Pistol Brace Rule Officially Dead After DOJ Abandons Appeal

The Biden administration’s controversial pistol brace rule is officially finished. After years of lawsuits, court battles, and grassroots opposition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally dropped its appeal in the case of Mock v. Garland – now Mock v. Bondi. The result: a total victory for the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and gun owners across the country. The final ruling from 2024, which vacated the rule entirely, now stands as the law of the land.

FPC Declares a Win for Liberty

In a July 17 press release, FPC President Brandon Combs called the day “a great day for freedom and the American people.” He emphasized that braced pistols are not “short-barreled rifles,” as the ATF had claimed under the Biden administration. “They are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment,” Combs stated. The FPC described this case as a landmark moment that defends constitutional rights and stops bureaucratic overreach in its tracks.

ATF Rule Struck Down, Not Just Delayed

Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner, explained why this ruling goes beyond a temporary pause. The district court’s decision to “vacate” the rule, also known as a vocator, means the rule is treated as if it never existed. It isn’t just on hold. It’s gone. “Judge Reed O’Connor said this rule was so unconstitutional that it must be erased from the books,” Smith said. He praised the final agreement to drop the appeal as a permanent end to this ATF regulation.

What the Rule Would’ve Done

According to Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets, the original rule attempted to reclassify millions of pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act (NFA). That reclassification would have forced gun owners to register their firearms, pay a tax, or face felony charges. “It was a backdoor gun grab,” Yanis said. “They tried to turn millions of peaceable Americans into criminals overnight.”

Judge O’Connor’s Strong Language

Federal Judge Reed O’Connor’s 2024 ruling didn’t hold back. He wrote that the ATF had reversed its own position on braces without explanation, ignoring a decade of settled policy. “It would be arbitrary and capricious,” O’Connor wrote, for the agency to make such a drastic change without proper justification. He also pointed out that even the ATF couldn’t clearly explain what made one brace legal and another illegal, creating confusion that violated legal standards.

Curtis Hallstrom Says FPC Got It Done

Curtis Hallstrom, host of The VSO Gun Channel, praised the FPC for striking a deal that preserved the victory without risking a loss in higher courts. He explained that recent Supreme Court rulings have made nationwide injunctions harder to secure. But because the rule was vacated instead of merely blocked, enforcement is still over. “I don’t blame FPC for making that deal. That’s a win,” Hallstrom said. He criticized the DOJ for taking the easy way out, saying they should’ve clearly admitted the rule was wrong in court.

Why This Is Bigger Than It Seems

This case didn’t just strike down one rule. It challenged the idea that unelected bureaucrats can write regulations that carry criminal penalties. The ATF tried to make a law without going through Congress. That’s not how a republic is supposed to work. The court reminded them, and everyone else, that there are limits to executive power. It’s rare to see such a complete rejection of a federal rule, and that makes this victory all the more important.

The Role of the Administrative Procedures Act

One of the legal foundations for this decision was the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). This federal law sets the ground rules for how agencies like the ATF can write regulations. The court found that the ATF’s rule violated the APA by failing to offer clear reasoning and notice. In plain terms, they didn’t follow the rules while trying to change the rules. That misstep gave FPC the legal footing to wipe the rule out entirely.

Maxim Defense and Other Backers Weigh In

David Farrell, Vice President of Maxim Defense, was another voice celebrating the win. His company was also part of the lawsuit. Farrell called the outcome “a monumental step in preserving gun rights for future generations.” He thanked the entire litigation team and all the supporters who stayed with the case throughout. “When we fight boldly and stand united, freedom prevails,” he said in a public statement.

Could the Rule Return in the Future?

Mark Smith warned that future administrations, especially anti-gun ones, could attempt to reintroduce a similar rule. But he said it wouldn’t be easy. With millions of braced pistols now in circulation, these firearms may qualify as “in common use.” That legal phrase is important. Under Supreme Court precedent, commonly owned arms for lawful purposes are protected from bans. “It may be impossible to regulate these guns going forward without violating the Constitution,” Smith said.

Jared Yanis Calls for Continued Vigilance

Yanis didn’t mince words: this win is huge, but it doesn’t mean the fight is over. He encouraged his viewers to stay active, support groups like FPC, and hold Congress accountable. “All it takes is a stroke of a pen for these people to try again,” he said. “We’ve got to stay awake. They’ll be back.” He also reminded everyone that the pistol brace rule targeted disabled veterans and folks with physical limitations – people who relied on braces for safe and effective shooting.

Hallstrom Slams DOJ’s “Lazy” Exit

While the outcome was good for gun rights, Hallstrom didn’t let the DOJ off easy. He called their decision to abandon the appeal “lazy” and politically motivated. He said they weren’t interested in principle or justice – they just wanted to move on without making waves. “They couldn’t even send an intern to court,” he joked. Still, he credited FPC for doing its job: “They got the win. That’s what matters.”

A Real Turning Point

This wasn’t just a technical court win – it was a cultural moment. It showed that when gun owners organize, push back, and use the courts strategically, they can beat the system. The ATF overstepped. The DOJ blinked. And groups like FPC proved that the Second Amendment isn’t just a slogan. It’s a right that can still be defended, and defended successfully, when people stand together.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.

The article Pistol Brace Rule Officially Dead After DOJ Abandons Appeal first appeared on Survival World.