XM does not provide services to residents of the United States of America.

Second appeals court finds US pistol brace restrictions likely illegal



<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><title>Second appeals court finds US pistol brace restrictions likely illegal</title></head><body>

By Brendan Pierson

Aug 9 (Reuters) -A federal appeals court on Friday found that a U.S. regulation restricting ownership of gun accessories known as pistol braces, which was already blocked by another court, is likely illegal.

A 2-1 panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that a challenge to the rule by 25 Republican state attorneys general and others was likely to succeed because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had not clearly explained what products would be covered by the rule, making it arbitrary and capricious.

The decision comes about a year after the 5th Circuit reached the same conclusion in another case by gun rights groups challenging the rule. Following that ruling, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, vacated the rule.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who led the challenge for the states, in a statement said he was pleased with the decision.

"This rule is egregious and is an obvious effort to undermine Americans' Second Amendment rights," he said, referring to the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of the right to bear arms.

ATF declined to comment. A lawyer for the other plaintiffs, which include Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition andgun accessory company SB Tactical, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Pistol braces were first marketed in 2012 as a way of attaching a pistol to the shooter's forearm, stabilizing it and making it easier to use for disabled people. A disabled army veteran, Richard Cicero, is also a plaintiff in the case.

ATF passed the rule in January 2023 in response to reports that some users were repurposing the brace to rest against their shoulders, like the stock on a rifle.

The rule classifies guns with braces that are designed to allow shooting from the shoulder as short-barrel rifles. Such rifles are subject to special registration, longer waiting periods for purchase and higher taxes than handguns.

ATF, in announcing the rule, said it did not apply to braces "objectively designed and intended ... for use by individuals with disabilities."

The states and other plaintiffssued ATF in February 2023. U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland in North Dakota declined to block the rule while he considered their lawsuit, saying they were not likely to succeed because ATF had adequately explained its rulemaking process.

Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz, however, wrote on Friday that the ATF's multi-factor test for evaluating braces, taking into account design, marketing and community use, was "arbitrary and capricious because it allows the ATF to arrive at whatever conclusion it wishes." The panel ordered Hovland to reconsider his decision.

Grasz was joined by Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender. Circuit Judge Bobby Shepherd dissented, saying that the panel should have affirmed Hovland's order because there was no need for a preliminary injunction after the rule was vacated by O'Connor.

All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

The case is Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition et al v. Garland et al, 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, No. 23-3230.

For West Virginia: Michael Williams of the West Virginia Attorney General's office

For the non-state plaintiffs: Stephen Obermeier of Wiley Rein

For ATF: Sean Janda of the U.S. Department of Justice


Read more:

Republican states sue Biden administration over new pistol brace rules

US pistol brace rule likely illegal, federal appeals court rules


(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York)

</body></html>

Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.

All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.

Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.

Risk Warning: Your capital is at risk. Leveraged products may not be suitable for everyone. Please consider our Risk Disclosure.