On June 13, 2024, Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor, of the Northern District of Texas, held that the ATF’s “pistol brace” rule is void. Although it did not address the constitutional challenges to the ATF’s actions, the Court found that it did not need to reach the constitutional issues since the ATF’s conduct violated “[Administrative Procedures Act]’s procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule…” See, Mock, et al., v. Merrick Garland, et al, No: 4:23CV00095-O, Northern District Texas, June 13, 2024, at p. 12.
The ruling vacates the ATF’s pistol-brace rule entirely thus have nationwide effect. It it a certainty that the Biden administration rogue ATF will appeal the decision.
In finding that the ATF’s rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act and was therefore void, Judge O’Connor first concluded that “the Final Rule violated the APA’s procedural requirements because it was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule.” Id., at p. 6. This aspect of the ruling considered whther the final rule was a logical extension of the ATF’s initial proposed rule. Judge O’Connor spent no effort rejecting the ATF’s argument on this point because the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had already ruled in a prior appeal in this same case that “that the Final Rule is “properly characterized as a legislative rule,” and “it is relatively straightforward that the Final Rule was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule, . . . therefore [the Final Rule] must be set aside as unlawful or other-wise remanded for appropriate remediation.” ” Id.
The second issue addressed by Judge O’Connor was whether the ATF’s conduct in adopting the rule was arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the ATF’s conduct in adopting this rule was arbitrary and capricious. “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.” Id., 7.
This is another example of government action, this time at the federal level, that intentionally and purposefully abuses constitutionally protected and other clearly established rights. Although the Court resolved this issue based on protections contained generically in the Administrative Procedures Act, it is still a vindication of rights of the public.
However, Americans should be furious that, particularly in light of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, that Congress and state governments, like the Tennessee Legislature and its Governor, are continuing to ignore the 2nd Amendment’s mandate that these rights “shall not be infringed”. Congress tolerated these infringements and is often the creator of such infringements. The President, the individual in complete control of the Department of Justice (oxymoron) and the ATF is more often than not a co-conspirator in the abuses rather than a guardian of our rights. And then there is the concern that most governors and state legislators, including Tennessee’s Republican Governor and Republican controlled Legislature, are for practical purposes doing nothing to remove other or even similar infringements at the state and local level.
This is a victory by citizens for citizens. It is also an indictment of the tyrants that are holding public office and either intentionally infringing these rights or doing nothing – despite their oaths of office – to protect these rights from governmental abuses.