Federal lawsuit alleges new ATF pistol brace rule violates Second Amendment

Seniors and disabled veterans have a right to shoot their pistols, too, and the federal government needs to stop passing laws that encroach on that right. That’s the basis of a federal lawsuit filed by more than 20 state attorneys general, a gun rights group and a disabled veteran.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in North Dakota. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is leading the effort.

The lawsuit alleges the new rule enacted this year by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives targeting stabilizing-pistol braces was “arbitrary and capricious” and is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The ATF’s new rule went into effect Jan. 31. It essentially classified handguns with braces as short barreled rifles, which subjects them to a slew of added government regulations.

Pistol braces, like those made by SB Tactical, are marketed as a way of providing a third point of contact between the shooter and the firearm. According to a website for SB Tactical, braces make it easier for folks like disabled veterans to shoot.

Critics argue the braces can be pressed up against a shoulder, allowing the gun to operate more like a rifle. Braces do not impact a gun’s rate of fire or the lethality of a particular type of cartridge.

The ATF said the new rule did not apply to braces “objectively designed and intended for use by individuals with disabilities.” But the plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue, in practice, the rule could affect anyone who uses a brace.

A similar lawsuit was also filed in Texas this week. President Joe Biden is championing more gun control, like a federal ban on what some refer to as “assault weapons.”

Last year, gun rights advocates scored a major victory when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. That ruling significantly expanded gun rights nationwide.

Reuters contributed to this report.