In a major legal victory for gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling and issued a strong rebuke to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the regulation was “arbitrary and capricious,” a clear indication that the federal government overstepped its bounds in trying to regulate legal gun ownership.
The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of 25 states, led by West Virginia, and gun manufacturers and owners, challenges the ATF’s regulations, calling them illegal and arbitrary overreach.
Plaintiffs argue that the rule unfairly targets law-abiding gun owners and manufacturers, putting millions of people at risk of serious criminal penalties for simply owning guns with stabilizing braces — tools that were originally designed to help Designed for disabled veterans like Richard Cicero who lost his right arm.
The court’s ruling is a blow to the Biden administration’s ongoing efforts to enact tighter gun control measures through regulatory agencies rather than through the legislative process.
The Congressman reported:
The court noted that the ATF did not define what constitutes sufficient surface area for a firearm to be shouldered, resulting in most braced pistols being classified as short-barreled rifles under the new rules. The lack of clear guidance leaves gun owners and manufacturers in the precarious position of unsure whether their actions will inadvertently violate federal law, the court said.
“ATF did not expressly prescribe any standard for determining when the rear surface area of a stabilizing brace permits the carrying of a weapon,” the circuit court ruled.
Additionally, the court criticized the ATF for relying on marketing materials and community usage as factors in its classification decisions without providing a consistent or logical framework for how to evaluate these factors. The court held that this vague and subjective approach could lead to inconsistent enforcement, further complicating compliance for those affected by the rule.
The ruling also discusses the legal implications of two accompanying slides released by the ATF to illustrate how the final rule will be applied. The court determined that the slides represented final agency action with direct legal consequences, but they lacked any detailed explanation of how ATF arrived at its classification, further supporting the argument that the rule was arbitrary and capricious.
“The consequence of ATF’s about-face is that many individuals have apparently committed felonies over the years for possessing weapons based on ATF’s previous classifications,” the ruling said. “The court finds that ATF relied on marketing materials and community use as factors in determining weapons classification.” The factors are ‘vague and subjective’, leading to potentially inconsistent and unfair enforcement.”
In a press release celebrating the ruling, Attorney General Bailey emphasized his commitment to defending Missouri’s constitutional rights.
“As Attorney General, I will defend the Constitution every time, especially when the Biden-Harris administration takes action to eliminate Missouri’s Second Amendment rights,” Bailey said.
“The Constitution is the floor, not the ceiling, of our God-given rights. We will continue to fight tooth and nail to uphold the right of Missourians to keep and bear arms against encroachment by unelected federal bureaucrats.
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody also celebrated the ruling.
“In October, we issued an advisory opinion disagreeing with the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration’s unlawful and excessive gun regulations. Today, we defeated them in court. Second Amendment Rights in Florida Still there,” she wrote on the X.
