This is horrifying, and why I hate (yes) the NRA. The Second Amendment defines itself. The entire purpose of the 2A is the definition of what’s allowed and the specific purposes for the allowance. The NRA is just awful. They always set a false premise that’s designed to reduce your freedoms. Everything they touch gets worse for Americans while they and the politicians get rich. The NRA must be destroyed.

A coalition led by the National Rifle Association this week sued to stop the Biden administration’s bid to regulate AR-style “pistols,” an effort that could prompt the Supreme Court to finally define what is allowed under the 231-year-old Second Amendment.

While its suit is specifically aimed at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and its flip-flop on regulating and taxing guns, it has the potential to both smoke out the court on what is legal under the Second Amendment and end years of practice by federal agencies and states to make up rules that Congress is supposed to set.

That’s where the AR pistol suit comes in. Until this month, the ATF said the guns equipped with arm braces to steady the firearms, especially for the disabled, were OK to buy with just a background check. But they have redefined them as a weapon covered by the Al Capone era National Firearms Act that requires a lengthy application, registration, photos and fingerprints, and a $200 tax.

In challenging the politically-charged flip-flop by ATF, Cotton hopes the case will land in the conservative and somewhat pro-gun Supreme Court and that it will be ruled unconstitutional. He expects that because the Bruen case reasoned that courts have to decide what is allowed based on what the nation’s founders meant in 1791 when virtually nothing was off-limits.

“Outside legal circles, Bruen is known primarily for holding correctly that citizens’ right to self-defense means they have the right to have the tools to defend themselves outside of their home. You can carry that self-defense firearm outside of your home,” said Cotton.

“But what a lot of people don’t realize is it also set a standard for how all gun laws, federal, state, and local, have to be evaluated in terms of does it pass constitutional muster. And that standard is we roll the calendar back to 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted, the technical words are ‘is there a historical analog for the proposed current law or the existing current law.’ That’s just a fancy way of saying, ‘Was that type of restriction in existence in 1791?’ If it wasn’t, then it can’t be now,” he said.

Cotton added, “That’s why so many of the things are falling right now.” He cited gun control laws in New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, Maryland, and elsewhere that are being pulled back to conform to the recent rulings.

He predicted that a fuller definition of the Second Amendment by the court could come within two years because so many new gun cases are being filed and likely headed to the high court.

The good news is that the NRA is not the lead plaintiff. The West Virginia and North Dakota AGs appear to be the lead on this, which may answer the prior question; why file in North Dakota? Not sure if the disabled veteran, who is also a plaintiff, is a resident of North Dakota, which may also explain that decision.

Whatever you do, dear friends of liberty, keep the NRA lawyers out of the courtroom if you want to keep your rights!

From the NRA page, there are no usable details other than this.

The case is captioned Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.[FRAC], v. Merrick Garland and was filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Other plaintiffs are: SB Tactical, B&T USA, Wounded Warrior Richard Cicero, and a coalition of 25 states led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, also including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.

I don’t know anything about FRAC. It appears to be a lobbyist group that seeks consistent regulations. I’m not a fan of industry lobbyists suing over the Pistol Brace. They are not suing on behalf of individual rights under the 2A; they are suing for consistent regulation. I don’t want consistent regulations; I want none!

The clock is ticking on this; we’ll have to see if any of the suits can get traction and resolution in the remainder of the 120 days.

Herschel has been tracking this prior:

Six Pistol Brace Lawsuits

Complaints in the Case of ATF Pistol Brace Rule