in the case Mock v. Garland in TX, several gun rights groups were able to obtain a preliminary injunction for the ATF's proposed pistol brace rule. The injunctions specifically shield all the members of those organizations against enforcement of the rule until the courts issue a final ruling on the issue.
As a latecomer to the lawsuits, the NRA has also obtained a preliminary injunction.
All NRA members are now protected from the pistol brace rule as well.So, if you're an NRA member, you can legally own a pistol with a pistol brace without it being classified as an NFA item subject to registration and taxation, and you are not subject to the penalties outlined in the ATF rules for simply owning a pistol brace -- i.e. prison and fines.
Obviously, the NRA piggybacked on lawsuit successes of others, but at least they were able to scrape together enough money (
) to also sue and win for their members.
The reason this is important isn't because everyone is clamoring to own a pistol brace. iI's because the ATF is in violation the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). There is a list of half dozen or more reasons contained in various lawsuits as to how the ATF violated the APA, but they all focus on the ATF creating rules that contradict previous rules and not complying with notice and commenting period requirements.
The ATF has redefined what constitutes a
pistol as well as a
rifle in this and other rules (e.g. bump stocks). Many of the ATF's rules should be codified into laws passed by Congress. For the ATF to make rules that don't align with existing bans in the law shows they are effectively making new law where none exists.
These legal victories will hopefully give gun rights supporters the momentum to stop the ATF from making more and more rules that do nothing for safety and are only intended to keep law-abiding legal gun owners from exercising their rights.
This video walks through the court's findings and what the ruling means for NRA members.
How the NRA Finally Got Relief from the Pistol Brace Rule