlawfully issued regulation; and (ii) substantial financial injury leading to permanent closure of businesses. The Court finds that these irreparable injuries flow from the threat of enforcement of the Final Rule and are ongoing, vulnerable to intense exacerbation, and interdependent with a vast commercial supply-chain network.”
Plaintiffs in the case include FPC, two individual FPC members and Maxim Defense, a firearms development company.
