North Dakota District Judge Daniel L. Hovland sided with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over the regulation of firearms equipped with pistol-stabilizing devices.
The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland was a lawsuit filed by the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) and 24 state attorney generals challenging the ATF’s final rule against pistol-stabilizing devices. The case made similar arguments as presented in three Texas cases involving the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Gun Owners of America (GOA), and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). All three gun rights organizations obtained preliminary injunctions for their members against the ATF regulations, and a panel of three judges from the Fifth Circuit of Appeals also ruled against the rule.
Unlike the Texas Courts, the George W. Bush-appointed judge ruled that the ATF was well within its rights to pass regulations on pistols equipped with stabilizing devices. He stated that he was unpersuaded by the Fifth Circuit’s decision. He said he tended to agree with the Circuit Court judge that dissented from the majority decision.
To get a preliminary injunction, the Judge must find that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of the case.
Judge Hovland found that FRAC and co-plaintiffs were not likely to succeed in Court. This decision does not mean that the plaintiffs will ultimately fail. It just means that the plaintiffs didn’t prove their likelihood of a court victory.
The Judge rejected that the ATF rule violated the Second Amendment. He reasoned that “uniquely dangerous weapons, including short-barreled rifles, are not protected by the Second Amendment.” Judge Hovland stated that the Second Amendment does not protect “weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” He ignored that there are more SBRs in circulation than stun guns, and the courts have ruled there are enough stun guns to be considered “in common use.”
The Judge also claimed that since pistol braces are not firearms, there are no Second Amendment protections. Judge Hovland compared pistol braces to suppressors, which he claims are accessories. That flies in the face of the ATF’s own determination.
The ATF regulates silencers under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the agency believes the devices meet the definition of an “arm.” The Judge seems to think that the terms “arms” and “guns” are interchangeable. He also believes that licensing requirements do not violate the Second Amendment. The Judge wrote:
“More important, the ATF’s Final Rule does not ban stabilizing braces or firearms equipped with them. Instead, the Final Rule requires individuals and entities to comply with the NFA’s statutory requirements by registering the weapons with the ATF or permanently detaching the stabilizing brace from the pistol. Simply stated, the Second Amendment is not at issue in this lawsuit, nor does the Second Amendment provide a ‘regulatory blank check’ to possess a stabilizing brace or a short-barreled rifle. The Second Amendment does not prohibit reasonable licensing regimes associated with ownership of a firearm.”
Judge Hovland also believed the ATF had the authority to issue the new rule and stated that the ATF did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
The Judge claimed that the ATF did not change the definition of a rifle when writing the rule, and they have the authority to reinterpret the meaning of a rifle. From his decision:
“This Court is not convinced that the ATF’s interpretation of a short-barreled rifle contradicts the original meaning of ‘rifle’ such that a preliminary injunction is warranted at this stage of the case. The Court recognizes that the Plaintiffs make some reasonable arguments in support of their position, but none necessitate the issuance of a preliminary injunction at this state which is an extraordinary remedy. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have not met their burden on this particular APA claim.”
The Judge also claims the rule does not violate the rule of lenity.
The rule of lenity states that an interpretation of a rule or law must be interpreted in favor of the defendant (one charged or could be charged with a crime). Judge Hovland stated that there is no ambiguity in the rule. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees with his reasoning. The Texas courts have found the rule to be ambiguous.
Hovland also rejected the claim that the rule is arbitrary and capricious; he believes the rule to be clear and concise, something the Texas courts have rejected. If the rule were arbitrary and capricious, it would violate the APA.
The Judge also rejected the complaint about the cost-benefit analysis. The government did not factor in the millions of braces sold after 2019. The Judge had no problem with those numbers not being included in the final count. The absence of those numbers skewed the cost-benefit analysis results, but the Judge didn’t care.
FRAC also argued that making the rule retroactive violates the ATF’s authority. The Judge disagreed with the Plaintiffs. The Judge claims that since the rule is “interpretive,” it is not subject to the same regulations.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION — Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition… by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd
About John Crump
John Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist; he has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and read the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Wow, this judge made every argument absolutely wrong in his decision. I cannot believe his arrogance.
He was appointed to the bench by George Bush (the younger.)
who is another RINO.
First off, he’s not really a judge, he’s just pretending to be one! Secondly, he’s a part of a criminal cabal, making a profit off of the crimes of that cabal, so why would anyone expect for him to do anything differently that what he already has?? Please read my paper above and then apply that data in whatever way you can!
Another judge who needs removed from the bench for violating g his oath to uphold the constitution. apparently his comprehension level is very low . ” Shall not be infringed ” is to difficult for him to understand ? Did he not get the memo on the Bruen decision ? What a complete idiot !
The judge is a grandstanding chump looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
He went home and told his gerbil all about it.
Worse, he’s undoubtedly on the deep state payroll and probably has a locker at CIA’s epstein island and a secret bank account they keep full when he does their bidding.
Judge appointed by a bush. Therefore he is an east coast Rino even though he comes from North Dakota. Just like bush as president, a disappointing judge and will do anything to justify gun grabbing.
lf I want to put a pinwheel and a bicycle beII on my gun, l WILL, and no “judge” can do anything about it.
someone will file a “red flag” complaint and say you are crazy…
just FYI . lol
Another Bush #2 appointees comes back to haunt us! The Globalists strike again!
This is just a districe court judge’s decision, it will be appealed to the next level of the federal court system.
And so what if it is appealed? Didn’t you get the memo that the ENTIRE private and profit seeking legal system is corrupted??
I wish one of these lawsuits would have the cojones to directly challenge the concept of a SBR and there presence in the NFA. Contrary to what this judge says, an SBR is NOT a “uniquely dangerous weapon”. They are not as concealable as a handgun, modern optics makes a pistol just as accurate, and plenty of handgun rounds are more powerful than than 5.56 x 45.
Dorectly challenge the voncept of NFA. Unusual and dangerous weapons not covered by 2A? Absurd! If I paid good money for s weapon, I expect it to be dangerous. And “unusual” makes it the life of the party.
just goes to show you that no matter who appoints judges they are willing to ignore scotus rulings (bruen) to deny law-abiding citizens rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. where is the historical data that pistol braces were not included in the B of R? he cannot even use the correct terms; pistols with braces are not sbr’s, the nfa states that suppressors are arms, and millions of pistol braced firearms is not in common use? a preliminary injunction is not an extraordinary ruling. the government can appeal the ruling and shouldn’t the government rule on the side of… Read more »
Judge appointed by a bush. Therefore he is an east coast Rino even though he comes from North Dakota. Just like bush, a disappointing judge and will do anything to justify gun grabbing.
It must have been the Moloch/Vatican worshipers who down voted you here!
It’s the 100% corrupted legal system that runs the world, it IS the root of the Tree of Evil that we must be striking at instead of all of the branches.
Keep screaming it out! From the highest roof tops. And be sure to write what the remedy is outside of hanging these bastards from a light pole.
Did this idiotic ‘judge’ bother to read his own comments? His order is full of inconsistencies, lies, and assumptions.
Deep state judge. So obvious. Probably went to the CIA’s epstein island and gets secret payments for shit rulings like this.
The only reason short-barreled anything is not in more common use is the NFA Act which imposed a$200 fee……massive cost for average Joe in 1934….and extreme controls on Average Joe regarding same. However, some 200,000 registered in the NFA seems to suggest they are in common use.
The only reason machineguns are not in more common use is the NFA. The Maxim was introduced in, when, 1881? The year Billy the Kid was allegedly killed? If not for NFA, every AR-15 ever manufactured for the US market would have a 3-position giggle switch.
I would certainly hope that anyone reading here understands that this is just one necessary step in what is going to be a long process. No matter who eventually wins this case in District Court, the case is still going to have to go to the Circuit Court because whoever loses is certainly going to appeal. Regardless of who wins in Circuit Court, this case and the one in the 5th Circuit are both going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will have to choose whether or not to even hear the case. Traditionally the Supreme… Read more »
Just goes to prove that you can be a “judge” even with a three digit IQ. This guy is not only a complete idiot, he’s an ARROGANT complete idiot. Maybe he needs to go back to 3rd grade and learn the meaning SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Like DUH???
2 digit I Q?
Federal judges should not have “lifetime appointments”. This Judge born in 1954 is not that old, and thus would not likely be subject to any prospective a “mandatory retirement” rule. However, it is possible that he would previously have (and clearly for this “politically motivated” and “finger to SCOTUS” decision) been removed for “bad behaviour” as provided in Article III. But of course the federal judiciary (i.e., SCOTUS) has no procedure for removing judges for “bad behaviour” and relies solely on the partisans in the Congress to impeach as the only vehicle for removing a judge who disregards the Constitution… Read more »
No, no, no, NO!! That is going about it completely WRONNGG! Exposing the crimes and criminality of the legal system is the ONLY way to deal with it effectively! When a rattlesnake is shaking its tail at you furiously, you don’t reach out to try to pet it and make friends with it! It doesn’t understand the concept of benevolence and friendship! You either walk away and leave it be, or you kill it!! Have you read any of my postings here about the blatant criminality of the legal system, do you think that I am just full of crap… Read more »
I dunno, but I have been retired for 10 years, and he is as old as my parents…pretty old.
“Uniquely dangerous” weapons are not covered by the Second Amendment? Since when? I’d be pissed if I spent money on a weapon and it was not dangerous; that would be a waste of money. The more dangerous the better value.
Stupid judge ought to be stretching his neck at the end of a rope, stinking up the town square.
What a friggin’ idiot.