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. (a copy of the opinion is included on the TFA's website version of this report)
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.
