In a significant legal victory for gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court’s decision and issued a strong rebuke to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the regulation as “arbitrary and capricious,” a clear indication that the federal government overstepped its bounds in attempting to regulate lawful gun ownership.
The lawsuit, brought by a coalition of 25 states led by West Virginia, alongside gun manufacturers and owners, challenged the ATF’s rule as an unlawful and arbitrary overreach of its authority.
The plaintiffs argued that the rule unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers, placing millions at risk of severe criminal penalties for merely possessing firearms with stabilizing braces—a tool originally designed to help disabled veterans like Richard Cicero, who lost both his right arm and leg serving our country, shoot pistols more safely.
The court’s decision is a blow to the Biden regime’s ongoing efforts to impose stricter gun control measures through regulatory agencies rather than through the legislative process.
The Capitolist reported:
The court noted that the ATF did not define what constitutes sufficient surface area for a firearm to be shouldered, leading to a situation where most braced pistols could be classified as short-barreled rifles under the new rule. This lack of clear guidance, the court suggested, leaves gun owners and manufacturers in a precarious position, unsure whether their actions might inadvertently violate federal law.
“The ATF has articulated no standard whatsoever for determining when a stabilizing brace’s rear surface area would allow the shouldering of a weapon,” the circuit court ruled.
Moreover, the court criticized the ATF for relying on marketing materials and community usage as factors in its classification decisions, without providing a consistent or logical framework for how these factors would be evaluated. The court found that such a vague and subjective approach could result in inconsistent enforcement, further complicating compliance for those affected by the rule.
The ruling additionally addressed the legal significance of two accompanying slideshows released by the ATF, which were intended to illustrate how the Final Rule would be applied. The court determined that the slideshows represented final agency actions with direct legal consequences, yet they lacked any detailed explanation of how the ATF arrived at its classifications, further supporting the argument that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.
“The consequence of the ATF’s about-face is that many individuals, relying on the ATF’s previous classifications, were apparently committing felonies for years by possessing braced weapons,” the ruling states. “The court found that the ATF’s reliance on marketing materials and community usage as factors for determining a weapon’s classification were ‘vague and subjective,’ leading to potentially inconsistent and unfair enforcement.”
In a press release celebrating the ruling, Attorney General Bailey emphasized his commitment to defending the constitutional rights of Missourians.
“As Attorney General, I will defend the Constitution every single time, especially when the Biden-Harris Administration moves to eradicate Missourians’ Second Amendment rights,” Bailey stated.
“The Constitution was meant to be a floor, not a ceiling, for our God-given rights. We will continue to do everything in our power to safeguard Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms against encroachment by unelected federal bureaucrats.”
Florida’s Attorney General Ashley Moody also celebrated the ruling.
“In October, we issued an advisory opinion disagreeing with the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration’s unlawful and overreaching gun regulation. Today, we beat them in court. The Second Amendment is alive and well in Florida,” she wrote on X.
