ATF Says Brace Rule Case Is Moot, Warns Some Braced Pistols Still Face NFA Enforcement

In a blunt court filing from Monday, March 16, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) urged a federal judge to dismiss a high-profile challenge to its now-defunct pistol stabilizing brace rule, arguing the case has become completely moot. At the same time, the agency made clear it has no intention of abandoning enforcement against certain braced pistols under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).

The 6-page reply brief, filed in State of Texas et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al., marks the latest twist in a legal saga that began three years ago. The plaintiffs, led by the State of Texas and joined by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and several Texas citizens, had sued to block the ATF’s January 31, 2023, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” rule (88 Fed. Reg. 6478). That rule used a complex points-based system to reclassify many popular braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs), subjecting owners to NFA registration, a $200 tax stamp, and potential felony charges for non-compliance.

But the landscape changed dramatically when another federal court issued a universal vacatur of the entire rule, a decision that became final in mid-2025. With the rule formally nullified and revoked nationwide, the ATF now argues that nothing remains for this Texas court to enjoin or declare unlawful.

“The case became moot,” the ATF’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiffs appear to accept that the Court can no longer grant them meaningful relief in relation to the Rule, which has already been formally nullified and revoked through universal vacatur.”

The agency’s earlier motion to dismiss cited Fifth Circuit precedents holding that, once an agency rule is vacated, APA challenges lose their live controversy. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief sought to keep the case alive by insisting the court could still block the “legal theories” that underpinned the rule, specifically the ATF’s position that at least some pistols equipped with stabilizing braces qualify as NFA-regulated short-barreled rifles.

Continue reading “”

Missouri court considers if cities can regulate how guns are stored in parked cars

The city of St. Louis was a state appeals courtroom on Thursday arguing for the right to require gun owners who want to leave their firearms in unattended vehicles to put them in a lock box.

Last July, a judge struck down a 2017 St. Louis ordinance that required gun owners to use lock boxes if they wanted to leave firearms in unattended vehicles, saying that it violated Missouri’s law banning local gun regulations. The city of St. Louis appealed.

A Missouri appeals court is weighing whether the city of St. Louis can require gun owners to lock up their firearms if they want to leave them in an unattended parked vehicle.

The city passed its lock-up requirement in 2017, in response to a rash of cases in which guns stolen from cars were later used in crimes. In 2024, St. Louis resident Michael Roth had his gun stolen from the middle console of his locked car while he attended Mass at the Cathedral Basilica in the Central West End. When he reported the theft to police, he was cited for failing to keep the weapon in a locked box.

Though city prosecutors dropped the case, Roth sued. He argued they could issue the charges again and had also filed similar cases against other gun owners, in violation of a state law that strips cities of most of their power to regulate firearms.

Circuit Judge Joseph Whyte ruled in favor of Roth last July. The city appealed. Oral arguments were Thursday.

Attorneys for the city and for Roth agree that state law places limits on local gun regulations. But they disagree about the extent of those limits.

The state law in question has two key subsections. The first says the General Assembly “occupies and pre-empts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state.”

A second subsection says local political subdivisions cannot pass any regulations on “the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies.”

Roth’s attorney, Matt Vianello, told the court it was the broader first subsection that set the limits on what’s legally known as preemption — where a higher level of government sets limits on a lower level of government. Judges, he said, have to look at the plain language of the law to determine how far the General Assembly intended it to go.

“Their intent is clear: uniform firearm legislation throughout the state, so that you don’t have a hodgepodge of regulation just because you cross Skinker Boulevard coming into the city of St Louis,” Vianello said.

Nathan Puckett, an attorney for the city, told the court that the second subsection — which lists specific categories — was where the judges should look to decide the validity of the ordinance.

“The problem with looking to subsection one is that legislation ‘touching in any way firearms’ is not a specific area of legislation at all,” he said. “It is so general as to be nearly unlimited,” he said. Therefore, the court needs to look to subsection 2, which outlines specific areas like transportation and taxation.”

The city’s ordinance, Puckett said, dealt solely with the storage of firearms, which is not something on the list. Therefore, he said, it remains valid and the city should be allowed to enforce it.

Vianello disagreed with that analysis. Requiring someone to lock up a gun if they want to leave it in their car in the city, he said, regulates the transportation and possession of guns by making a person choose whether or not they bring their gun into the city if they don’t have a lock box.

The court will rule at a later date.

Ruger Harrier AR Review: Ruger’s New Entry-Level AR-15

Ruger-Harrier-review-title

We seem to be awash in a sea of 5.56-chambered AR-style rifles. Some are better than others… you can find rifles in all price ranges. Ruger has upped its intro AR-15 game with the Harrier. This is an improvement over their first model, the AR556.

This rifle will be snapped up by beginning shooters or those new to the AR platform. The Ruger Harrier fills a void at the lower end of the price spectrum. You get a well-built rifle for under $1000.

Ruger Harrier Semi-Auto Rifle

Specs

  • Manufacturer: Ruger
  • Harrier AR, Model 28600
  • Caliber: 5.56mm/.223
  • Semi-Automatic
  • Barrel: 16.10”
  • Overall Length: 35.87”
  • Weight, Unloaded: 6.8 lbs.
  • Materials: Upper and Lower receivers machined to mil-spec dimensions from 7075 forgings
  • MSRP: $750 (Street price, $620 – $650)
  • Country of Manufacture: U.S.

Continue reading “”

What Are Automated License Plate Readers and Why Are People Worried? ALPRs are AI-powered cameras that automatically track specific cars, and there’s growing backlash against them.

  • Automated License Plate Readers, known as LPRs, are a growing technology used in thousands of communities around the country, though backlash against them is growing.
  • ALPRs are AI-powered cameras used to automatically track specific cars using identifiers like plate numbers, bumper stickers, roof racks, and more.
  • Flock Safety, which is perhaps the most prominent player in the space, has been under considerable pressure over data-sharing concerns.

If you’ve noticed a growing number of little black traffic cameras in your area and wondered what the deal was, we’re here to explain what they are and why they’ve become so contentious. The cameras themselves are known as Automated License Plate Readers, or ALPRs. While there are several ALPR vendors, the most prominent by far is Flock Safety, which sells to more than 5000 law enforcement agencies and more than 1000 private companies, such as HOAs.

License plate readers themselves are nothing new; law enforcement agencies have used them for years, but the more recent emergence of AI-powered cameras is an escalation. That’s because, along with reading license plate numbers, Flock’s cameras record identifiers such as the make, model, and color of every car they see. The cameras can also use things such as a roof rack, bumper stickers, or prominent dents to identify unique vehicles.

While that incredible surveillance power may be enticing to some (namely, law enforcement agencies), pushback from communities concerned about a growing surveillance state is equally passionate. Flock Safety reports that its cameras are used in thousands of towns and cities, but in recent months, there has been significant pushback from communities concerned over privacy infringements and how the ALPRs are being used in connection with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests.

An NPR story from February detailed how easy it can be for data collected by Flock to be widely shared. Flock maintains that cities control their sharing settings. “Each Flock customer has sole authority over if, when, and with whom information is shared,” the company told NPR. But that doesn’t seem to be the case in reality, with leaders from several cities citing data sharing as a reason for reducing or ending partnerships with Flock.

According to a recent article in the Financial Times, 53 cities in 20 states have either deactivated Flock cameras or rejected bids to use them. The pushback from local authorities is rising, with 38 of those rejections occurring in the past six months.

Despite the pushback from communities, law enforcement agencies have defended Flock. According to the FT, one police department in Texas searched for data from more than 103,000 devices in Flock’s network as part of a homicide investigation. “We’ve been able to solve hundreds, if not thousands, of crimes that otherwise would remain unsolved if it wasn’t for the LPR technology,” a former police chief in Georgia told the outlet.

The FT article points out that privacy activists contest that claim, arguing that there is no independent research proving ALPRs can reduce crime.

How SBRs and SBSs Got Trapped in the NFA’s 1934 Gun Control Scheme

The story of how short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) ended up regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 is one of the clearest examples of unnecessary federal overreach, bureaucratic accident, and enduring infringement on Second Amendment rights. What began as a panicked response to 1930s gangster violence morphed into a permanent regulatory trap that punishes law-abiding Americans for owning common, useful firearms, configurations that have legitimate sporting, defensive, and historical purposes, while doing virtually nothing to stop actual crime.

In the early 1930s, America was gripped by sensational headlines about organized crime: the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, Bonnie and Clyde’s exploits, and Al Capone’s Thompson submachine guns. Politicians and the media hyped “gangster weapons,” with sawed-off shotguns singled out as tools of the underworld. Attorney General Homer Cummings and the Justice Department pushed for federal action, but they knew an outright ban on firearms would likely violate the Second Amendment. Instead, they cleverly used Congress’s taxing power to create a de facto prohibition through heavy fees, registration, and paperwork.

The initial bill, H.R. 9066, was far broader than the bill that passed. It targeted machine guns, silencers, short-barreled shotguns and rifles (under 18 inches), handguns, pistols, and revolvers.

The $200 transfer tax (equivalent to roughly $4,800–$5,000 today) was designed to be prohibitive, pricing ordinary citizens out while supposedly tracking criminals. To close an obvious loophole, drafters added short-barreled rifles and shotguns: if handguns were taxed and registered, a criminal (or citizen) could simply buy a cheap rifle or shotgun and saw it down to handgun-like concealability, bypassing the rules entirely.

Continue reading “”

Another Day Ending in Y: JAMA Publishes Still More Anti-Gun Agitprop Presented as ‘Research.’

No one who truly values their Second Amendment rights should be worried that University of Michigan psychiatry professor Brian M. Hicks, PhD, is gaining fame and making money by passing off anti-gun propaganda as legitimate research, right? After all, it’s a free country. Professor Hicks can make a dollar and a name for himself however he sees fit, can’t he?

If the good professor twists some questionable data and bizarre opinions together and then calls it all legitimate research, that shouldn’t matter, should it? 

Now, if a peer-reviewed medical journal founded in 1883, which is published 48 times a year and read by physicians across the country and around the globe, takes Professor Hicks’ scribbles and calls them actual research without labeling his work as opinion or anti-gun agitprop, that’s not a problem either, is it? 

Wrong. 

The Journal of the American Medical Association — JAMA for short — has published more than a few of Professor Hicks’ tall tales and has never once labeled them accurately. Rather than calling them opinion pieces, JAMA publishes his work as legitimate research. Obviously, they’ve never investigated the good professor or even looked at his social media to insure fairness and accuracy. 

Well, friends, we have.  

There’s little doubt that the good professor is publishing anti-gun rubbish, which JAMA then passes off to its readers as legitimate research. That alone is a massive red flag, or at least it should be. 

Take a look at Professor Hicks’ latest work, which was published on St. Patrick’s Day: “Prevalence of Thoughts of Shooting Others Among US Adults.” As Hicks wrote . . .

This study’s findings suggest that a small but nontrivial percentage of people in the US think about shooting others.

He used a host of previously published works to form this opinion, which included data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (which has its own anti-gun history). 

Hicks, of course, included in his article a call for more gun control laws, as he does in all of his anti-gun writings. 

Prevention efforts are needed to address gun violence risk among those with and without access to firearms. … Resolving the risk of gun violence will require understanding nuanced contextual, social, and psychological influences and the difficult work of building bridges across many stakeholders.

Continue reading “”

Carlos Ray “Chuck” Norris passes at age 86

Chuck Norris, the martial artist, celebrated Air Force veteran and action movie star who became a defining figure in 1980s military-themed films and the long-running TV series Walker, Texas Ranger, has died at 86.

Norris died Thursday in Hawaii after being hospitalized, according to a statement from his family. He was surrounded by loved ones.

“He lived his life with faith, purpose, and an unwavering commitment to the people he loved,” the family said in a released statement. “Through his work, discipline, and kindness, he inspired millions around the world.”

Continue reading “”