June 13, 2024. Mock v. Garland
Judge O'Connor rules:
"This case was filed on January 31, 2023, and is one of a series of cases challenging the Final Rule, which, inter alia, announces when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace turns a pistol or handgun into a rifle".
"The Court finds that the adaptation of the Final Rule was arbitrary and capricious for two reasons. First, the Defendants did not provide a detailed justification for their reversal of the agencyâs longstanding position. And second, the Final Ruleâs standards are impermissibly vague".
"For close to a decade, the ATF concluded that âattaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control.â19 The ATF changed course on this position for the first time in 2023, when it issued the Final Rule reversing the agencyâs otherwise long-standing policy. âWhen an agency changes course, as [the ATF] did here, it must âbe cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account'. âIt would be arbitrary and capricious to ignore such mattersâ Id. But this is exactly what Defendants did when they inexplicably and fundamentally switched their position on stabilizing braces without providing sufficient explanations and notice".
"The Defendantsâ disregard for the principles of fair notice and consideration of reliance interests is further exacerbated by its failure to follow the APAâs procedural requirements for public notice and comment. As discussed above, Defendants failed to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures because the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule differed in immense ways".
"Moreover, the Court finds that the standards set forth in the Final Rule are impermissibly vague. While the Worksheet in the Proposed Rule would allow âan individual to analyze his own weapon and gave each individual an objective basis to disagree with the ATFâs determinations, the Final Rule vests the ATF with complete discretion to use a subjective balancing test to weigh six opaque factors on an invisible scale.â Mock, 75 F.4th at 584. Consequently, the Court finds that the Final Ruleâs six factor test is so impermissibly vague that it âprovides no meaningful clarity about what constitutes an impermissible stabilizing brace,â and, thus, that âit is nigh impossible for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistolâ that ârequires NFA registration.â
"For the reasons set out above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffsâ Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Final Rule violated the APAâs procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule; DENIES Defendantsâ Cross Motion for Summary Judgment; DENIES Plaintiffsâ request for a permanent injunction; and VACATES the Final Rule".
For those of you who don't know what a pistol stabilizing brace is:
.
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/...INION.pdf?1718287457