Plus, we had a slew of good news regarding the ATF...or did we?

Now, on the surface, there's not much in the reforms to have a problem with. I get that some pro-gun people might not be thrilled with requiring a birth gender on the Form 4473, but others are fine with that. I'm not crazy about it, mostly because it's a tick away from true liberty on guns, but it's not a hill I'm going to die on, either.

But with some of the other things, it seems a few out there aren't impressed, such as Firearms News' Darwin Nercesian.

I’m not going over all the rule changes today, but I do wish to address one that is fresh in mind since my article,  Biden… Excuse Me, I Mean Trump Administration Coming After Pistol Braces… Again, published around three weeks ago. In that article, I detailed Trump’s 2023 promise to rip up the rule in his first week in office. I also quoted a recent DOJ court filing, after the agency lost its case in a federal court, which determined that the ATF had violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and that the Biden-era pistol brace rule be vacated.

"Plaintiffs also make much of the fact that defendants continue to enforce the NFA’s and the GCA’s regulation of short-barreled rifles against some brace-equipped pistols, even though the Rule has been universally vacated. However, that should come as no surprise, as that is consistent with how defendants have always explained how things work if a court vacated the Rule or enjoined its enforcement,” according to the DOJ.

Here, the DOJ is responding to complaints about its continued enforcement of some brace-equipped pistols as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The agency is flaunting the fact that it never intended to cease said enforcement, even if it should lose the legal proceeding. Instead, their position is simply that they will continue to enforce ATF’s own interpretation of the statute under their regulatory authority.

So, what has changed?

Absolutely nothing. The new rule: 1140-AA98: Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” - NPRM, “removes regulatory language” associated with the vacated rule. So what? That does nothing to restrain this rogue agency from interpreting the statute as they wish while abusing their regulatory authority at the peril of unsuspecting gun owners, which is exactly what they have already said they would do. This disturbing fact is even more concerning because the ATF refuses to answer as to which braced pistols they will consider illegal, having told Gun Owners of America (GOA) that “they will not issue any written guidance classifying braced firearms unless it's in a criminal case against a gun owner.” Ipso facto, we will not even be informed of what is and is not legal under their purview until we have already been indicted.

I mean, it's a fair point. The ATF has a long history of interpreting rules in any way they want, and it's part of why I feel no enforcement agency should be in charge of the interpretation of the law. The ATF can simply interpret things in a way that gives them the most power. 

But I'm also not sure this is entirely fair, either.

A Trump executive order could stop this from happening, but only until an anti-gun president ends up back in the White House, where he or she will repeal that EO and send the ATF on a rampage, reinterpreting all of the things. There's really only so much that can be done at this level, and removing the regulatory language is the right first step here.

The truth is that nothing short of an act of Congress will stop the ATF from going rogue again down the road, and I'm not completely sure even that would keep them in check. Let's remember that much of their rogue behavior isn't even in reinterpreting law to restrict gun rights, but in enforcing gun laws that have been on the books for ages.

I mean, we just passed the anniversary of both Ruby Ridge and Waco. Both of those cases involved alleged violations that weren't about interpretation.

What we got was good news. I get the concerns, and they're valid concerns, but I think this is part of the problem we have in the gun rights world. We can't take our victories as victories. Say what you want about anti-gunners, but they celebrate their wins while also shifting focus to the next task for them. We suck at that much of the time. We want everything right now, and if we don't get it, we get pissy.

Like it or not, the ATF just handed us more than we've ever been handed by the agency ever. We're unlikely to see gains happen like this ever again, either.

Should we be satisfied with it and just call it a day? Hell no.

But we also shouldn't be griping and complaining about how the perfect is the enemy of the pretty damn good, either.