Everything You ever needed to know about the 2023 atf pistol brace rule

Nothing in this content should be construed as legal advice. Always check your local laws before making any firearm or firearm accessory purchase.

Pistol braces have been one of the most contentious and confusing topics in the firearms space over the last few years. Along with bump stocks and “assault weapons”, pistol braces have generated a great deal of confusion with gun owners and significant litigation, lawsuits, and challenges involving federal agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the United States Supreme Court, US District Courts, and state level courts.

While the last 10 years have seen the most heated debates and rule changes, this whole situation began with the National Firearms Act (NFA), which was enacted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and passed by Congress in 1934. Over 90 years later, the classifications laid out in the NFA still regulate certain types of firearms based on their features, functions, and barrel lengths (the NFA is also where the $200 tax stamp originated). 

Why does the NFA have an impact on pistol braces over 90 years later? Congress very specifically defined the context of a “Firearm” for the purposes of the NFA.

“ The term “Firearm” means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel or length, or any other weapon, except of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition”  

And so, on July 26, 1934, the first legal definition of a short-barreled rifle (SBR) was born, and pistol braces have lived in a legal grey area as courts and federal agencies battle back and forth about whether or not the usage of a pistol brace turns the weapon into a short-barreled rifle. Since the passing of the NFA, legal challenges have come from both sides regarding the legality of firearms ownership of all types and of Second Amendment constitutional rights.

Current State of The ATF Pistol Brace Rule

On July 17, 2025, the Trump administration’s DOJ ended its appeal of Mock v. Bondi, the renamed but continued appeal of Mock v. Garland. This was the latest and final decision in a long series of legal back-and-forth, and, for all intents and purposes, officially killed Final Rule 2021R‑08F, also known as the ATF pistol brace rule. Pistol brace restrictions and legislation continue at the state level, but at the federal level, pistol braces are completely legal for ownership and use. The ending of the ATF pistol brace rule erased several restrictions and hurdles that gun owners were facing during the Biden administration.

• Braced pistols are not considered NFA items.
• No NFA registration requirements for pistol brace ownership.
• Pistol brace owners are not required to register, surrender, or destroy their firearm.
• Building a stabilizing brace for a pistol does not require an ATF Form 1 application.
• Owners do not need to permanently attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm.
• Braced pistols are treated exactly the same as any other handgun, with no restrictions on interstate transport.
• Individual states may have their own rules and restrictions around pistol braces, though many are under legal challenge.

History of Pistol Braces & Regulation

What Was The ATF Pistol Brace Rule?

The ATF pistol brace rule, formally known as Final Rule 2021R‑08F, was a federal regulation finalized in January 2023 that attempted to redefine most firearms with stabilizing braces (pistol braces) as short-barreled rifles rather than pistols. The rule evaluated firearms based on several criteria to determine if they were designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder. If the firearm met enough of the criteria, it was reclassified as an SBR, and owners would have to register the weapon as an NFA item, modify it, destroy it, or surrender it to law enforcement. In 2024, both the Fifth and Eighth Circuits found that the rule violated various laws and that the classification criteria were overly vague.    

What Is a Pistol Brace?

A pistol brace is defined as a stabilizing brace that attaches to the rear of a pistol or buffer tube with the intention of being strapped or “braced” against the shooter’s forearm to help them fire the handgun with a single hand in a safer, more stable way. Importantly, pistol braces are not buttstocks as you would find on a rifle or carbine. They’re designed to be shorter in length and have less surface area for bracing against a forearm, not a shoulder.  

Pistol Braces and The ATF

On November 8, 2012, a US Army veteran and FFL holder, Alex Bosco, submitted the first design for a pistol brace to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. This stabilizing brace was intended to be used on an AR-style pistol to help shooters with disabilities or limited strength or mobility, giving them a higher level of control, comfort, and accuracy. Specifically, Alex wanted to know whether attaching his stabilizing brace to the pistol would change its classification under Federal firearms laws, potentially rendering it an NFA item (SBR).

After reviewing the prototype pistol brace, the ATF determined that, when attached to the weapon, it did not transform it into a firearm designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder. With the ATF’s “blessing” and no NFA restrictions, Alex went on to found SB Tactical and manufacture and sell pistol braces for several different pistol platforms. Over the next few years, pistol braces exploded in popularity and helped to popularize the “AR-15 style” pistol system. One of the most popular adaptations of the pistol brace became known as the “Sig Brace”.  

TImeline of Major pistol brace regulatory events

2014 – The ATF Confirms its stance on pistol braces

The ATF seemed to “double down” on their opinion about pistol braces in 2014 when then Sgt. Joe Bradley of the Greenwood Village, CO police department, sent the ATF a letter asking whether shouldering a pistol equipped with a Sig Brace and firing it would change its classification to a short-barreled rifle, since the brace is now being used as a buttstock. The ATFs reply to Sgt. Bradley, which came from the ATF Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) affirmed that even if someone brought the pistol brace to their shoulder, it did not become an SBR, and its classification did not change.  

“For the following reasons, we have determined that firing a pistol from the shoulder would not cause the pistol to be reclassified as an SBR:

FTB classifies weapons based on their physical design characteristics. While the usage/functionality of the weapon does influence the intended design, it is not the sole criterion for determining the classification of a weapon. Generally speaking, we do not classify weapons based on how an individual uses a weapon.

FTB has previously determined (see FTB # 99146) that the firing of a weapon from a particular position, such as placing the receiver extension of an AR-15 type pistol on the user’s shoulder, does not change the classification of a weapon. Further, certain firearm accessories, such as the SIG Stability Brace, have not been classified by FTB as shoulder stocks and, therefore, using the brace improperly does not constitute a design change. Using such an accessory improperly would not change the classification of the weapon per Federal law. However, FTB cannot recommend using a weapon (or weapon accessory) in a manner not intended by the manufacturer.”

With the ATF confirming in writing that their role was to classify and regulate firearms based on their intended use as defined by the gun’s physical characteristics, and didn’t care about how the owner chose to use it, the firearms world exploded. To many gun owners, owning a pistol-braced AR or AK-style pistol was almost as good as owning an SBR, but with zero NFA paperwork, tax stamps, or lengthy waits. Publicly, Sig maintained that their SB-15 pistol brace was intended to be used with one hand and not as a shouldered buttstock, but they didn’t discourage anyone from using it to make the quasi equivalent of an SBR. Afterall, the ATF publicly said that there was no issue with shouldering a pistol brace and they didn’t care how you used your own legally acquired firearm.

In late 2014, several figures in the firearms manufacturing and shooting community saw potential issues on the horizon with the new wild west of pistol braces and began to express some concern. While the ATF may have determined that having a pistol brace attached and even shouldering it didn’t classify the weapon as an SBR, NFA rules are explicitly clear that modifying firearms in any way that turns them into a Title II weapon (NFA firearm) without the proper licensing is a violation of law and can bring down the full wrath of the Federal government. Many shooters and legal analysts made the argument that so long as they were using a commercially available pistol brace installed correctly per the manufacturer’s instructions and not modified in any way, there was nothing to worry about.  

2015 – The ATF Changes Its Mind About Pistol Braces

Knowing that the ATF’s tolerance for pistol braces might be growing thinner, manufacturers began sending their own letters to the ATF requesting clarification about the classification and legality of their stabilizing-braced firearm designs. On November 14, 2014, the ATF responded to a letter from Black Aces Tactical asking about the classification of their shotgun.  The shotgun in question has an overall length of 27 inches and was equipped with a SigTac SB15 arm brace and vertical foregrip.  Black Aces was hoping this firearm wouldn’t land in the short-barreled shotgun/AOW classification of the NFA. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch confirmed for Black Aces exactly what they wanted to hear, almost. With a forward grip attached, the weapon could no longer be considered a pistol or handgun and therefore was not exempt from classification as an AOW. However, because it was not intended to be concealed and its overall length was above 26 inches, it was not an AOW. The shotgun was considered a “Firearm” as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), but was not considered a “firearm” as defined by the NFA, with one major caveat. If the user raised the brace to their shoulder, they were now using an AOW, and all NFA rules applied.

The submitted weapon, as described and depicted above, is a “firearm” subject to GCA provisions: however, it is not a “firearm” as defined by the NFA provided the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace is used as originally designed and NOT used as a shoulder stock. Please note that if the subject firearm is concealed on a person, the classification with regard to the NFA may change.

However, should an individual utilize the SigTac SB15 pistol stabilizing brace on the submitted sample as a shoulder stock to fire the weapon from the shoulder, this firearm would then be classified as a “short-barreled shotgun” as defined in the NFA, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(1) because the subject brace has then been made or remade, designed or redesigned from its originally intended purpose.

We caution further that this classification pertains only to this type of firearm and its classification under Federal law. We recommend that you check with individual States to verify that it complies with their respective State laws and local ordinances.

This response seemingly directly contradicted what Sgt. Bradly received earlier in the year. Now, the ATF would change the firearm’s classification depending on how the owner used the weapon, at least as it applied to this specific shotgun.  

In January 2015, just before the SHOT Show was set to kick off, the ATF released an open letter from Max M. Kingery, the Acting Chief of the Firearms Technology Criminal Branch. In this letter, the ATF effectively reversed its initial determination about shouldering a pistol brace. Bringing a pistol brace up to your shoulder now constitutes “redesigning” the firearm to be fired from the shoulder, thus making it an SBR/NFA firearm.  

“The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked. Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA. “  

Pistol brace on the forearm, you’re ok. Pistol brace raised to your shoulder, you’re now in violation of federal law.

2016 – Pistol Braces Are OK to Own But Not Ok To Shoulder

That January 2015 open letter from the ATF sent significant ripples through the firearms industry and gun owners across the country.  There were somewhat exaggerated but legitimate concerns from owners about being reported to the ATF because “someone thought they saw you shoulder your braced pistol,” but those fears were almost entirely unfounded. Despite legal ambiguity from the ATF, demand for stabilizing braces remained strong as the AR pistol market continued to boom and PDW-style pistol builds grew in popularity. SB Tactical launched the MPX PSB, the first adjustable pistol brace (designed for the Sig Sauer MPX), and quickly followed with the SBPDW, a 3-position adjustable brace for AR pistols based on the popular Maxim Defense CQB stock.

The ATF maintained its position from January 2015 that properly mounted pistol braces used correctly posed no restriction, but shouldering the weapon would technically constitute “redesigning it,” and would immediately reclassify the firearm as a short-barreled rifle. This vague position did nothing to address “incidental shouldering”, but the industry and gun owners seemed to be at peace with the ambiguity, and 2016 saw the pistol brace market continuing to surge.  

2017 – The ATF Says “Actually, We’ve Changed Our Minds About Pistol Braces, Sort of.”

In a March 21, 2017, letter titled “Re: Reversal of ATF Open Letter on the Redesign of ‘Stabilizing Braces‘”, the ATF walked back its January 2015 position that shouldering a pistol brace automatically redesigned the weapon into an SBR.  In a very government-sounding way, the ATF admitted that they caused a great deal of confusion.

“Although we stand by those conclusions, we agree that the Open Letter may have generated some confusion concerning the analytical framework by which those conclusions were reached. “  

The ATF went further to clarify (again, in a very government-sounding way) that occasional, accidental, or situational firing of a braced pistol from the shoulder didn’t automatically put the shooter in violation of the NFA.

“To the extent the January 2015 Open Letter implied or has been construed to hold that incidental, sporadic, or situational “use” of an arm-brace (in its original approved configuration) equipped firearm from a firing position at or near the shoulder was sufficient to constitute “redesign,” such interpretations are incorrect and not consistent with ATF’s interpretation of the statute or the manner in which it has historically been enforced.”

In plain English, the ATF publicly said, “If anyone thought our January 2015 letter meant that simply shouldering a braced pistol once in a while automatically turns it into an illegal short-barreled rifle, that’s not what we meant, and your interpretation is wrong.”

This rather short two-page letter clarified several points about stabilizing braces.

• The act of bringing a braced pistol to one’s shoulder does not automatically turn the pistol into an SBR
• “Redesigning” a firearm requires more than momentary use. Temporarily shouldering the brace is not a “redesign”.
• The 2015 Open Letter was being read too aggressively by everyone.
• The ATF’s stance on pistol braces now aligns with how it has historically enforced laws regarding them.

In short, occasional or incidental shoulder use of a pistol brace without modifying it into a stock does not turn a pistol into an illegal SBR.

So don’t shoulder your pistol brace, but it’s ok if you do, just don’t do it a lot?  

Pistol Braces Are Booming Again in 2017

The ATF’s walking back of their 2015 position breathed even more fire into the already accelerating pistol brace market.  In 2017, SBT Tactical introduced its SBT Series of side-folding braces for CZ Scorpion, B&T, and Heckler & Koch pistols. Pistol braces were still extremely popular with AR and AK platforms, but now braces were available for “higher end” PDW builds like H&K/B&T UMP and MP5 clones.  

The 2017 letter restored confidence with gun owners that braces were legitimate pistol accessories (when used as intended).  There was still a well-discussed level of anxiety and uncertainty because the letter was just that, only a letter clarifying a position and not a statutory change, and knowing that the ATF could change its position again at any time. Despite this uncertainty, knowing that shouldering your braced pistol wasn’t automatically committing a federal felony gave most gun owners a high level of comfort about pistol brace ownership.

2018 – You Can’t Call It ATF Compliant

The pistol brace and PDW market continued its bullish trend in 2018. Braces had become one of the most popular and talked-about accessories in the AR-pistol and pistol-caliber carbine (PCC) communities. SB Tactical pushed the envelope with its April 2018 launch of the SBA3, an adjustable brace that was stunningly similar to a traditional collapsible AR-15 stock. This new brace was marketed with the statement that  “the 5-position adjustable SBA3 does not change the classification of the host pistol.”

In July of 2018, the ATF sent a letter to SB Tactical demanding that they stop using the term “ATF Compliant” in their marketing for 23 of their braces.

”This letter is to inform SB Tactical that certain products currently marketed and sold by SB Tactical have not been evaluated nor approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch (FTISB). It has come to the attention of FTISB that all of SB Tactical “braces” are being marketed as evaluated and approved by ATF as “pistol stabilizing braces,” although. in most cases no evaluations or classification have ever occurred. “

The ATF made no formal rulings or issued any guidance on pistol braces in 2018, but manufacturers noticed that the ATF was paying close attention to how braces were designed and marketed, signalling the potential for future regulatory scrutiny.

2019 – The Calm Before The Storm

The ATF remained silent on rules and regulations regarding pistol braces, but manufacturers were now regularly engaging with the ATF for explicit approval of their brace designs, many of which drew criticism for being too “stock-like”.  This point of contention would resurface as a major topic in future rules and litigation.  Consumer confidence in braces was still sky-high, and they were among the most produced and purchased firearm accessories.  

2020 – Rumblings of Change

The ATF continued to refrain from making public statements about braces in 2020, but behind the scenes, there was significant activity. The most major signaling of what was to come was the reclassification of the popular Q LLC Honey Badger pistol. Introduced in 2017, this popular 7-inch barrel pistol was chambered in .300 AAC Blackout and came with a proprietary integral brace installed.  The Honey Badger was extremely popular with the PDW community due to its performance, caliber, and price point, with thousands of pistols sold in the years following its launch. This came to a screeching halt on August 3, 2020, when the ATF sent a cease and desist letter to Q LLC instructing them to “immediately cease and desist all manufacture and transfer of the ‘Honey Badger Pistol’ firearm” unless they registered each firearm they had manufactured on an ATF Form 2 per the NFA and “Contact the ATF with a plan for addressing the those firearms already distributed no later than August 17, 2020”. 

The ATF had determined that the Honey Badger was an SBR.  

The ATF’s justification for this reclassification of the Honey Badger rested entirely on the brace.

The [redacted] is equipped with a proprietary “pistol stabilizing brace” accessory made by [redacted]

The firearm has an overall length of approximately 20-25 inches and a barrel length of approximately 7 inches. The objective design features of the [redacted] firearm, configured with the subject stabilizing brace, indicate the firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Since this firearm also contains a rifled barrel, it meets the definition of a “rifle.” Further, since it has a barrel of less than 16 inches in length, this firearm also meets the definition of a “short-barreled rifle” under the GCA and NFA.

In a statement issued to all those who had purchased a Honey Badger, Q LLC told customers they had few options.

“In the meantime, Q encourages possessors of the Honey Badger Pistol to take these proactive measures until a resolution is reached between Q and ATF.

• Complete one of the following:
• Remove the barreled upper receiver from the lower receiver and dedicate it as a replacement for another AR-style pistol or registered short-barreled rifle; orIf you do not possess another AR-style pistol or registered short-barreled rifle, remove the barreled upper receiver from the lower receiver and temporarily transfer it out of your possession by, for example, transferring it to the dominion and control of another individual; and
• Once the previous step is completed, you may file an ATF Form 1 to register the lower receiver as a short-barreled rifle. Upon Form 1 approval, the firearm may be reassembled.
  
  Failure to complete option a or option b could result in prosecution and is subject to a $10,000.00 fine and up to 10 years imprisonment.”

Later that same year, the ATF published a proposed set of guidelines,Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with ‘Stabilizing Braces’”, with “clear” criteria for determining when a braced pistol should be classified as an SBR. Or, as the ATF put it, “the objective factors it considers when evaluating firearms with an attached stabilizing brace to determine whether they are considered firearms under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) and/or the Gun Control Act (“GCA”).”  The ATF published the draft and sought comments, but quickly withdrew the proposal after fierce pushback from lawmakers and the broader firearms community.  

These two major events stirred significant unrest and anxiety with manufacturers, pistol brace owners, and Second Amendment proponents.  

2021- The ATF Pushes Towards Formal Regulatory Criteria

Despite their occasional major shakeup, the firearms community had grown accustomed to the ATF taking fairly informal positions on pistol braces over the last decade. When the ATF began signaling formal regulatory change regarding pistol braces in 2020 with its proposed objective factors, the reaction was swift and loud.  2021 would see the ATF, under the Biden administration, shift significantly towards formal regulation and classification criteria, threatening the industry and the legality of hundreds of thousands of braced pistols.

A major catalyst for this push towards regulation was the March 2021 shooting in Boulder, CO.  During the shooting, the perpetrator used a Ruger AR-556 pistol, a braced AR-style pistol. This prompted President Biden to direct the Department of Justice in April 2021 to establish formal standards for what constituted a pistol vs an SBR, tighten regulations, and close what they deemed “a loophole” to owning short-barreled rifles. By June 2021, the ATF had published a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” that detailed objective criteria for classifying firearms with stabilizing braces. The proposed criteria would look at multiple elements.

Brace Design & Physical Characteristics      

ATF proposed evaluating whether the brace itself looked and functioned more like a stock than a brace by evaluating certain aspects of the brace:

• Rearward surface area with “wide or flat surfaces suitable for shoulder contact.”
• Shape and contour resembling a traditional rifle stock
• Adjustability (length-of-pull changes similar to collapsible stocks)
• Presence or absence of arm-support features (e.g., straps actually usable as braces)

Attachment Method & Integration

ATF said it would consider how the brace is attached and how integral it is to the firearm:

• Whether the brace mounts like a stock
• Whether removal would significantly change the firearm’s function
• How rigidly or permanently it is attached

Overall Firearm Configuration

ATF proposed looking at the entire weapon, not just the brace:

• Length of pull
• Overall length
• Weight and balance
• Whether the firearm’s size and ergonomics make one-handed use unrealistic

Presence of Rifle-Like Accessories

The ATF included accessories as part of its analysis, including:

• Rifle-style sights or optics that require shoulder firing
• Vertical foregrips
• Bipods or other rifle-typical features

Marketing, Instructions, and Manufacturer Intent

ATF proposed evaluating how the firearm and brace are marketed or described, including:

• Advertisements suggesting shoulder use
• Instructions or imagery showing shouldering
• Product descriptions implying SBR-like performance

Intended Use / Design Intent (Not User Behavior)

The ATF emphasized that it was not focused on occasional shoulder firing by a user, but rather whether the firearm was designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder based on its features.

There was also a proposed “point system” to help make decisions for each objective criterion, assigning 0-4 points based on how likely it was that the weapon could, may, is likely intended to, or is designed to be fired from the shoulder.  

Public and Industry Response

This sparked a massive uproar from manufacturers and supporters of Second Amendment rights, generating over 210,000 public comments, which can still be seen on the filing. The pervasive concern was that there were an estimated 3,000,000+ braces in public circulation, and the DOJ/ATF proposed solution was entirely subjective, echoing the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB) under the Clinton administration, where the choice of criteria was widely criticized as subjective because they focused on appearance and perception, not function.

2022 – The Industry Braces For Impact

It was clear to the firearms industry that the Biden administration was going to aggressively pursue regulation of pistol braces, and by mid 2022, the firearm community was expecting the ATF’s new “Pistol Brace Rule” or an outright pistol brace ban to take effect sometime that year. The rumor was that in mid- December 2022, the ATF’s new rules would go into effect and enforcement would begin immediately. Firearms owners, manufacturers, and gun rights advocacy groups were actively discussing the impacts of new regulations and what compliance might entail. There was a very founded concern that suddenly, overnight, thousands (or even millions) of previously legal  braced pistols would be in violation of NFA regulations, putting their owners at risk of federal prison sentences. Despite the rumored rollout of the new rules, the ATF and DOJ spent 2022 finalizing the factoring criteria and tightening up their defense of the new rule.

2023 – The Pistol Brace Rule Arrives

On January 13, 2023, the U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland signed ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’”.  This rule amended the federal definition of “rifle” to explicitly include firearms with stabilizing braces if other factors were present that indicated the weapon was “designed, made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder”. The ATF dropped the proposed point system in 2021, but most of the qualitative factors from the original proposal were implemented. Criteria like weight and overall length, surface area, length of pull, and “likely use in the firearm community” and others would be used to make an assessment of whether or not the firearm was a pistol or an SBR. As a result, millions of firearms were put into legal limbo.  

Compliance Requirements

There would be a 120-day compliance period, ending on May 31, 2023.  During this time, pistol brace owners whose firearms met the new definition of “rifle” had four options.  

1. Register the firearm as an SBR in accordance with NFA rules (with no $200 tax stamp if done in the 120-day window)
2. Permanently remove the stabilizing brace
3. Install a barrel of at least 16 inches in length
4. Permanently destroy the firearm or turn it over to the ATF or law enforcement

Reactions to The 2023 Pistol Brace Rule

The new ATF rule generated three different but simultaneous reactions from the firearms community.

Confusion and fear 

Many pistol brace owners were unable to determine if their specific firearm met the ATF’s new criteria for an SBR. The factors used to determine classification were seen as vague and difficult to apply, leading to a very real fear of unintentional non-compliance and future legal troubles.

Hesitation

Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and gun owners were extremely hesitant to register their firearms as SBRs, even with the proposed tax stamp waiver.  They faced significant paperwork, personal scrutiny, waiting periods, and the stigma associated with NFA items. Registering their braced pistols as SBRs “put them on the radar” with federal authorities.

Outrage and Pushback

Second Amendment groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Gun Owners of America, and other gun rights groups publicly criticized the new rule as a massive overreach of the ATF’s authority and part of a larger plan to circumvent Congress. Almost immediately, lawsuits were filed and legal defense funds established.    

Legal Challenges

Multiple lawsuits were filed in quick succession once the pistol brace rule was put into place, arguing that the ATF had grossly exceeded its authority and the new rule was unconstitutional.  Three major cases quickly emerged that would play a significant role in the future of pistol braces.

Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland

The lawsuit filed in the Eighth Circuit by the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) in conjunction with SB Tactical and a large list of other plaintiffs, including 25 states, challenges the new rule, “arguing it exceeded the ATF’s statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious.”  The United States District Court for the District of North Dakota initially denied the request for an injunction, and that decision was quickly appealed.    

Mock v. Garland

Filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition in the 5th circuit, this lawsuit argued that the ATF’s new definition of “rifle” was not consistent with the original intent of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and that the new rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Second Amendment. In May 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued a nationwide injunction pending appeal, delaying the pistol brace rule from taking effect.    

Britto v. ATF

Filed by Darren Britto, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), the National Association of Gun Rights, and other plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit, this lawsuit argued that the new pistol brace rule violated both the Second Amendment and the Separation of Powers, which prohibits federal agencies from making new laws without Congressional authorization. A nationwide injunction was issued in December 2023, further preventing the new rule from being enforced.  

2024 – The ATF Loses Ground

Ligation continued throughout 2024, with additional injunctions issued that blocked enforcement of the ATF Final Rule. As additional legal challenges mounted, the ATF began to lose significant ground in federal courts. In April 2024, a federal judge agreed with the National Rifle Association (NRA) that if the ATF pistol brace rule was put into effect, the NRA’s members impacted by the rule would face “irreparable harm”.  

As part of Mock v. Garland and then Mock v. Bondi, the Fifth Circuit federal district court in Texas vacated the ATF Final Rule entirely during a June 2024 ruling. They found the rule was unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In August 2024, the Eighth Circuit made a ruling in Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland, finding that the ATF’s Final Rule was “arbitrary and capricious” because of unclear standards in the criteria. The court found that the new pistol brace rule could legally let the ATF reach any classification conclusion it wanted about what was considered an SBR or pistol.    

By the end of 2024, the ATF pistol brace rule was effectively dead in the water, with no legal way to enforce it, and courts found that the ATF likely overreached its authority.  

2025 – The Pistol Brace Rule Is Dismantled Entirely

At the start of 2025, it was looking increasingly likely that the ATF had no credible defense left for the 2023 Final Rule. On July 17, 2025, the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice agreed to drop its appeal in the key lawsuit that got the pistol brace rule vacated in federal court, Mock v. Bondi/Mock v. Garland.  By dropping their appeal, there were no remaining legal defences to keep the rule in place, and it was officially vacated.    

Pistol braces returned to their original 2017 status at the federal level as pistols, not short-barreled rifles.  Once again, there were no restrictions on buying, selling, or using pistol braces, and no NFA registration was required for ownership or transfer.  

2026 – State Level Regulation Continues

Though pistol braces face no federal restrictions, several states have explicit laws on them, though many do not.  

Every effort was made to ensure this information was as accurate as possible at the time of publication, but it should not be taken as legal advice; always consult your state’s laws.