DOJ Withdrawal Marks Major Victory for Gun Rights Advocates in Pistol Brace Case

In a significant development for Second Amendment supporters, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally withdrawn its appeal in a high-profile lawsuit challenging the Biden administration's regulation of AR-style pistols equipped with stabilizing braces. The move effectively ends enforcement of a controversial rule that, according to critics, could have criminalized millions of gun owners overnight.

The lawsuit, originally filed by a private gun owner and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), targeted a 2023 rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). That rule reclassified pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as "short-barreled rifles" under the National Firearms Act (NFA), requiring owners to register their firearms and pay a $200 tax. Although the fee was temporarily waived for voluntary registrants, compliance remained low, with estimates suggesting that up to 40 million braces were in circulation at the time.

A Controversial Rule from the Start

Stabilizing braces were originally designed to help disabled shooters fire AR-style pistols more safely and accurately. For over a decade, the ATF did not consider these braces to alter the classification of the firearms to which they were attached. That changed under the Biden administration, which directed the ATF to reevaluate its stance. The resulting rule sparked immediate backlash from gun rights groups, who argued that the reclassification was unconstitutional and overly broad.

The plaintiffs in the case, Mock v. Garland (later Mock v. Bondi), contended that the rule violated the Second Amendment and imposed undue burdens on lawful gun owners. The DOJ's decision to drop its appeal and settle the case marks the official end of the rule, which is now considered legally defunct.

Legal and Political Ramifications

The DOJ's retreat is being hailed by gun rights advocates as a landmark victory. "Today is a great day for freedom and the American people," said FPC President Brandon Combs. "The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not 'short-barreled rifles.' But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment".

Cody J. Wisniewski, an attorney for the plaintiffs and president of FPC Action Foundation, echoed that sentiment, calling the government's decision "a major win for liberty." He emphasized that the case sets a precedent for future challenges to federal firearms regulations.

The DOJ's withdrawal also signals a broader shift in the legal landscape surrounding gun control. With the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen establishing a more stringent standard for evaluating gun laws, federal agencies may face increased scrutiny when attempting to impose new regulations.

Implications for Gun Owners

For millions of Americans who own AR-style pistols with stabilizing braces, the DOJ's decision brings relief and clarity. Under the now-defunct rule, failure to register such firearms could have resulted in felony charges, fines, and even prison time. The legal uncertainty surrounding the rule had left many gun owners in limbo, unsure whether their firearms were compliant with federal law.

With the rule officially vacated, stabilizing braces are once again legal to use without registration or taxation. However, legal experts caution that the issue may not be entirely settled. Future administrations could attempt to revive similar regulations, and ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions could influence how pistol braces are treated under federal law.

A Broader Debate on Firearms Regulation

The pistol brace controversy is emblematic of the broader debate over firearms regulation in the United States. Supporters of the rule argued that stabilizing braces could be used to circumvent restrictions on short-barreled rifles, which are subject to stricter controls under the NFA. Critics countered that the rule was a politically motivated overreach that targeted law-abiding citizens rather than addressing gun violence.

The Biden administration's push for stricter gun control measures has faced resistance not only from advocacy groups but also from courts increasingly skeptical of expansive regulatory interpretations. The DOJ's decision to abandon its appeal may reflect a strategic recalibration in light of recent judicial trends.

Looking Ahead

While the DOJ's withdrawal marks the end of one chapter in the pistol brace saga, it may also set the stage for future legal battles. Gun rights organizations have vowed to continue challenging what they view as unconstitutional restrictions, and the outcome of this case could embolden similar efforts nationwide.

For now, the decision stands as a clear victory for those who believe in a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. It also underscores the importance of judicial oversight in checking executive power-especially when that power affects millions of Americans.

As the legal dust settles, one thing is clear: the debate over firearms regulation in the United States is far from over.