Weekly Wrap: Appeals Court Slams ATF Pistol Brace Rule & Mexico’s $10B Lawsuit Derailed

Welcome to a weekly series here on Pew Pew Tactical dedicated to the gun news you need to know.

So, keep reading for this week’s notable news headlines…

Another Appeals Court Slams ATF Pistol Brace Rule

A second U.S. Appeals Court has determined that restrictions on pistol braces are illegal.

The 2-1 decision was handed down by the U.S. 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals panel of judges who reviewed a lawsuit levied by 25 Republican state attorney generals who alleged that the ATF did not have the authority to create the pistol brace rule.

After reviewing the arguments, the Appeals Court ultimately ruled the ATF’s pistol brace rule “arbitrary and capricious,” further arguing that the ATF exceeded its authority in creating the rule.

“It allows the ATF to arrive at whatever conclusion it wishes,” Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz wrote in a 33-page opinion.

This is the second case involving the ATF’s pistol brace ruling to be overturned by a federal appeals court on the merit that the ATF exceeded its authority.

The pistol brace saga began in January 2023 when the ATF reclassified pistol braces, moving them under the short-barreled rifle category. This would mean that gun owners would have to register them under the National Firearms Act and pay a $200 fee to own one.

“This ruling is significant because it is the first federal appeals court to directly attack the open-ended and subjective factors put forth in the rule,” Mike Faucette, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, explained to The Reload. “These factors are no different than a local government posting a speed limit prohibiting people from driving ‘too fast’ but refusing to inform drivers of an actual number.”

The ATF declined to comment.

Read more about the ATF and its complicated history with pistol braces in our article.

Federal Judge Dismisses Mexico’s Bid to Hold U.S. Gun Makers Liable

Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun makers was largely tossed out of court this week.

The lawsuit, brought by the government of Mexico, sought to hold U.S. gun manufacturers responsible for gun trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Mexico alleges that more than 500,000 guns are trafficked into the country from the U.S. yearly and that these guns land in the hands of violent cartels who use them for murder, extortion, and kidnapping. The country says that 68% of the guns used in these crimes come from the gun makers listed in the complaint.

The full list includes Glock, Ruger, Barrett Colt Manufacturing (a department of Colt CZ Group), Century International Arms, Beretta, Smith & Wesson, and Interstate Arms.

U.S. District Judge Dennis Slayor dismissed the case for six gun makers, ruling that they had little connection to Massachusetts – where the complaint was filed. Additionally, Slayor said that Mexico did not demonstrate that any firearms sold in Massachusetts caused harm.

After the decision, Mexico told Reuters that this would not deter the lawsuit against the remaining two companies – Smith & Wesson and Interstate Arms. It’s worth noting Smith & Wesson relocated from Massachusetts to Tennessee in October 2023.

"This decision does not affect the lawsuit against these two companies, nor does it absolve the other six companies of responsibility," Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said.

Gun makers asked the Supreme Court to review an appeals decision earlier this year, requesting the High Court to allow the case to qualify for protection under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The law prevents lawsuits against gun manufacturers for misuse of products.

The case first appeared in 2021 but was later dismissed in 2022 after a federal judge agreed that the firearms companies could be protected under PLCAA. Mexico appealed the decision, pushing the case to the U.S. First Circuit Court in Massachusetts, which handed the case over to the lower court based in Boston.

In a 28-page decision, the court decided there wasn’t enough backing to support the case, calling the evidence “gossamer-thin at best.”

“In short, plaintiff has been unable to muster sufficient proof to establish a sufficient relationship between the claimed injuries and the business transactions of any of the six defendants in Massachusetts. Nor does the Court have the authority to relax the requirements of personal jurisdiction, even in cases involving claims against unpopular or controversial parties,” Saylor wrote.

The Mexican government says it’s considering further steps to fight the decision.

“Legal actions against these six companies are ongoing. Mexico is considering various options, including a possible appeal or resorting to other federal courts in the U.S.,” the country posted to X.

State Fair of Texas Bans Guns, Faces Backlash from Pro-Gun Advocates

Following a shooting last year at the State Fair of Texas in Dallas, organizers are banning all guns on fair property.

The announcement, made last week, was met with immediate furor from Second Amendment activists, with Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton jumping into the fray, threatening legal action against the City of Dallas.

“Dallas has fifteen days to fix the issue,” Paxton warned in a statement, “otherwise I will see them in court.”

Last year, a lone gunman opened fire near a row of food booths at the fair, injuring three people. Organizers say the move isn’t to tread on gun rights but rather to keep fairgoers safe.

After reviewing other event policies around the state and carefully considering the consultations with security partners, Karissa Condoianis, a spokeswoman for the State Fair of Texas, said the decision was reached to prohibit firearms from the premises. She asserted that the fair is “a strong supporter of the rights of responsible gun-owning Texans.”

Pro-gun advocates disagree.

“While it may be that your new policy placates some, the result will make your patrons less safe; gun-free zones are magnets for crime because they present less of a threat to those who seek to do evil,” a letter signed by Republican lawmakers and candidates read.  

Condoianis said she’s aware of Paxton’s threats and that he is seeking information on the organization’s relationship with the city of Dallas. She reiterated that the fair is a private, not-for-profit and is not controlled by a government entity; therefore, it will not be backing down from the new policy.

The State Fair of Texas opens September 27 and runs until October 20.  

Sources

• U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision  
• The Reload
• Reuters
• Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc, Et. Al.
• Mexico X Thread
• State Fair of Texas
• NPR
• The New York Times