Written by Nathaniel Brooks.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is drawing heavy fire from gun rights advocates for pushing forward with prosecutions of pistol brace owners, even as it claims to be reevaluating the controversial rule governing these devices. This contradictory stance has left millions of firearm owners in a legal gray zone, grappling with the fear of felony charges for possessing accessories once deemed lawful. The U.S. v. Taranto case, unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has become a flashpoint, highlighting tensions between federal enforcement and Second Amendment protections.
The DOJ’s Conflicted Approach to Pistol Braces
At the heart of the controversy is the DOJ’s decision to charge individuals for owning pistols equipped with stabilizing braces, despite ongoing legal challenges to the rule reclassifying these devices. In U.S. v. Taranto, prosecutors have charged Taylor Taranto with multiple offenses, including possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle (SBR), tied to a CZ Scorpion pistol fitted with an SBTEVO stabilizing brace. The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) expressed its dismay on X, stating, “The DOJ claims it’s ‘reviewing’ the pistol brace rule, yet they’re still hauling owners into court. This isn’t what gun owners bargained for.”
Taranto’s arrest on June 28, 2023, near former President Barack Obama’s home, followed reports of erratic behavior and livestreamed threats. While these factors muddy the case, the brace-related charge has sparked outrage among advocates. They argue that the DOJ is wielding the National Firearms Act (NFA) to enforce a regulation currently under judicial fire, placing an estimated 40 million brace owners in legal jeopardy.
Legal Tangles and Judicial Pushback
Pistol stabilizing braces, first developed in 2012 by SB Tactical’s Alex Bosco, were designed to help disabled veterans fire heavier pistols one-handed, attaching to the forearm for support. Unlike rifle stocks, which are built for shoulder firing, braces were long exempt from NFA scrutiny, which classifies rifles with barrels under 16 inches as SBRs, requiring registration and taxation if intended for shoulder use. For years, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed braces without such restrictions.
That changed in January 2023, when the Biden administration’s ATF rolled out a 293-page rule, 2021R-08F, reclassifying many braced pistols as SBRs based on specific criteria. Non-compliance could lead to felony charges unless owners registered their firearms. Gun Owners of America (GOA), NAGR, and the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) swiftly filed lawsuits, and in 2024, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor issued a nationwide injunction, ruling the regulation violated the Administrative Procedure Act—a decision reinforced by other courts.
Despite these rulings, the DOJ continues to pursue cases like Taranto’s, insisting it applies the NFA directly, not the vacated rule. Prosecutors argue that ATF’s enforcement of the underlying statute remains valid, but advocates see this as a bureaucratic dodge, mirroring the blocked rule’s framework.
Gun Rights Advocates Demand Change
Gun rights groups view the DOJ’s tactics as a betrayal of judicial outcomes. GOA and FRAC have called for the brace-related charge in U.S. v. Taranto to be dropped, warning that it could set a dangerous precedent for millions of law-abiding gun owners. NAGR’s Taylor Rhodes stated, “The DOJ’s dogged pursuit of gun owners over pistol braces is a direct attack on our Second Amendment rights—rights courts have already said were violated by this rule.” He stressed that prosecuting owners amid a supposed rule review reeks of an anti-gun agenda lingering from the Biden administration.
Even under the Trump administration, which has touted its commitment to gun rights and formed a DOJ task force to protect Second Amendment freedoms, these prosecutions persist. A GOA spokesperson remarked, “It’s disheartening to see career anti-gun bureaucrats in the ATF, alongside holdover DOJ prosecutors, clinging to their old playbook.” This sentiment underscores a growing frustration among gun owners who anticipated clearer protections.
The Road Ahead for Gun Owners
With an estimated 40 million braced firearms in circulation, according to the Congressional Research Service, the implications for gun owners are profound. The current legal limbo—where court injunctions collide with DOJ prosecutions—leaves owners unsure whether they’re shielded by law or one court case away from a felony. The DOJ claims it’s enforcing NFA standards independently, but its criteria closely resemble the vacated rule, sowing confusion.
Web-based research reveals that the pistol brace issue is part of a broader, decades-long struggle over firearm regulation. The NFA, enacted in 1934, governs items like SBRs, but the ATF’s shifting stance on braces has baffled owners since their introduction. The 2023 rule’s sweeping scope triggered fierce backlash, and its judicial defeats have done little to halt federal action. Advocates argue that cases like Taranto’s, despite its unrelated charges, must not quietly reshape brace legality.
The outcome of such prosecutions could either clarify or further complicate the regulatory landscape. GOA, NAGR, and FRAC are pressing the DOJ to abandon what they call selective enforcement, arguing it undermines both court rulings and gun owners’ rights. Until a coherent policy emerges, the clash between federal power and individual liberties remains unresolved.
Our Take
The DOJ’s persistence in prosecuting pistol brace cases while claiming to review the underlying rule reflects a troubling inconsistency in firearm policy. This approach erodes trust in federal institutions and unfairly burdens millions of law-abiding gun owners caught in a regulatory quagmire. The Trump administration’s pro-gun rhetoric feels hollow when prosecutions continue, suggesting bureaucratic inertia or worse. A clear, fair resolution that respects judicial rulings and Second Amendment principles is urgently needed. As journalists, we call on the DOJ to align its actions with its promises, ensuring gun owners are not penalized for navigating an unclear legal landscape.
