The federal government is now being accused of continuing to enforce the same pistol brace interpretation that federal courts have already struck down, exposing law-abiding Americans to potential felony charges carrying up to 10 years in prison.
The Biden-era pistol brace rule, which reclassified millions of braced pistols as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act (NFA), was vacated by federal courts and deemed unlawful.
Following that defeat, the Department of Justice quietly dropped its appeal, effectively leaving the rule dead and unenforceable nationwide.
Last year, the firearm community celebrated a definitive victory.
According to FFL Guard, in cases like Mock v. Bondi (formerly Mock v. Garland), federal judges slammed the Biden-era rule that overnight reclassified millions of braced pistols as “short-barreled rifles” (SBRs).
The courts found the ATF’s move was “arbitrary and capricious,” a blatant violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and a direct assault on the Second Amendment.
Even the DOJ seemed to wave the white flag, dropping its appeal in 2025. But according to a March 2026 court filing in Texas v. ATF, the agency is now claiming that, while the rule is gone, its interpretation remains.
NRA-ILA wrote:
A March 16 government filing in the ongoing case of Texas v. ATF has now renewed concerns that the agency reserves the right to continue bringing felony prosecutions under the NFA for possession of unregistered braced pistols. The passage in question is meant to rebut the plaintiffs’ claims that there are still live issues in the case that deserve a final judgment on the merits, rather than dismissal on mootness.
In response to one such argument, the government wrote:
Plaintiffs also make much of the fact that defendants [i.e., the ATF] continue to enforce the NFA’s and the GCA’s regulation of short barreled rifles against some brace-equipped pistols, even though the Rule has been universally vacated. But that should come as no surprise, as that is consistent with how [ATF] have always explained how things work if a court vacated the Rule or enjoined its enforcement. … At any rate, that [ATF] continue to enforce certain statutory requirements and prohibitions that they have been delegated the authority and responsibility to administer is irrelevant to whether plaintiffs’ APA challenge to the now defunct rule is moot.