Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

NFA Prosecution Shows ATF Still Determined to Imprison Americans for Braced Pistols

Monday, February 10, 2025

NFA Prosecution Shows ATF Still Determined to Imprison Americans for Braced Pistols

Documents filed in an ongoing prosecution for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle are raising new concerns about ATF’s enforcement policy concerning pistols with attached stabilizing braces. The government’s assertions of authority are truly breathtaking, claiming they can use the terms of an invalid rule to interpret the underlying statute and enforce it against U.S. citizens in felony prosecutions.

We have been reporting on the saga of ATF’s ill-fated 2023 administrative edict, Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces,” ever since the rule was proposed. The final version of that regulation reversed more than a decade of prior statements by ATF that attaching a stabilizing brace to a pistol did not create a short-barreled rifle (SBR) regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Instead, ATF would use a series of vague and open-ended criteria to determine if the braced pistol was intended to be fired from the shoulder. But the rule provided no guidance to owners of such pistols how the criteria would be applied. Instead, ATF essentially claimed, “We’ll know an SBR when we see it.”

The pistol brace rule drew numerous legal challenges – including by the NRA – and several different courts found it defective on various grounds. A series of injunctions against its enforcement issued until, on June 13, 2024, a federal judge in Texas vacated the rule altogether. Owners of braced pistols breathed a sigh of relief, the threat of felony prosecution seemingly abated.

Last month, however, we reported on an alarming email to a gun owner sent by ATF’s Firearm Industry Programs Branch (FIPB). The owner had asked ATF if attaching a stabilizing brace to a CZ Scorpion pistol would turn it into an SBR subject to the NFA. FIPB’s reply stated: “Federal law requires a pistol with an attached stabilizing brace or stock be registered as a short barreled rifle (SBR).”

The FIPB response also acknowledged that enforcement of ATF’s pistol brace rule was enjoined, and asserted, “While the appeal is pending, ATF is complying with the Court’s order.”

Yet ATF’s idea of “compliance,” according to the email, was to assert an even broader authority to treat ALL braced pistols as SBRS (not just ones fulfilling the “factoring criteria” specified in its rule), based on the agency’s reading of the underlying statutes.

After our reporting on that email, ATF quickly issued another statement, walking back the categorical statement about braced pistols. “ATF agrees that the statement ‘Federal law requires a pistol with an attached stabilizing brace or stock be registered as a short barreled rifle (SBR)’ is overbroad.” But the follow-up also continued to assert that ATF remained responsible for enforcing the underlying statutes. “A firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder that meets the statutory definition of a short-barreled rifle contained in the NFA must be made and transferred in accordance with the requirements of the NFA,” it stated. It did not, however, elaborate on how the agency would make this determination with respect to braced pistols or how owners of such guns might know whether ATF considers their firearms SBRs subject to the NFA.

Last week, however, NRA was made aware of a pending prosecution for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle that answers this question in a shocking way. Documents the government filed in that case acknowledge ATF’s enforcement of the underlying statute continues to be informed by the terms of the agency’s illegal rule. The case is U.S. v. Taranto in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Taylor Taranto was charged, among other things, with illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle under the NFA for having a CZ Scorpion EVO 3 S1 pistol with an attached SB Tactical stabilizing brace. The firearm was submitted to ATF’s Firearms & Ammunition Technology Division, Field Response Branch, for a “technical examination,” which determined it was an SBR. In doing so, the examination used several of the “factoring criteria” in ATF’s invalidated rule, including the pistol’s weight, its surface area for shouldering, its length of pull, and its sight configuration.

Taranto moved to have the SBR count dismissed, noting that the ATF rule on which it was based had been enjoined and vacated.

The government’s opposition to this motion – filed on July 25, 2024 – indicated that it did not cite the rule in it charges against Taranto and was instead relying on its authority to enforce the underlying statute. Yet, incredibly, it admitted that it was still using the rule’s criteria in its statutory analysis. It stated:

Although the rule is stayed (and, now, vacated), ATF is not barred from continuing to enforce the underlying statute as it always has: by making case-by-case determinations about whether particular braced firearms constitute “rifles” under the statute. And of course, because the rule reflects ATF’s best understanding of the statute, those determinations will naturally tend to look substantially like the determinations that would follow from applying the clear framework outline in the rule.

Taranto’s attorneys were incredulous in their reply to the government’s filing, stating: “The government’s opposition has taken a truly astonishing position.” They continued:

Notwithstanding these repeated losses [on the validity of the braced pistol rule], the government believes it can continue with this prosecution because it is purportedly not relying on the now-vacated Rule, just relying on the legal conclusions embedded in it. Yet, in the next breath, it claims that Mr. Taranto had fair notice that he had to register the braced pistol because of that very Final Rule. The government’s positions are contradictory, unfair, and most importantly not legally sound.

To date, the motion to dismiss remains unresolved. Nevertheless, Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney under who’s authority the government filed its July 25, 2024, opposition, has since resigned. Graves had also charged Taranto with offenses related to the events of Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Those charges have since been dismissed.

As Taranto’s attorneys note in their briefs, there is nothing in the NFA’s statutory text about braced pistols. ATF’s authority over such items arises purely from ATF’s own extrapolations, memorialized in its rule, and found invalid by multiple courts.

It is outrageous that ATF is now thumbing its nose at the federal judiciary by claiming that its faulty reasoning is still operable, so long as ATF doesn’t cite the rule itself as authority for that reasoning. Federal courts have held the reasoning and methodology of the rule was arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutionally vague. Thus, that same reasoning cannot be used to prosecute Americans for made-up felonies under the pretext that it’s a faithful reading of the statute.

Matthew Graves was infamous for his strained interpretations of the law in his zeal to prosecute political protestors present in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021. One of his tactics was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court itself. His offices interpretation of the NFA fares no better.

To date, there has not been a ruling on Taranto’s motion to dismiss his SBR count. Whether the government will continue pushing this legal theory remains to be seen. In the meantime, this episode shows the continued need for reform at ATF, which under the prior administration internalized the role of anti-gun enforcers.

TRENDING NOW
Baltimore Gets Serious on Crime Control, and the Results Speak for Themselves

News  

Monday, July 14, 2025

Baltimore Gets Serious on Crime Control, and the Results Speak for Themselves

As the mid-year mark of 2025 hits, a promising report on crime trends has come out of the City of Baltimore. Surprising news at first glance until you dig deeper into the policy direction the ...

U.K. Moves to Legally De-suppress Suppressors

News  

Monday, July 14, 2025

U.K. Moves to Legally De-suppress Suppressors

On July 4th, President Donald Trump signed into law his “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which included a provision that eliminated the tax stamp fee of $200, but did not deregulate suppressors under the National Firearms ...

President Trump Supports Hunting and Resource Protection with Executive Actions

News  

Monday, July 14, 2025

President Trump Supports Hunting and Resource Protection with Executive Actions

Just as the United States was preparing to celebrate 249 beautiful years, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on July 3rd establishing the “Make America Beautiful Again" Commission supporting hunters, outdoorsmen, and outdoor recreationists by prioritizing the ...

Legacy Media Finally Acknowledges Politization of Public Health

News  

Monday, July 14, 2025

Legacy Media Finally Acknowledges Politization of Public Health

It appears the editors of The Atlantic are finally willing to entertain an idea that has long been obvious to gun rights supporters.

House Annual Appropriations Process Update

News  

Monday, July 14, 2025

House Annual Appropriations Process Update

As the House Appropriations Committee is putting together legislation to fund the government, NRA-ILA has worked closely with policy makers to ensure several long-standing priorities for gun owners were included in the underlying bills.

U.S. House Passes Reconciliation Bill, Removing Suppressors from the National Firearms Act

News  

Second Amendment  

Thursday, May 22, 2025

U.S. House Passes Reconciliation Bill, Removing Suppressors from the National Firearms Act

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1 the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, completely removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA).

DOJ Declines to Seek Supreme Court Review of Decision Striking Down Federal Laws Prohibiting FFLs From Selling Handguns to 18-to-20-Year-Olds

Thursday, July 10, 2025

DOJ Declines to Seek Supreme Court Review of Decision Striking Down Federal Laws Prohibiting FFLs From Selling Handguns to 18-to-20-Year-Olds

In Reese v. ATF, the Fifth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1)—which together forbid Federal Firearms Licensees from selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds—violate the Second Amendment.

NRA-ILA July 2025 Litigation Update

Thursday, July 10, 2025

NRA-ILA July 2025 Litigation Update

In the second quarter of 2025, the National Rifle Association filed two cert petitions in the U.S. Supreme Court and five amicus briefs, while continuing to litigate dozens of ongoing lawsuits across the country.

Florida: Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Signed by Governor

Monday, July 7, 2025

Florida: Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Signed by Governor

Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed the Florida Budget for Fiscal Year 2025–2026, which includes a Second Amendment sales tax holiday from September 8 through December 31, 2025. The NRA is thankful for Governor DeSantis’ strong ...

Maine: Lawmakers Call for Anti-2A Progressive Professor to Be Fired

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Maine: Lawmakers Call for Anti-2A Progressive Professor to Be Fired

In case you missed the media firestorm last week, a progressive professor at Eastern Maine Community College in Bangor, Maine, has come under fire for her emails belittling a student for her religious beliefs and views ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.