The Mock v. Garland Case and the ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule: A Legal Showdown

Posted October 15, 2024 in Gun Trusts, Trusts and Estates

In recent years, the legal landscape surrounding firearms regulations has been anything but static. Among the most contentious issues is the ATF’s (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) rule regarding pistol braces, which has sparked a significant legal battle. The case of Mock v. Garland[1] has become a central focal point in this controversy, as it challenges the ATF’s interpretation of what constitutes a “rifle” under federal law and how certain firearms should be regulated. In this blog, we’ll dive into the details of the case, the ATF’s pistol brace rule, and what this legal showdown could mean for gun owners across the country.

What is a Pistol Brace and Why Does it Matter?

Pistol braces were originally designed as a safety feature for individuals with disabilities, enabling them to stabilize and safely fire AR-style pistols and other similar firearms. These braces were intended to help people with limited mobility or strength control their weapons, making it easier to shoot. A pistol brace allows for one-handed firing, offering support without transforming a firearm into something that should be regulated as a short-barreled rifle (SBR), which would be subject to stricter regulations under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The ATF addressed pistol braces in 2012 stating that the use of a pistol brace, even when shouldered, does not convert the weapon into an SBR. However, over the years, these devices have become more widely used by the general public, and the ATF has changed its legal position. In its determination letter, it stated, “the submitting brace, when attached to a firearm, does not convert that weapon to be fired from the shoulder and would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm. While a firearm so equipped would still be regulated by the Gun Control Act – such a firearm would not be subject to NFA controls.” As we discussed in a previous blog, the ATF completely changed its position in 2023 issuing a rule that redefines certain configurations of firearms with pistol braces as short-barreled rifles. As a result, advocacy groups stepped in and initiated legal actions based on the unlawful flip flop of regulations, which have the effect of law, in the name of “law enforcement” or “gun violence prevention.”

The Legal Challenge: Mock v. Garland

Mock v. Garland is one of the most prominent legal challenges to the ATF’s new pistol brace rule. The case was filed by a group of plaintiffs, led by gun owners and organizations who argue that the ATF’s reinterpretation of the law violates both the Second Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs argue that the rule is an overreach by the federal government, asserting that it creates confusion and criminalizes behavior that was previously legal.

At the heart of the case is whether the ATF has the authority to redefine what constitutes a short-barreled rifle and whether the new rule is consistent with the original intent of the Gun Control Act. Gun rights advocates argue that the rule effectively bans the use of a common firearm accessory and infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms as they see fit. Additionally, the plaintiffs assert that the rule represents an abuse of executive power, bypassing Congress and enacting a sweeping policy change without legislative approval. The District Court entered a final judgment vacating the rule because it violated the APA. The government has appealed this ruling, but the standards governing a review of a final judgment are stringent.

Key Issues in Mock v. Garland

The case of Mock v. Garland is poised to have significant implications for gun owners, the ATF, and the legal understanding of firearm regulations. Some of the key issues at the center of the case include:

1. The Second Amendment: Can the federal government impose new restrictions on firearms that infringe upon the constitutional rights of gun owners? Critics argue that the pistol brace rule undermines the Second Amendment by effectively banning a popular firearm accessory that millions of people legally own.
2. Administrative Overreach: Does the ATF have the authority to unilaterally redefine firearms categories without congressional approval? Plaintiffs argue that the rule represents a regulatory overreach by a federal agency that lacks the power to alter laws passed by Congress.
3. Vagueness and Confusion: Is the rule too vague in its interpretation of when a pistol brace turns a firearm into a short-barreled rifle? Gun owners and advocates argue that the rule creates uncertainty and could lead to unwarranted prosecutions of law-abiding citizens.
4. The Impact on Gun Owners: If the rule is upheld, what will the practical consequences be for gun owners who possess firearms with pistol braces? Will they be forced to destroy their firearms, pay significant fees, or face legal action?

The Role of NFA Trusts Post-Mock v. Garland

While Mock v. Garland did not alter the mechanics of NFA trusts, it reinforced several key points regarding their use. NFA trusts are still a valid mechanism for legally owning and transferring NFA-regulated items. The Mock v. Garland case impacts what is an NFA-regulated item. Pending the appeal, you are allowed to shoot an AR pistol braced on the shoulder. However, despite significant legal victories for gun owners, the ATF has proven that its “final” rules are not to be considered final after all. Registering your AR pistol as an SBR as a Gun Trust can protect your investment and 2A rights for the foreseeable future, without being impacted by ATF determinations.

Trusts remain useful for estate planning, allowing firearms to pass to heirs without the need for individual transfers. The ATF has shown that its legal determinations and/or final rules cannot be relied upon. They have also been found to be in violation of the laws passed by Congress which control government agencies. Having a Gun Trust can help you prepare for these changes.

Implications for Firearm Owners and Trust Creators

In light of the Mock v. Garland decision, firearm owners must be aware of the evolving landscape of ATF rules and regulations. It’s essential for firearms owners to:

1. Consult with Legal Experts – Estate planning with firearms requires careful consideration of both state and federal laws. Firearm owners considering an NFA trust should consult with attorneys who specialize in firearms law to ensure that their trust is drafted correctly and compliant with the law.
2. Understand NFA Requirements – These processes remain the same, and gun owners should be prepared for the administrative steps required when transferring NFA-regulated items. An attorney familiar with the process can help navigate owners through registration.
3. Plan for the Future – For those with significant NFA collections, planning for the future using a trust should be a consideration. A trust ensures smooth transitions of ownership after death and will prevent additional financial burden on your heirs.

Conclusion

The Mock v. Garland case provides an important reminder about the regulatory environment surrounding NFA items. Firearms owners cannot rely on the government to be consistent about what firearms constitute an NFA item. Owning your firearms through a trust protects you from the changing legal landscape. While the NFA registration requirements must still be met, a gun trust gives you peace of mind that your firearms have ownership that will ensure a smooth transition to your heirs. For those considering an NFA trust, it is essential to stay informed about legal precedents, and working with a knowledgeable attorney is crucial to ensuring that your trust remains both effective and in full compliance with federal regulations.

[1] N.D. TX case no. 4:23-cv-00095, Fifth Circuit case nos. 23-10319, 23-11199, and 24-10743 | CourtListener Docket

DISCLAIMER

The information contained on this website is provided for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be construed as providing legal advice on any subject matter. Laws frequently change and therefore this content is not necessarily up to date, nor comprehensive. Contact us or another attorney with any legal questions specific to your matter. You may request a consultation by completing our consultation request form.