Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) have both issued statements following the 5th Circuit Court’s partial injunction against the Biden Administration’s rule that seeks to reclassify braced pistols as National Firearms Act (NFA)-regulated short-barreled rifles.
The rule, challenged by both organizations in separate lawsuits, would potentially criminalize millions of American gun owners who possess such firearms. The injunction is seen as an initial victory, but both groups stress the importance of continued legal and legislative action.
GOA and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed an amicus brief in the case of Mock v. Garland and their own challenge to the rule, along with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
“This is an encouraging step from the Fifth Circuit, and we hope that the judge in our own case will see this ruling and in turn grant a more robust injunction to relief the millions of Americans nationwide who may soon be in legal jeopardy,” said Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior VP. “This is just the latest attempt by the Biden Administration to weaponize federal agencies against the American people, and we will continue to stand in the way in defense of our rights.”
However, GOA emphasized the need for congressional action prior to the June 1st deadline, warning of the potential for law-abiding gun owners to be turned into felons overnight.
“This injunction is welcome news, but due to its limited nature, we still need Congress to act before the June 1st deadline,” said Aidan Johnsotn, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs. “189 Representatives and 47 Senators have already signed on, and we urge the Speaker to put this on the floor for a vote and force Democrats in both chambers to vote on whether to make their constituents felons overnight.”
SEE ALSO: ATF Director Was Wrong About Pistol Brace! Detaching the Brace Is Not Enough to Avoid Prosecution!
Similarly, the FPC celebrated the decision but remains vigilant.
“We are very excited and encouraged by the Fifth Circuit’s decision,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation at FPC Action Foundation, but he also added that the battle against the ATF’s “unconstitutional and unlawful brace rule” is far from over.
Both organizations are active in legal challenges and advocacy efforts to protect Second Amendment rights. The FPC, the first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, continues to fight for constitutional rights, individual liberty, and freedom.
GOA, a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization, is dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise and represents over two million members and activists.
While the injunction provides a temporary reprieve, it is clear that the fight for gun rights in America continues, with groups like the GOA and FPC leading the charge.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
The two big names protecting our 2A rights: Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition.
Where the the NRA? Still thinking trying to bribe (I meant “lobby”) congress will get anything done?
NRA was working with SB Tactical to fund their lawsuit, or something like that
Here: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20230209/nra-challenges-atf-brace-rule
Limited how? Why would this article say this is limited and not explain the limitation?
The ruling only applies to the named plaintiffs in the case. The injunction itself says its NOT a nationwide injunction.
Please explain how a Federal court ruling can apply to some states and not others. This concept opens all kinds of cans of worms.
There were two individual lawsuits filed. The injunction is not at all clear on who is covered under this ruling. Both parties lawyers have asked the Judge for swift clarification on exactly who is and who isn’t.
As for the can of worms remark…Biden’s administration has opened a whole pit if vipers upon law abiding gun owners. Had no one stepped up to the plate on this issue, the rest of the BATFE’s long standing regulations would be overturned as fast as dominos falling.
My “Can of Worms” comment was intended to relate to the ability for the courts to allow specific rights or privileges to some citizens/states, but not others. I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding of that statement. Thanks for your reply.
Because its a 5th Circuit Court case and its not a nationwide injunction.
Bonnie,
To provide some insight into your can of worms comment- each US district court can only issue injunctions that affect their area’s of responsibility, while their rulings affect the whole country.