Gun Owners of America has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the ATF concerning the pistol brace rule.  The motion can be found in its entirety here.  The motion concludes as follows.

The fact that the Final Rule technically presents a (forced) choice does not absolve it of its unconstitutional sins. As the Fifth Circuit observed in BST Holdings v. OSHA, “the loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” 17 F.4th 604, 618 (5th Cir. 2021) (burden on liberty interests posed by vaccination mandate was irreparable harm) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). The vaccination mandate in BST Holdings “threaten[ed] to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).” Id. Here, the Final Rule imposes a similar choice, forcing individuals to choose between destroying their property or prosecution.

When the government is a party, the balance-of-equities and public-interest factors merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009); Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187 (5th Cir. 2016) (same). A court therefore must weigh whether “the threatened injury outweighs any harm that may result from the injunction to the non-movant” and whether “the injunction will not undermine the public interest.” Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1051, 1056 (5th Cir. 1997). There is no harm to ATF from pausing enforcement of the Final Rule and maintaining the status quo. The Final Rule claims to “enhance[] public safety,” 88 Fed. Reg. at 6481, yet ATF is able to point to only two handgun braces (out of millions) that have been criminally misused, see 88 Fed. Reg. at 6495. Even then, there is no evidence that those crimes could not have been committed using a different firearm. Weighing against this are the very real and ongoing irreparable harms to Plaintiffs discussed above. Indeed, the public is served when the law is followed, and “there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC, v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 16 F.4th 528, 560 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). The balance of equities and public interest weigh heavily in favor of an injunction.

GOA and GOF have members and supporters nationwide. Exhibit 13 at ¶ 6. The geographic scope of interests presented, as well as the complications inherent to a piecemeal implementation or injunction of the Final Rule, which impacts criminal prosecutions and fundamental rights, support this Court granting nationwide relief.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Final Rule.

Our friend Stephen Stamboulieh is one of the attorneys in this case.