President Joe Biden’s war on the Second Amendment just suffered a major setback.
On Thursday, Judge Reed O’Connor for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division wrote a 12-page decision in which he vacated a rule by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to regulate pistol braces.
American Military News reports Attorney General Merrick Garland approved the ATF’s “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” in January 2023. The rule would have imposed a scoring system to determine if a pistol brace makes a pistol a short-barreled rifle.
In the event that a pistol is classified as such, it would be subject to more strict regulations under the National Firearms Act.
An NFA-regulated firearm requires a waiting period, registration of ownership with the federal government, and a $200 payment. Anyone who does not comply would face a $10,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.
Trending:
The Washington Examiner reported Garland-approved rule was a total reversal from the ATF’s long-held position on pistol braces, something O’Connor made note of in his ruling.
The Firearms Policy Coalition, a gun rights group based in Sacramento, California, pushed the case – “Mock v. Garland” – and tweeted enthusiastically about the ruling along with 2 pages from it.
🚨 FPC GRASSROOTS ARMY WIN 🚨
In our Mock v. Garland ATF Pistol Brace Rule Lawsuit, the District Court has issued its decision and VACATED THE RULE! pic.twitter.com/OOsFcPZilk
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 13, 2024
Do you support the 2nd Amendment?
O’Connor’s ruling described the ATF actions as, “arbitrary and capricious.” The 12-page ruling can be read here.
The Examiner highlighted one particularly telling passage in which O’Connor explained his decision based on the ATF’s actions in trying to implement this new rule.
“The court finds that the adaptation of the final rule was arbitrary and capricious for two reasons. First, the defendants did not provide a detailed justification for their reversal of the agency’s longstanding position. And second, the final rule’s standards are impermissibly vague.”
While the Examiner also said, per the parties involved, that the case is probably going to the Supreme Court, this is blow to the Biden administration’s war on guns.
The left’s favorite phrase when they speak of disarming the American people is “assault weapon.” We are asked why we need them while being communicated the futility of owning them in response to an occasion of dealing with a tyrannical government.
Never mind the fact that the country was built by a group of men who were outmanned and outgunned by the mighty British Empire, the left can’t even define “assault weapon” because it isn’t an actual classification.
Attempting to redefine pistols with braces as short-barreled rifles is yet another episode of the left asking, “Why do you need them?” as more firearms are subject to more regulations, making them harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain.
Anti-gun rhetoric never lands with those who are competent in using them and well-read in history.
While independence was declared in 1776, this great nation was arguably born on the Lexington, Massachusetts, town green the morning of April 19, 1775, when the British attempted to do just what the Biden administration wants to achieve – disarming a free people.
