Previous Post
Next Post

If, like us, you were mostly unplugged over the extended four-day holiday, you might have missed the news that the National Rifle Association has filed its own lawsuit against the ATF challenging the regulatory agency’s pistol brace ban rule. This follows three other gun rights orgs’ similar suits and the injunctions that have been issued blocking ATF enforcement against their members.

Given the fact that tens of millions of pistol braces have been sold over the years, those injunctions no doubt resulted in a lot of new members for the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Policy Coalition. The injunctions probably also resulted in some questions from NRA members wondering why they haven’t been similarly protected.

The NRA initially tried to remedy that by motioning the court to join the lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation. The judge in that case, however, accused the NRA of “injunction shopping” and denied the association’s motion. That has led the NRA to file its own lawsuit against the ATF on Monday.

Here’s their announcement . . .

The National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) today announced it filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”), the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland (“Defendants”) in opposition to the unlawful “pistol brace rule.”

“The NRA has ramped up its offense on this arbitrary and unconstitutional rule,” says NRA Executive Vice President & CEO Wayne LaPierre. “We are confident in our ability to confront the ATF and DOJ – and preserve freedom for NRA members.”

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District, Dallas Division, the lawsuit is the NRA’s latest challenge to the rule regarding stabilizing braces. On June 30, 2023, the same court denied the NRA’s motion to intervene in another legal action, while recognizing the NRA was positioned to pursue its own lawsuit – a course it now adopts in support of its millions of law-abiding members.

The lawsuit exposes the failings of the new rule – which subjects law-abiding gun owners to penalties, fines, and potential prison sentences for the use of an otherwise legal plastic apparatus on some firearms. The NRA previously submitted comments in opposition to the rule, filed a motion to intervene in another legal action, and supported a lawsuit by several state attorneys general filed in North Dakota.

“The NRA is pursuing every possible avenue in defense of its law-abiding members and their constitutional freedoms,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “Our members should be free of the threat of enforcement of this presumptively unlawful rule. We are confident that we will prevail in obtaining the same relief for them that has already been granted to members of other gun rights groups.”

As noted in the complaint, the NRA argues the rule is unconstitutional, as the ATF reverses its long-standing position that pistol braces do not transform pistols into rifles subject to onerous registration and taxation requirements under the National Firearms Act.

​Previously, the NRA obtained clarification of multiple aspects of ATF’s proposed rule, including: 1) that braces removed from firearms do not necessarily have to be destroyed or altered in a way that prevents them from being reattached to a firearm; and 2) that imported pistols with stabilizing braces do not necessarily need to be destroyed or surrendered.

​The NRA will go to court to obtain preliminary, and ultimately permanent, injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” (the “Final Rule”) against law-abiding NRA members. First announced in January 2023, the Final Rule was set to go into effect June 1, 2023. Gun rights groups and the State of Texas are among those who have been granted preliminary injunctive relief from the Final Rule – and now the NRA seeks recognition of the irreparable harm its members also face from the Final Rule.

​In opposition to the Final Rule, NRA President Charles Cotton has said, “The NRA will continue to defend its members and their constitutional freedoms – fighting this rule and President Biden’s anti-Second Amendment agenda in every forum available.”
​The NRA represents millions of members across the nation in preserving the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners, including hundreds of thousands of members in Texas. The NRA has approximately 350,000 members in Texas – the #1 state for NRA members.

As explained in the NRA’s Complaint, many of its members are being irreparably harmed by the Final Rule because they are forced to modify their firearms, destroy them, register them, or surrender them to the federal government under threat of criminal prosecution. Pistol stabilizing braces allow users to strap their gun to their forearm or place them on their shoulders for more stability. Millions of these devices are used by gun owners across the nation – particularly disabled veterans who need braces to safely use a pistol.

​In late May, the court entered orders enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Final Rule against another gun-rights group and its members. However, the scope of the injunctive relief granted applies only to those plaintiffs.​​

The NRA backs and supports another lawsuit challenging ATF’s unlawful rule. The lawsuit, filed February 9, 2023, is captioned Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., v. Merrick Garland and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Plaintiffs include: SB Tactical, B&T USA, Wounded Warrior Richard Cicero, and a coalition of 25 states led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “Given the fact that tens of millions of pistol braces have been sold over the years, those injunctions no doubt resulted in a lot of new members for the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Policy Coalition. The injunctions probably also resulted in some questions from NRA members wondering why they haven’t been similarly protected.”

    In way one could say “Biden helps fund pro-2A groups”

    see, Biden was pro-2A all this time.


  2. If Wayne and his cadre actually focused on NRA business instead of self-enrichment, they would’ve filed this lawsuit well before the brace ban/rule took effect. I can’t help but feel they now see this as a “fund-raising event” where they could get new members (more revenue) if those folks too could join an organization that gets an injunction against the ATF. With more revenue, they can keep up their self-enrichment scheme even longer…

    • the NRA..the new “me too” movement…why are they always following someone else’s lead?

      • NRA can’t afford the lead position. It’s expensive keeping LePewPew looking good, skimming, scamming, squandering, laundering and pocketing membership dues. Cheaper to pile on in the end zone, take pics spiking someone else’s ball.

        Quit donating to the NRA. Divert those dollars to SAG/GOA/FPC where real progress is made.

    • Has the NRA finally received the telegram?

      Fax must be too high-tech for them.

    • Completely agree, MrMax. They are seeing their membership numbers dropping and hearing about members spending their money with other groups. Tried to tie themself onto an injunction that has already happened so they didn’t have to shell out any money for a legal defense but still get a benefit for their members. That didn’t work so they figured it is still low hanging fruit and could boost their numbers or at least stabilize their numbers. If they get an injunction I would be surprised if they go 10 minutes before sending out a fund raising email.

    • It took Wayne and his boys a while to scrape enough cash to pay William A Brewer III his retainer for filing the action. Gadzooks there are two more just like him running around. What a farce the NRA has become. And to think I was foolish enough to become an endowment member. Ahh, well, too soon old, too late smart according to the PA Dutch.

  3. Fake news. We all know that the NRA doesn’t do anything.

    Just like yesterday’s fake article about NRA sponsoring a training day for youths — it was actually a bake sale to help pay for the NRA’s legal defenses.

        • I have a RED HOT NEWS FLASH for you, The NRA is preserving your rights to own firearms. I guess you forgot about Heller, McDonald, Bruen and a host of other suits brought by the NRA.
          If you hate the NRA so much, don’t join. I don’t see anyone twisting your arm…

        • They’re a bunch of Johnnie-come-latelys. I can’t join the NRA, only quit, since I’m a life member from decades ago. My money doesn’t support WLP’s lavish lifestyle anymore. Now I support groups that actually get something accomplished instead of surrendering/negotiating rights away. Feel free to piss away your money, after all it’s yours.

  4. With so many lawsuits (1 each for FPC, 2AF, GOA, and NRA), I’d have hoped that they would use a different tactic. The others are going to win on administrative law/lenity basis. I wish someone would use only a 2A argument.
    1) Let’s take ATF on face value and say these are and always have been short barreled rifles.
    2) There are a minimum of 3M around (by ATF low estimate). We don’t need to consider OMB’s 40M high estimate.
    3) By Caetano, 200k stun guns meant they were in common use, so 3M exceeds that, and SBRs are therefore in common use.
    4) By Heller, guns held in common use for lawful purposes may not be banned.
    5) By Bruen, guns may not be regulated unless there is a historical law or analog dating back to the Founding (which there aren’t).
    Ergo, SBRs can’t be regulated and that section of NFA is no longer valid.

    The only way out is for the government to argue against point 1, which means the ATF claims they were wrong and they are SBRs after all, and thus make an admission against interest in all the other brace lawsuits.

    • RE: 5) “By Bruen, guns may not be regulated unless there is a historical law or analog dating back to the Founding (which there aren’t).
      Ergo, SBRs can’t be regulated and that section of NFA is no longer valid.”

      There are historical analogies that are race based surrounding Gun Control. The problem with all of the courtroom arguments are the attorneys who allow Gun Control and its rot to skate by unnoticed while the Second Amendment is always on the hot seat. It is an out of balance, lopsided clown show.

      Frankly it is gutless for those supposed to be on point defending the 2A to sit silent and provide standing for Gun Control…An agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide.

    • Any chance we can get LKB to comment on this strategy? I.e. is it viable? If we could axe a portion of the NFA, that would be wonderful 🙂

      • Any challenge to the NFA is going to be tough sledding, and trying to go from the home run on the first pitch is unwise. (It shouldn’t be, but that’s reality.)

        My personal suggestion is that the first NFA challenge needs to be to the Hughes Amendment.

    • “I wish someone would use only a 2A argument.”

      You are thinking of a top-down approach; start with the constitution, then evaluate the issue; is the issue and “infringement”? If so, game over. As I understand it, courts prefer to avoid constitutional questions, and seek to resolve on the basis of procedure/process; a bottom-up approach that settles an issue without ever reaching the level of constitutionality.

      • Yup. If you can resolve a case on jurisdictional or procedural grounds, that’s first. Then factual. Then regulatory. Then statutory.

        Constitutional analysis is *always* the last resort. As it should be.

        This is part of the reason why test case litigation is not easy. You have to position the case like a chess problem.

        • “Constitutional analysis is *always* the last resort. As it should be.”

          But, why?

          Wouldn’t resolving the constitutional issue put an end to the jurisdictional and procedural, and regulatory issues?
          (I know, there will always be flashback via new infringements defying the constitutional ruling)

  5. As a NRA Voting Life Member I resent this “members only” mentality for protection against what is tyranny. Whether one owns a dozen braces or owns none The Second Amendmend does not and never has required a membership.

    This membership drive based on you get exemption favoritism if you join us is just as despicable as the actions of the atf.

    If any org. cannot tell a judge it is all or none then that org. IMO is not worth giving the time of day much less giving them hard earned money.

    • Membership money is MY MONEY. That means that I decide when to and when not to spend my money and where or where not. That is my personal agency, and it’s my right as an American citizen. Just because somebody chooses to think I’m paying for my rights, that doesn’t make it true. I get to decide.

      And I have decided that I will stay away from the NRA until WLP leaves and the NRA starts to have measurable success in fighting for our rights. No more negotiating my rights away.

      The education is fine. It’s God’s work even! But that’s not what I require for my membership dollar.

      • Osprey, true to a point. You see you are not the only member of the NRA (if you are a member). Nobody is paying for their rights. But by supporting the NRA you are contributing to the protection of your rights.
        If you wish to stay away from the NRA that is your CHOICE. But then you have little right to complain (whine) when they spend money the way they deem fit and necessary.

    • “As a NRA Voting Life Member I resent this “members only” mentality for protection against what is tyranny“

      Correct, the requirement for membership shows the lie of these organizations’ claim of ‘social welfare’.

      The tactic is revealed as another grift upon the people.

      • MINOR Miner49er, Debbie is referring to the Order of the District Court limiting the effect of the injunction only to members of the organization suing on their behalf. None of the gun organizations espouse “social welfare.” We lave that issue to charities and to your Leftist agenda.
        God save us from Leftists, anti-gun freaks and fools.

  6. At this point, the NRA is about as useful to advancing the rights of gun owners, as Black Lives Matter is to advancing the rights of Black people.

    Both organizations grab headlines and publicity, but don’t actually do a damn thing other than pocket the money the people donate to them.

    When an organization becomes the establishment, it stops caring about the rights of the membership and cares more about perpetuating itself. That’s true of the Federal Government, the NAACP, the NRA, the Teacher’s Union, the political parties, you name it.

    • Tex, is anyone forcing you to join the NRA? Every organization “grabs headlines and publicity”. It is how they are able to get donations that finance the lawsuits. If you think the NRA is the “establishment”, you are sadly mistaken.

      • No, nobody forced me to join, I joined of my own free will. And after 5 years of defending it here (like you do), and seeing what other organizations were doing, and seeing what the NRA has become, I left it of my own free will.

        I don’t think you understood what I meant by “establishment”. I mean when an organization first starts out, it’s hell fire for leather, let’s get this done, etc. And other people see that, and send them money. And… they get used to it. And after a while, they don’t fight so hard, because their paychecks now depend on the villain that they set out to destroy: if they kill the villain, then they’re unemployed. So they make grandiose statements of how we need to “keep up the fight” and “it’s never been more important” to support them, when in fact they’re actively NOT solving the problem they were set up to do. The NRA has become caught up in the same trap the NAACP got into: if they actually end racism, they cease to exist. The Democratic Party claims to want to “end racism”, but they’re the most racist party this USA has ever seen.

        I wanted the NRA to be what they promised they are. But dude, they’re not. FPC and 2AF and others are kicking the NRA’s ass. They’re still young enough that they’re actually Getting Things Done.

        Of course, the day will come when they become fat, bloated, money-grubbing mouthpieces, just like BLM, NAACP, and the NRA are. But that day isn’t today, so — they’re still very much worth supporting.

        • It’s called Beltway Syndrome. It is a communicable disease caught by organizations with offices to close the the DC Beltway. They lose touch with their membership and lose sight of what their purpose is. They want the perks of the bloated bureaucrat and polrat.

  7. LEGAL BATTLEFIELD: Where Does 2A Stand? (note: in the video is a case bought by the NRA that’s a 1st amendment for 2A issues)

  8. Everyone can make money now a days very easily…dd…..I am a full time college student and just w0rking for 3 to 4 hrs a day. Everybody must try this home online job now by just use… This Following Website.—–>>>

  9. #NRA Me Too

    After other organizations do the heavy lifting, here comes the NRA to try to claim credit.

  10. I would hope whatever judge gets this just makes an injunction for all owners and sellers of pistol braces. The first ruling givng an injunction to the plaintiffs and associated members, while a better than nothing win, is silly considering the millions of people who could be fined or go to jail if they do nothing and continue to possess a previously legally acquired or built pistol. It is ridiculous if being a member in certain groups determines whether you are a criminal possessing an unregistered SBR or not.

    I have given money to all the groups at various points, but I don’t like the way these injunctions are being issued. Do I need to join the American Suppressor Association (good org) if I don’t want to be charged for building a can, or united machine guns to avoid the Hughes amendment? Why stop at guns? No DUI if you are a card carrying Beer Club member, use drugs if you join Druggies United, etc.

  11. So the NRA was embarrassed into action after everyone else filed law suits in this manner. Pathetic.

    • Catboss, NOT HARDLY. the NRA was bemused that the Judge would restrict his injunction to only members of the organizations that filed the suit. Is that too hard to grasp?

  12. Well it seems WAYNE “SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL” Lapierre feared he was “LOOSING POWER AGAIN”!!!

    So he acted to save his “$$$$$”!!!!

  13. The “Truth” About Guns has long been shilling for the NRA, but this nonsense is ridiculous.

    The NRA sat on the side lines while the real pro-gun organizations sued about the pistol brace rule and won injunctions protecting their members. Then the NRA did what it usually has done and tried to piggyback on an already successful lawsuit so they could claim victory and take credit for the time, effort, and money of other organizations.

    This time the judge laughed the NRA out of the courtroom and refused to let them join in the suit already successfully being run by FPC and other litigants.

    So now the NRA has copied the work of others hoping to get an injunction issued to cover their members so that the NRA members won’t wake up and join one of the real pro-gun organizations that are actually working for our rights.

    • Bruh, this lawsuit was filed back when FPC and SAF filed theirs. NRA just realized they need a social media manager that tells people what they are doing.

      But I prefer the F U Cope of the FPC’s twitter cringe lord.

      • NRA’s website clearly states on July 3rd, 2023 that they had just filed the pistol braces lawsuit after being denied their request to piggyback on the injunction currently in force (filed by organizations that actually give a damn about 2A rights). Given their NRA’s super expensive attorney’s propensity to lose every case, I would not be optimistic if I were an NRA member expecting to get a similar injunction.

        • TEll me, MrMax, what cases (plural) have the “NRA’s super expensive attorney’s (sic) lost?

  14. “The NRA has ramped up its offense on this arbitrary and unconstitutional rule,” says NRA Executive Vice President & CEO Wayne LaPierre. “We are confident in our ability to confront the ATF and DOJ – and preserve freedom for NRA members.”

    Is this the same NRA Executive Vice President & CEO Wayne LaPierre who advised Donald Trump to ban bumpstocks?

Comments are closed.