In a significant victory for Second Amendment enthusiasts and firearm owners across the nation, a federal court has dealt a blow to Joe Biden’s attempts to regulate and tax AR-15 style “pistols.” The ruling, delivered by the Texas-based U.S. District Court, deemed the administration’s effort to be “unlawful” and “illegitimate.”

The 12-page decision invalidated a rule that could have resulted in the confiscation of millions of firearms – a move met with significant resistance by gun owners – and the potential incarceration of those who refused to comply with the regime’s directives. The court also blasted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for believing it could transform a long-standing exemption and render the ownership of these firearms illegal.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Responding to the case, Mock vs. Garland, the Firearms Policy Coalition unapologetically stated, the “ATF broke the law by being overreaching sneaky pricks. Therefore, the right thing for the Court to do was throw the Rule in the trash. The Court threw the Pistol Brace Rule in the trash.”

Gun control laws in America should be... ?

Interestingly, this isn’t the first time this particular court has dealt with this issue. While the court had previously approved the ATF rule, an appeals court overturned the decision. In the recent judgment, the District Court judge concurred that the ATF rule was not only illegal but also likely to meet rejection in other courts, hinting at a possible showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court.

As it stands, individuals are permitted to own pistols – including AR-style firearms – equipped with stabilizing arm braces. The ATF had long sanctioned the use of these adjustable braces on pistols, despite the fact that they could be used as a style of stock, effectively transforming the firearms into short-barreled rifles. Typically, short-barreled rifles are regulated under the National Firearms Act, necessitating a $200 tax stamp and registration.

Judge Reed O’Connor’s ruling highlighted the ATF’s flawed decision-making process, citing the agency’s failure to provide a rationale for its abrupt reversal of its long-standing position. Additionally, the judge lambasted the agency for disregarding user feedback and drafting the rule in a vague manner.

With an estimated 10 million or more of these firearms in circulation in America, the ATF’s grace period for owners to register their weapons tax-free saw less than 300,000 firearms recorded. These firearms are popular choices for recreational shooting and self-defense due to their smaller size and adjustable pistol brace stock.

The ruling also underscores the regime’s misleading portrayal of these firearms as the weapon of choice in mass shootings despite only a handful being used in such tragic events. This decision serves as a defense of Americans’ Second Amendment rights and reinforces the principle that government agencies cannot trample on constitutional liberties at their discretion.

You can read the full press release from the Firearms Policy Coalition below:


FORT WORTH, TX (June 13, 2024) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition announced a major legal victory in its Mock v. Garland lawsuit challenging the Biden Administration’s “pistol brace” ban rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In the decision, United States District Court Judge Reed O’Connor granted summary judgment in favor of FPC and its co-plaintiffs and issued a final judgment and order vacating the ATF’s rule. The case and opinion can be found at

“The Biden Administration’s ATF hates us so much that it lawlessly acted to turn millions of gun owners into felons, but FPC and our members ran towards the fire and defeated this evil,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Today’s order shows that our community can take on an immoral government and win. FPC members should be proud of what was accomplished today. We look forward to defending this victory on appeal and up to the Supreme Court, just as we have in other cases.”

Today’s victory is one in a line of FPC community successes against the Biden Administration. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court recently agreed to hear one of FPC’s cases in which it prevailed in the courts below.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Cody Wisniewski of FPC Action Foundation, Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Benbrook Law Group, and R. Brent Cooper and Benjamin Passey of Cooper & Scully. Plaintiffs in this case are two individual FPC members, Maxim Defense, and FPC. FPC Action Foundation represented the Plaintiffs, alongside Benbrook Law. FPC expects the Mock decision and remedy to be appealed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of RVM News. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.