SB Tactical pistol stabilizing brace
Travis Pike for TTAG
Previous Post
Next Post

From the FPC . . .

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of litigation challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Final Rulemaking on firearms equipped with stabilizing or pistol braces. The Petition in FPC’s Mock v. Garland, along with other case documents, can be viewed at

“This lawsuit challenges, inter alia, the Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached Stabilizing Braces, promulgated by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate ‘braced pistols’ as ‘short-barreled rifles.’ In so doing, for the reasons set forth herein, the Agencies violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution,” the Petition states.

The Petition continues: “Even if the Final Rule does not violate the APA and is allowed to stand, the Agencies’ National Firearms Act (“NFA”), laws, regulations, policies, and enforcement practices with respect to ‘braced pistols’ that the Agencies’ have classified as “short-barreled rifles” violate the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs thus further seek declaratory and injunctive relief to secure their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms in the absence of vacatur of the Final Rule.”

“Federal agencies do not have the power to write new laws, and yet the ATF continues to attempt to expand its authority using the federal rulemaking process,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “This ‘rule’ is, in effect, a federal law that will transform millions of peaceable people into felons overnight simply for owning a firearm that has been lawful to own for decades. We won’t stand idly by while the ATF tramples the rights of millions of peaceable individuals.”

“At its most basic level, this rulemaking represents a massive and unlawful bait-and-switch on peaceable gun owners,” said FPC Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “For nearly a decade the ATF’s position on pistol braces has been relied on by millions of gun owners.  Now, with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen, those same people are told they are felons unless and until they submit themselves to invasive regulation, registration, dispossession of their property, or worse.”

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit and follow FPC on InstagramTwitterFacebookYouTube.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. F* the NRA. FPC is where it is at. They have done more for the Second Amendment over the last year than other groups have done in the last five.

    Throw them some more money. I just did.

    • The Final Rule was only published yesterday. The FPC lawsuit was just filed today.

      What would be an acceptable time frame, in your opinion, for the NRA to file suit?

      What about the other gun rights organizations?

      GOA? They haven’t filed suit. They do have a nice fill-in form on their site to help you to notify your representatives to vote on the rule — but there aren’t any votes scheduled.

      National Association for Gun Rights hasn’t filed suit. They also have a form to fill out to “Sign Your Emergency Fax Petition to Congress and the ATF!”

      Second Amendment Foundation? No suit filed.

      According to the NRA-ILA site: “NRA-ILA is already working on litigation to challenge this arbitrary and capricious attack on law-abiding gun owners by the Biden Administration.”

      What do you want — a rubber biscuit?

      • Considering they are the most financially capable – before everyone else. It’s really that simple.

        NRA is so capable this stuff should never even make it this far.

        That’s the point. Now you have these other foundations having to break their neck and risk everything to take action, and even asking the NRA to fund them. While the NRA remains silent for too long.

        Stop simping for the NRA. They don’t give a fuck about you or our rights. They care about money.

        • If they weren’t so busy paying LaPierre and his hand picked board so much money then they could be the powerhouse they once were. The truth of the matter is they are no longer the 800-pound Gorilla in the room and politicians know it.

          “What do you want — a rubber biscuit?”

          No, I want them to step up and be a force again. Why are they always last to file suit and if they do they never are the lead? They USED to make politicians pee themselves and now the same politicians laugh at them.
          Stop praising them, they do nothing of value for us. They DO things of value for themselves, that compensation link is from 2020, I wonder what they make now? LaPierre is as useful as a house cat, it eats and shits and you scoop it up. Ashbey Beasley (a uberKaren) has done more being anti 2A in 6 months then Wayne LaPierre has done in 6 years.

        • I didn’t address my question to you — but no matter, you didn’t provide a reasonable answer anyway.

          So where are these other organizations that are so much better than the NRA? They’re all losers because they weren’t the first to file a suit?

          When I first purchased a firearm, I attended an NRA training class before I ever fired it. I’ve been an NRA member for years, and I send money to the ILA to support them. You don’t like that, Montana Virtual? Good! That pleases me to no end.

        • I’m not one to denigrate anyone’s attempts at maintaining or regaining freedom, but filing a lawsuit is cheap, and does little other than to help fundraising efforts and gain cheerleaders, many of whom haven’t been all that loyal in putting their wallets where their keyboard fingers always are.

          ILA is involved in 15+ national cases at present, including a follow-up to enforce Bruen. Once a suit progresses beyond its initial filing and is then appealed up the ladder, things become very expensive.

          It remains to be seen if FPC, SAF, NAGR, et al would be able to fund a Bruen/Heller-type case, but I sincerely doubt it. There’s hardly a jurisdiction that will take any form of curb to their powers without appealing as far as they can get. WTH? They get to use the tax money YOU sent them to take away your rights. And without any question of a personal vendetta, as in the case of NY AG Leticia James, who openly campaigned to “break NRA” using any method. Pretty good arrangement.

          On the other side, those filing the suits have no way of recovering the vast amounts of money they’ve spent, even should SCOTUS rule in their favor. NRA/ILA spent more than $2.3 million (above NYSRPA and other plaintiffs) in moving Bruen. Money from members, for the most part, and money above and beyond what it takes to maintain all the other programs that FPC, SAF, NAGR, etc. don’t even have to think about providing.

          I’m all for the purity of the US Constitution, but I’m also intelligent enough to know that without these programs and reasons to own firearms beyond personal protection, many people will just drop out eventually

          We’ve been riding a wave of new ownership for a couple years, but sans the prospect of BLM and Antifa riots for a couple more years, those new guns will soon be hidden away or sold for other things.

      • This problem brewed for months before boiling over. I’m an NRA life member totally unhappy with NRA’s response. FPC fired litigation at the BATF as soon as the rule hammer fell. The rest of ’em look like they’re still pondering what to do. Even if you don’t have a newly declared SBR, you should be fighting this action tooth-and-nail. Liberty is lost in baby steps. “Assault rifles” are next on Dettelbach’s list.

    • Alex Bosco, inventor of the stabilizing brace, said that the NRA has offered to pay 50% of his lawsuit, so they deserve some credit when that case is filed.

      This case is in Texas Northern District, so the reasoning in Cargill, the bump stock case, applies. The rule should be vacated immediately using the rule of lenity since BATFE changed their mind, the rule is completely subjective, and nobody can tell if they are in violation of the NFA. They don’t even need to consider comstitutionality under Bruen or 2A

  2. FPC does it again! Test case filed in ND Tx, Fort Worth Division, where they have drawn Judge Reed O’Connor, who has a sterling record in 2A cases. And from there, any appeal goes to the Fifth Circuit, which as you know ruled 13-3 en banc against the BATFE’s bump stock rules. BATFE could not have drawn a more unfavorable forum.

    Plus I can personally vouch for the attorneys involved. Cody Wisniewski (who occasionally writes for TTAG) is the lead for FPC, backed up by veteran Dallas business litigator Brent Cooper. As TTAG readers may remember, Cody quite literally saved my life a few years ago:

    I’ve been on the other side of a number of cases with Brent Cooper over the years, and he knows his stuff in federal court.

    This one will be fun to watch.

    • lkb…Sit back, grab a bag of dortios and enjoy being the forum’s play by play useful idiot for what amounts to more perpetual kangaroo courtroom drama.

      The last thing coming out of you and your ilk’s pieholes will be Defining Gun Control according to its history of rot in a courtroom…Ain’t that right?

      • Debbie, are you saying that lawsuits are “perpetual kangaroo court drama?”

        What action would you propose instead?

        IMO, LKB shares valuable legal knowledge, having lived it. Just because you had an issue with LKB’s response to one of your posts, is no reason to discount his opinion.

        • no name man…If it is not lkb needing a jack hammer to chisel the brown off his nose it’s you with your head up his behind.

          My proposal dimbulb was in my response to lkb, perhaps if your head was not so far up his azz you would have caught it, understood it and proceeded to sidestep tit for tat courtroom drama. All you have to do is put on your big boy pants, stand up like man and define Gun Control according to its confirmed history of rot…Ring a bell?

      • And Debbie shows her rear again. Tell me honestly, how is LKB sharing his very direct, informed, and relevant information with the rest of a bad thing?

        • Debbie is like the obnoxious football fan who has never played a single down in pads, has no clue of the internal dynamics of the team (e.g., who’s gimpy from a recent practice injury vs. who’s not), and really doesn’t even understand the rules of the game, but who will loudly and constantly tell you how stupid the QB’s / offensive coordinator’s / head coach’s play calling is.

          I will ask her once again: tell us EXACTLY what cause of action you think ought to be employed to “declare gun control illegal / unconstitutional.” Tell us who the plaintiff could be and how they have standing to assert that claim, and what court you would bring it in. Tell us how your proposed pleading will survive an Iqbal challenge (assuming you even know what that is). And then tell us how you would avoid getting personally sanctioned under Rule 11 after the court drop kicks your case into next week.

          She can’t do it, because she hasn’t a clue how the legal system works. So like a petulant child, all she can do is stamp her feet and scream.

      • Debbie, I’ve followed TTAG for six years. On one hand I can count the number of regular commenters that are worth reading every time they post something. LKB and DyspepticGunsmith.

        Does that mean I agree with every perspective they ever take? Absolutely not. Does it mean I dismiss everything else they say if I disagree with them one time? Only if I want to use the same strategy used by those who perpetuate gun control despite its racist roots.

        Another favored and immature strategy of those same people is to resort to name calling and to stalk the posts of those they disagree with. Don’t stoop to their level. I respect your positions most of the time and appreciate you sharing your AR builds with me a few months back. So please, be classier than Darcydodo, fakebrit, and the rest.

      • Talk to Cody or the other folks at FPC.
        The key things will be where you live (they will want test case plaintiffs who live in friendly venues or in jurisdictions where there’s a law that needs challenging), and they will need to vet your history and suitability (litigation ain’t beanbag).

  3. Unless my eyes deceive me, Count VIII of the Complaint challenges the inclusion of SBRs in the NFA as violating the Second Amendment. It’s an alternative claim tacked on after all the procedural mumbo jumbo, but it looks like they might swing for the fence and challenge the NFA directly (at least as applied to SBRs and “braced pistols”).

    • Indeed it does. It’s a tag-along claim because courts will always look to dispose of a case on a non-constitutional basis if possible (with good reason, declaring a statue unconstitutional is always a last resort). Here, the BATFE cut so many corners that attacking the rule under the APA is the smart move.

      But you never know. Reed O’Connor might well want to reach out and touch someone.

      • Did they include a claim challenging the adopted rule under the Americans with Disabilities Act as having an undue and discriminatory impact?

    • Caught dacian in another lie; of course since he depends on the unreliable MSN for his propaganda, he doesn’t realize that he’s lying. This time.

      [Severin was in possession of] five pistols; a privately made “ghost gun”; silencers; more than 100 “machine gun conversion” devices; and an “industrial milling machine covered in metal shavings,” court records show.

      “Severin is charged in Count 1 with possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D).”

      A criminal act. There oughta be a law against …

      “In Count 2, Severin is charged with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c)(1)(A).”

      Another criminal act. There oughta be a law …

      “In Count 3 and Count 6, Severin is charged with possession of firearms by a convicted felon, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(g)(1).”

      So a convicted criminal violates the law, again. It’s as if laws don’t prevent criminals from criminaling. Where have I heard that one before?

      “Count 4 changes Severin with the possession of approximately 100 machineguns, that is, multiple types of machinegun conversion devices, which qualify as “machineguns” under Title 26, United States Code, Section 5845(b), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o).”

      He made 100 Glock switches; they’re only parts. No weapons changed hands. A law requiring a background check to purchase a second-hand firearm does not apply here.

      Pro tip: go with the primary source rather than a propaganda outfit. Unfortunately, if dacian did that, he wouldn’t be able to lie as unconvincingly as he does.

      • to Man with no sense

        Anyone with any grey matter between their ears would not sell a converted machine gun that he had purchased by going through a background check so therefore the only weapons he could convert were second hand guns he purchased in face to face sales. These weapons were not beamed down to him from an orbiting Klingon Warship.

        This is exactly why when you have Universal Background checks the amount of second hand guns for sale dries up dramatically. No law of course is perfect but only in Capitalvania where life is considered cheap and expendable are criminals able to purchase all the heavy firepower they want through second hand gun sales.

        If you have ever been to Europe or the Far East you would find out that buying a second hand gun is extremely difficult and the incidence of nut cases attempting to use a home made single shot and unreliable weapon to commit mass murder with simply proves how successful Universal Background Checks have been.

        Of course the paranoid Neanderthals of the Far Right ignore all this with the simple wave of the hand i.e. “Do not confuse me with the facts because it does not suit my warped political fantasies”.

        • Lil d
          criminals don’t care. they steal things. safe storage is only so good. gun registry are illegal and that’s what universal background checks are.
          you and mommy live where? Myers lake?
          Hills and dales? or you going to tell me you live on cherry st. in the hood? you are a clueless idiot but you know that

        • To dacian with no brain:

          “Anyone … would not sell a converted machine gun that he had purchased by going through a background check.”

          So you’re saying that criminals don’t follow the law, and no background check law would have stopped him? I agree.

          “… therefore the only weapons he could convert were second hand guns he purchased in face to face sales.”

          Did he convert any firearms? No. He was manufacturing parts, possibly to sell them.

          Among the several charges listed by the Feds, are there any regarding the sale of weapons to convert? No.

          “Do not confuse me with the facts …”

          Which explains why you ignore facts that counter your unsubstantiated assertions.


    quote———–Did he convert any firearms? No. He was manufacturing parts, possibly to sell them.———qoute

    The two gun charges, counts 4 and 5, were the most serious. Count 4 charges Severin with the possession of approximately 100 machineguns, that is, multiple types of machinegun conversion devices, which qualify as “machineguns. Count 5, meanwhile, charges Severin with possession of unregistered firearms, including silencers, destructive devices, and approximately 100 machinegun conversion devices.

    Your reading comprehension is at the 4th grade level. The article stated that he had firearms that were machine guns and he was selling conversion kits. I think you have to be retarded not to have guessed he had converted these guns himself with the kits he had on hand.

    • “Your reading comprehension is at the 4th grade level. The article stated that he had firearms that were machine guns and he was selling conversion kits.”

      Here’s your problem — you relied on the few paragraphs of an MSN article; the headline, “He Was Found In Possession Of 100 Machine Guns” is factually incorrect.

      I pulled the Department of Homeland Security details of the items that Severin possessed and the specific charges that were filed:

      New Orleans Man Charged by Federal Grand Jury for Alleged Possession of About 100 Machine Gun Conversion Devices

      The case was investigated by the New Orleans Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

      By Homeland Security Today
      January 31, 2023

      Count 4 changes Severin with the possession of approximately 100 machineguns, that is, multiple types of machinegun conversion devices, which qualify as “machineguns” under Title 26, United States Code, Section 5845(b), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(o).

      Is a gun part a “machine gun?” According to the US Code, it is.

      I’ll repeat: Severin was NOT charged with selling fully-automatic weapons, nor possessing fully-automatic weapons — only parts that he manufactured.

      This press release from the ATF clarifies:

      New Orleans Man Charged by Federal Grand Jury for Alleged Possession of Approximately 100 Machine Gun Conversion Devices

      This source explains that Severin was in possession of SIX guns when he was arrested:

      “They turned up five pistols; a privately made “ghost gun”; silencers; more than 100 “machine gun conversion” devices; and an “industrial milling machine covered in metal shavings,” court records show.”

      Even after I’ve provided three official sources (not news articles from an unreliable propaganda outfit) proving that you’re wrong, I’m sure that you’ll continue to lie — a form of mental illness classified as “pathological lying.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here