On August 9, 2024, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court on a case in which numerous states and private parties challenged the ATF’s “pistol-brace” regulatory decision which attempted to reclassify items that it had previously approved as non-NFA “pistols” to NFA short barrel rifles. See, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., et al v. Merrick Garland, et al, No. 23-3230 (8th Cir. August 9, 2024).

The district court denied the request by the Plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction when the court concluded that the Plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits – that is, the trial court concluded that the Plaintiffs were unlikely to prove that the ATF’s regulation reclassifying the pistols that were equipped with stabilizing braces as NFA classified short-barreled rifles which required the payment of registration fees and also required federal database registration.

Noting that the ATF had in the past concluded that the pistols with stabilizing braces were not short-barreled rifles and that the only thing that had changed was the ATF’s interpretation, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the district court’s reasoning and concluded that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their arguments that the ATF’s actions were invalid, arbitrary and capricious. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court for denying the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination on the scope of the injunction.

A significant aspect of this case is that the State of Tennessee is a co-plaintiff in the action and the grant of a preliminary injunction, depending on the scope, should include protections for those in Tennessee who otherwise were victimized by the ATF’s arbitrary and capricious conduct.

This ruling notes that a federal district court in Texas has recently “vacated” – that is, it declared void – this same rule effectively denying ATF’s ability nationally to enforce the rule while that opinion remains in force.