(José Niño, Headline USA) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is seeking dismissal of a major lawsuit challenging its pistol brace rule, arguing that another court’s decision to vacate the regulation has rendered the case moot. But gun rights organizations warn the government is simultaneously reserving the right to continue enforcing the same legal theories against firearm owners.
Gun Owners of America raised the alarm about the government’s position on Twitter. “Even though Biden’s pistol brace rule was vacated, ATF is still enforcing the same legal theory,” the organization wrote. “DOJ’s response was not on our bingo card. Basically, they’re telling gun owners: ‘Yep, we’re still going after your braces. Nothing you can do about it.'”
Even though Biden’s pistol brace rule was vacated, ATF is still enforcing the same legal theory.
DOJ’s response was not on our bingo card.
Basically, they're telling gun owners: “Yep, we’re still going after your braces. Nothing you can do about it.” pic.twitter.com/LuRAQh9mBT— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) March 19, 2026
The case, State of Texas et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Victoria Division. Texas and other plaintiffs brought the challenge against the “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,'” which the ATF published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2023. The rule classified certain pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles subject to registration and taxation under the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.
The plaintiffs sought prospective relief from the rule, arguing it violated both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. However, a separate court subsequently issued a universal vacatur of the rule, formally nullifying and revoking it.
In their reply brief supporting the motion to dismiss, the defendants contend this development eliminates any live controversy for the court to resolve. The government argues that “the Court can no longer grant meaningful relief in relation to the Rule, which has already been formally nullified and revoked through universal vacatur.”
The plaintiffs oppose dismissal, maintaining that the case retains significance because the court could still enjoin the ATF from enforcing the legal theories that underpinned the now vacated rule. They fear the agency could apply the same reasoning to future enforcement actions against owners of braced pistols.
The government rejects this argument while simultaneously confirming those fears. The defendants assert that federal courts lack authority to address abstract legal theories untethered from concrete agency actions. “Because plaintiffs’ claims all sound in the APA, this Court has no jurisdiction to opine on or grant relief from any legal theories divorced from an existing final agency action,” the defendants state in their brief.
This position creates a troubling paradox for gun owners. The ATF argues courts cannot prevent the agency from enforcing its legal interpretation of what constitutes a short-barreled rifle because no formal rule currently exists. Yet the agency has not disavowed that interpretation or committed to leaving braced pistol owners alone.
The government further argues that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a private right of action outside the Administrative Procedure Act framework that would allow them to pursue their constitutional claims independently. The defendants cite legal precedents including Harris County v. MERSCORP Inc. and Alexander v. Trump to support this position.
Additionally, the government contends that the plaintiffs cannot retroactively expand their lawsuit through legal briefing. The defendants assert that any request for relief against enforcement of National Firearms Act regulations on braced pistols was not explicitly stated in the original complaint and therefore cannot be considered by the court at this stage.
The outcome of this procedural fight carries significant implications for the millions of Americans who own pistols equipped with stabilizing braces. While the rule itself has been vacated, the ATF’s refusal to abandon the underlying legal theory means firearm owners remain in legal limbo, potentially subject to felony prosecution for possessing accessories that were legal for over a decade.
The case filing can be found here.
José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino
