In response, Gun Owners of America and our friends at the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) are urging the Department of Justice to drop that charge,  which sets a dangerous precedent for the millions of Americans who possess up to 40 million such firearms.

In 2021, the Biden Administration tasked the ATF with targeting and cracking down on firearms equipped with accessories known as "pistol braces." 

These accessories were originally designed to allow disabled gun owners to "brace" a handgun against their forearm, aiding in shooting longer and heavier firearms with one hand. 

For years, ATF approved the devices for use on pistols of all kinds, and promised that the mere attachment of such accessories to handguns did not transform them into short-barreled rifles.  That was until the Biden Administration decided to target pistol braces for elimination at the behest of anti-gun billionaire donors. 

According to a study from the Congressional Research Service, up to 40 million of these firearms are in private ownership throughout the country. But that wasn't going to stop Biden's Department of Justice and ATF from working to make owners of these pistol-brace-equipped firearms into felons with the stroke of a pen.

To do this, ATF decided to reclassify virtually all pistols with stabilizing braces as "short-barreled rifles" falling under the regulation of the 1934 National Firearms Act and requiring registration. 

Failing to comply with ATF's reclassification and registration scheme could have landed gun owners in prison for ten years in addition to a $250,000 fine. 

But thanks to numerous lawsuits from groups like Gun Owners of America, FRAC, and others, Biden's pistol brace rule is currently enjoined by numerous courts and even vacated by one. 

Translation from legalese? Biden's rule is no longer in effect, and ATF has been ordered not to enforce it.

But this hasn't stopped anti-gun bureaucrats at ATF from attempting to continue to enforce the underlying legal theories that inspired the rule in the first place. 

And now, we have our first example of this in the case U.S. v. Taranto.