The three-judge panel reached the decision in Mock v. Garland, but the order’s scope is limited to the plaintiffs who brought the case. Those are gun rights advocacy group Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and two individuals.
The court declared, “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ Opposed Motion For a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal is GRANTED as to the Plaintiffs in this case.”
The panel was made up of two Donald Trump appointees and one by George W. Bush.
Arguments in the landmark case will be presented to the court of appeals over the ATF’s new pistol brace rule. The agency, with the stroke of a pen, intended to reclassify millions of currently legal pistols equipped with pistol stabilizing devices as short-barreled rifles (SBRs).
That unilateral move put the weapons under the scope of the National Firearms Act of 1934. It further meant that millions of Americans on June 1 potentially would become felons. That is the drop-dead date for the window to register, destroy, modify, or hand over their weapons modified with a pistol brace to authorities.
FPC called the ruling a “huge victory.” Cody J. Wisniewski, Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation at FPC Action Foundation, released a statement saying the advocacy group is “very excited and encouraged by the Fifth Circuit’s decision this morning.”
“We intend to ask the court for additional information about who is covered under the injunction but cannot stress enough just how important this decision is.”
Along with granting the preliminary injunction, the panel expedited the timetable for presentations of the merits of the case. There was no explanation accompanying the ruling. However, their action appeared to indicate their belief that the plaintiffs will likely prevail on the merits of their arguments.
That is one of the bars that must be reached for a preliminary injunction to be granted.
The case is based on several factors. The plaintiffs argue that the new pistol brace rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act due to the ATF having no authority to enact the regulation. Without the legal ability to do so, FPC asserts the ATF established a de facto law without an act of Congress.
This was done, the case claims, to appease the White House and for political gain.
Then there’s the rule of lenity. This is the legal principle that if a law is unclear, it must be ruled to favor the people, not the government. FPC believes the ATF violated an ambiguous rule in making its decision to ban pistol braces.
There is already another hopeful sign in that the Fifth Circuit applied the rule of lenity in Cargill v. Garland, which overturned the bump stock ban for violating the doctrine. Another recent victory for Second Amendment advocates saw a federal judge block government attempts to ban the sale of unfinished gun parts by classifying them as functioning weapons.
Meanwhile, Tuesday’s decision makes a stronger case for other requests across the nation for injunctions and temporary restraining orders. Both Texas and Gun Owners of America have cases in District Court asking for relief from the controversial ATF regulation. The possibility exists that a nationwide injunction will follow the Fifth Circuit’s decision.
The momentum in the nation’s courts is significantly moving in the direction of decisions solidifying gun rights for law-abiding Americans. It is through the diligence of tireless advocates for the right to keep and bear arms that federal and state attempts to strip gun rights away are fought at every turn. These efforts are to be applauded and supported.
