Judgments are piling up against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for being “arbitrary and capricious” in its ongoing war against law-abiding gun owners.
Last Friday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling for 25 states in the case of Coalition for Firearms Control and Responsibility, Inc. v. Garland. The court declared that the ATF's “final rule” turning braced handguns into short-barreled rifles was “arbitrary and capricious” and required the lower court to amend its ruling accordingly.
This marks the second victory for the National Rifle Association (NRA) in NRA v. ATF, where a district court for the Northern District of Texas blocked enforcement of rules against NRA members.
ATF Pistol Brace “Final Rule”
For decades, the ATF has maintained that a pistol fitted with a pistol brace (equipment designed to allow disabled people to enjoy the freedom to shoot) does not turn it into a “machine gun” subject to the onerous (and unconstitutional) 1934 National Firearms Act.
But the Biden Administration is determined to roll back and ultimately eliminate the God-given right to self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. In January 2023, using the murder of 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado as cover, the Administration ordered the ATF to declare that prop-mounted firearms (like the one used by the Boulder shooter) should be considered short-barreled rifles and registered and regulated under a 1934 law.
Multiple Lawsuits
The proposed change to the definition was “controversial and the public comment was overwhelmingly negative,” the appeals court wrote in its decision. But the ATF went ahead anyway. At least nine lawsuits have been filed, accusing the agency of overstepping its authority.
In fact, so many lawsuits were filed that the NRA persuaded U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay (appointed by then-President Bill Clinton) to block the ATF from prosecuting citizens under the expanded definition until all the cases had been heard and resolved. As the New American wrote at the time:
Officials ignored their own history, the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Second Amendment, the 250,000 Americans who protested during the “public comment” period, and a letter from the Senate Republican Caucus which declared that its implementation “will turn millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans into criminals overnight, making it the largest executive-imposed gun registration and confiscation program in American history.”
But the ATF, as insensitive as ever, went ahead with the process anyway, and the NRA argued that “with one stroke of the pen,[the agency]redefined a 'pistol' equipped with a stabilizing post as a short-barreled 'rifle' subject to the onerous licensing and tax requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934.”
At the heart of this issue is the deliberate violation of the separation of powers that was purposefully built into the U.S. Constitution by our Founding Fathers, who knew human nature and the desire of politicians and tyrants to expand their power over their people if left unchecked.
“Whimsical and capricious.”
In Mock v. Garland, decided in June, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled against the ATF in another pistol brace lawsuit, ruling that the ATF had violated its own internal procedures and that its violations were arbitrary and capricious.
The decision announced last Friday is no different.
The district court denied the Coalition's (plaintiffs) motion for a preliminary injunction. The Coalition has appealed that denial.
We conclude that the Coalition is likely to prevail on this arbitrary and capricious challenge, and we reverse and remand the complaint to the district court.
The Eighth Circuit backed up its decision by citing one of its many successful cases against the ATF, such as Garland v. Cargill, in which the plaintiffs sued to reinterpret the ATF to change handguns to “machine guns” to include weapons equipped with bump stocks. In that case, the court ruled that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals declared on Friday:
“The (ATF's) final rule, taken as a whole, is arbitrary and capricious because it permits the ATF to reach any conclusion it wishes…”
“We therefore vacate the (lower court's) order denying the preliminary injunction and remand with instructions to reconsider the motion consistent with this opinion.”
Related Posts:
ATF loses again over fixed pistol rule
Judge slams ATF for ruling against pistol brace ban
