BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a reply brief with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its challenge of the “Final Rule” issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regarding arm braces for pistols.
In 2023, SAF won, in part, a preliminary injunction in the case. Last August, in a 2-1 ruling, a Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said the rule was “likely illegal” because the government had violated the Administrative Procedures Act by adopting the rule without meaningful opportunity for public comment.
The case is known as SAF v. ATF and was filed in February 2023. SAF is joined by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Tex.
In their brief to the court, SAF and its partners maintain the appeals court should hold the plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success because the Final Rule changes the definition of an arm brace “using the guise of mere clarification.”
“Our challenge is part of a consolidation of four separate cases for briefing purposes, underscoring the broad and compelling opposition to the ATF’s action,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We have contended all along the Final Rule regulates brace-equipped pistols, which are in common use, as short-barreled rifles. This is a complete reversal of previous policy.”
“Our earlier victory in the case should have signaled to the government to back away from its rule,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb observed. “Instead, the government has appealed in hopes of saving this arbitrary restriction, and we’re simply asking the court to affirm its earlier ruling.”
Other cases involving gun rights organizations, and a Wisconsin legal group, are part of the consolidation, but the issues in each challenge differ substantially. The National Rifle Association had asked to join the litigation but was denied.
“We expect oral arguments in this case,” Kraut said, “and what remains now is to see how the Appeals Court proceeds.”