In a significant legal setback for federal firearms regulations, a U.S. appeals court has thrown another wrench into the government’s efforts to restrict pistol braces. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, sided with a coalition of 25 Republican state attorneys general and other challengers, ruling that the controversial regulation imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is likely illegal.
The regulation in question, which sought to limit the use of pistol braces—attachments that can stabilize handguns—has been criticized for its vagueness. The court found that the ATF had failed to clearly define which products would fall under the rule, making the regulation arbitrary and capricious.
This ruling follows a similar decision by the 5th Circuit, which had already led to the rule being vacated in a separate case. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who spearheaded the legal challenge, hailed the decision as a victory for Second Amendment rights, calling the rule “egregious” and an attempt to erode constitutional freedoms.
The ATF has remained silent on the matter, declining to comment. Meanwhile, legal representatives for the plaintiffs, which include the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition and gun accessory manufacturer SB Tactical, have yet to respond to inquiries.
Pistol braces, introduced to the market in 2012, were initially designed to aid disabled shooters by allowing them to attach the brace to their forearm for better stability. However, concerns arose when some users began modifying the braces to function similarly to rifle stocks, prompting the ATF to reclassify certain configurations as short-barrel rifles—firearms subject to stricter regulations.
The ATF’s rule, enacted in January 2023, sought to impose these stricter regulations on firearms equipped with such braces. The rule also attempted to distinguish between braces intended for use by disabled individuals and those repurposed for shoulder firing. Despite these distinctions, the court found the ATF’s criteria for evaluating the braces—based on factors like design, marketing, and community use—too subjective, allowing the agency to apply the rule inconsistently.
As a result, the appeals court has instructed U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland, who previously declined to block the rule, to reconsider the case in light of their findings. The case, officially known as Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition et al v. Garland et al, continues to unfold as the legal battle over firearm accessories intensifies.
