It’s a limited injunction, at least in terms of who it applies to.  But it’ll give the YouTubosphere peeps plenty of click-bait opportunities to put out videos about today’s ruling.

No, Virginia, this injunction doesn’t apply to you or me.  The Firearms Policy Coalition got an injunction for the plaintiffs, not everyone.

The named plaintiffs are:  William Mock, Christopher Lewis, Maxim Defense Industries, LLC, and Firearms Policy Coalition. 

And while Guns Save Life (used to be, at least) on the FPC’s list of affiliates in their coalition, I wouldn’t hang my hat on your GSL membership card giving you a pass on the May 30th deadline for registering your braced firearm to the BATF.  Speaking of which, I completed my final one today.  More on that soon.

From the Firearms Policy Coalition:

FPC Secures Injunction Against ATF Pistol Brace Rule, Will Seek Clarification on Scope of Ruling
NEW ORLEANS, LA (May 23, 2023) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) released a statement on the Fifth Circuit’s Order granting an Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland, FPC and FPC Action Foundation’s federal lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) recent rule reclassifying braced pistols as National Firearms Act (NFA)-regulated short-barreled rifles. The injunction, along with other case documents, can be viewed at
FPC challenged ATF’s administrative rule that seeks to reclassify “braced pistols” as “short-barreled rifles.” In so doing, the rule would transform millions of peaceable people into felons overnight simply for owning a firearm that has been lawful to own for a decade, unless they either destroy their constitutionally protected property or comply with the NFA’s onerous and unconstitutional requirements.
FPC has argued that the rule is a violation of both the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act because it infringes upon the fundamental and natural rights of the People. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to secure their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
Per the the Fifth Circuit’s Order, “IT IS ORDERED that the appeal is EXPEDITED to the next available Oral Argument Calendar. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ Opposed Motion For a Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal is GRANTED as to the Plaintiffs in this case.”
FPC intends to seek clarification as to who is covered under the scope of the injunction.
“We are very excited and encouraged by the Fifth Circuit’s decision this morning,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation at FPC Action Foundation. “We intend to ask the Court for additional information about who is covered under the injunction, but cannot stress enough just how important this decision is. The fight is far from over, but this is a huge victory in the battle against the ATF’s unconstitutional and unlawful brace rule!”
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 Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.
Firearms Policy Coalition (, a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.
FPC Law ( is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.
7 thoughts on “Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issues *LIMITED* injunction blocking pistol brace enforcement”
  1. “FPC challenged ATF’s administrative rule that seeks to reclassify “braced pistols” as “short-barreled rifles.” In so doing, the rule would transform millions of peaceable people into felons overnight simply for owning a firearm that has been lawful to own for a decade, unless they either destroy their constitutionally protected property or comply with the NFA’s onerous and unconstitutional requirements.”

    Sound familiar? Register your firearms, or become an instant felon. This case is directly on point for this principal of ex-post facto legal jeopardy by government fiat. Fortunately, the Fifth doesn’t have a towering legal scholar the likes of Judas Easterturd to do the government’s bidding there, and FPC was able to get an immediately injunction until the actual case was heard. A Federal ruling generally applies to all citizens, not just the named plaintiffs, but I would certainly wait until you see that clarified before taking it to the bank. The same injunction SHOULD have been issued here until the case is decided in Federal court, but the Seventh has too many robed floaters to have allowed that.

    Speaking of communist scum, Don Harmon strikes again:

    You will no longer be allowed to raise a case vs. the State of Illinois anywhere except Cook or Sangamon counties. Obergruppenfurher Harmon doesn’t like the fact that we have circuit courts throughout the state, and seeks to abolish them for any case involving challenging a State Law on constitutional grounds. Guess why?
    Heil Harmon!

  2. Can the states limit where a U.S. citizen chooses to take his grievances ? I believe the federal courts may weigh in on this stupidity. I have lived in IL for 56 years and have never been under the illusion this is a free state. The actions of the IL legislature in the past couple years are blatantly totalitarian.

  3. In my experience, the courts aren’t going to kill this thing off for at least a year or two. Expecting a court to stop this within a few months is either wishful thinking or naivety (or however you spell it). Or both.

    1. And that will be too late. Once the government has the information, they will never relinquish it. They will disseminate it to any other agency who wants it, and leak it to further an agenda. California already got busted doing just that with gun owners – publishing their addresses for all to see and painting a target on people’s backs.

      We cannot afford for this to extend past 01 Jan 2024 without a full injunction resetting that date, or removing the requirement to register. ISP will not ‘unlearn’ the data they are given, and it will be used against gun owners later.

  4. I’m not sure that’s constitutional.It is well established in the law that all courts of general jurisdiction of the States share what is called concurrent jurisdiction with the federal Judiciary over federal statutory and constitutional claims.

    For all of you lawyers who are lurking here:
    See an opinion from a neighboring state on a substantially similar issue and how it came out in favor of the plaintiffs:

    You should also read the substantial dissent out of the Michigan Supreme Court in denying leave to appeal.These issues will certainly help you formulate your arguments against this illinois law.

    It certainly strikes me as unconstitutionand I’m not certain that the General Assembly has the constitutional authority under the Illinois constitution to so restrict the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts of general jurisdiction of illinois. Michigan has courts of limited subject matter restriction that may be statutorily restricted.

    At any rate you must consider that this issue is going to go before a state court judge of a court of general jurisdiction and we know how they hate to have their subject matter jurisdiction (or their pensions) restricted!

    1. Yeah, it’s plainly unconstitutional.

      Circuit Courts shall have original jurisdiction of all
      justiciable matters except when the Supreme Court has
      original and exclusive jurisdiction relating to redistricting
      of the General Assembly and to the ability of the Governor to
      serve or resume office. Circuit Courts shall have such power
      to review administrative action as provided by law.

      All circuit courts have original jurisdiction.It would take a constitutional amendment to divest any other circuit court than sangamon or Cook County of original s.m. jurisdiction over such claims. This statute, if it passes, will die on the first challenge, don’t sweat it.

      It won’t take even a half-witted judge to realize that it’s not a venue provision but a subject matter jurisdiction restriction.

    2. That doesn’t stop that POS Don Harmon from running it through and FatAss from making it law for years while the courts dick around and let blatantly unconstitutional ‘laws’ stand.

Comments are closed.