Last week, federal courts handed gun rights advocates two significant victories, both at the expense of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a rule banning bump stocks, and a Texas district court decided another rule to reclassify pistol cameras should be abandoned.
The stock uses the weapon’s recoil momentum to fire additional rounds, making it function like an automatic weapon, which is illegal. A pistol brace helps stabilize the weapon, often on the shooter’s shoulder. ATF-specified braces turn the pistol into a short-barreled rifle that is tightly regulated.
The ATF, long a bogeyman for those who support greater gun rights, has given impetus to state legislative efforts in response to perceived government overreach. In Ohio, the pistol brace rule has helped boost support for the Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA), which seeks to build a sort of firewall between local police departments and federal agencies.
Local cops shouldn’t aid federal agents enforce “unlawful” and flawed laws, SAPA supporters argued. Tammy Weaver argued that, in a particularly colorful moment, “a pistol brace does not make a gun a short-barreled rifle any more than attaching a pony to a Budweiser wagon makes it a Clydesdale.”
However, after approval by the legislative committee, the legislation weakened pending a vote by the full Ohio House. Now that federal courts are effectively casting doubt on the proposal’s catalyst, it’s unclear what’s next for the bill.
Judgment progress
A man named William Mock challenged the ATF’s pistol brace rule in Texas. After failing to obtain a preliminary injunction in federal district court, the plaintiffs took their case to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. There, the divided panel overturned the decision and sent it back to the district court.
U.S. District Judge Jerry Smith wrote that the ATF rule was legislative rather than interpretive. Because it has the force of law, this reasoning continues, the ATF’s final rule must be a “logical continuation” of its original proposal. Here, Smith writes, the rule fails.
The proposed rule uses a spreadsheet with a intricate point system to determine whether a stiffened pistol constitutes a short-barreled rifle. The final rule replaced this approach with a six-factor test.
“Neither of the proposed regulations brought to public attention that the worksheet would be replaced by a six-factor test based on almost entirely subjective criteria,” Smith wrote.
The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the district court and ordered a reconsideration of the preliminary injunction in lightweight of the appellate court’s findings.
In October, the district court issued a preliminary injunction, staying the ATF ruling – at least for the plaintiffs in this case. Last week, the same judge said the rule was so flawed that it should be repealed.
“Vacatur is appropriate in this case given the court’s conclusion that defendants’ adoption of the Final Regulations violated the procedural requirements of the (Administrative Procedure Act),” Justice Reed O’Connor wrote. “The illegal action of the agency is invalid from the beginning and therefore, remand cannot be granted because the agency has nothing to justify it.”
Ohio intersections
In a press release from the Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the plaintiffs in the braces case indicated that he “looks forward to defending this victory on appeal before the Supreme Court, as he has in other cases.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of the ATF’s ban on stockpiles suggests that any attempt to appeal the pistol brace decision will be an uphill battle. In his opinionJustice Clarence Thomas is sparing in his assessment of the statutory definition of “machine gun.”
“A semi-automatic rifle equipped with a stock is not a ‘machine gun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘on one trigger action,'” Thomas wrote for the majority, adding: “Accordingly, the ATF exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the rule, which classifies stocks as machine guns.”
Additionally, Thomas chided the agency for quickly changing its mind on paraphernalia following the mass shooting in Las Vegas. Buckeye Firearms Association Executive Director Dean Rieck highlighted the change in a news release in which he praised the court’s decision.
“For years, this device was considered legal,” he said. “Then the Department of Justice arbitrarily changed its mind and exceeded its authority by reclassifying the device and declaring it illegal.”
Texas 5th Judicial District Court and U.S. District Court judges highlight a similar fact pattern in their decisions regarding braces. They both note that the ATF tolerated paraphernalia for years before enacting rules restricting it.
For its part, Ohio Gun Owners was quick to connect the stock and pistol braces. In a video posted online referencing the wrestling decision, the group’s leader, Chris Dorr, said: “Here’s why it’s good news, even if you don’t have it.”
“This ruling is an almost guaranteed death sentence for an even more unlawful change to the ATF’s handgun ban regulations,” he continued. “Which means the court is telling these degenerate leftists that if they want to pass gun control, they’re going to have to do it through Congress.”
It’s worth noting that while the ATF’s pistol brace rule would make owning such a pistol more high-priced and tedious, it did not actually ban them.
Second Amendment Protection Act
But while Dorr prevailed in the court’s decisions, those victories may not aid advance his top legislative priority, the Second Amendment Protection Act.
In a text message, Dorr insisted: “Ohio gun owners are not concerned about the recent SCOTUS firearms opinions hindering our efforts to pass SAPA in Ohio because the gun brace portion was a small part of the base bill.”
As Dorr describes it, the broader goal of the legislation is to ensure Ohio officials are prohibited from “enforcing any federal gun control.”
But how this happens baffles even many lawmakers who are open to broad gun rights. The bill’s split between state and federal agencies is so complete that many Ohio law enforcement groups oppose it. They claim they could lose access to federally managed investigative resources and the bill’s civil penalties are $50,000, making any violations financially risky.
The bill has been on the ballot since December, but House Speaker Jason Stephens has not introduced it yet. In a written statement, he said lawmakers remain committed to protecting gun rights.
“As long as the Biden administration continues its attack on the Second Amendment, the House Republican Caucus will protect Ohio gun owners from undue government pressure,” Stephens wrote.
Despite the delay, Dorr insisted the prospects were good.
“The appetite to approve it, even though this session is still very much alive in the Republican caucuses,” he said.
Follow the OCJ reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.
