I have written twice over the last several weeks about how the new ATF approval process is benefitting trust applicants as well as individuals, but I still have clients who want to see concrete examples.
This is an approval one of my clients received today (with all identifying information redacted of course). It took two days for a trust approval.
For more information on the new process and how it is helping trust applicants, see the previous articles below:
In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court has dealt yet another blow to the ATF’s rampant administrative overreach.
In the case of Garland v. Cargill, embedded below, the court ruled that, despite the emotional pleas underlying the push to reinterpret the statute, the statutory text is clear in its meaning.
A “semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machinegun’ because it does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.’”
They went on to note that the ATF and the judiciary are bound by the clear text of the statutes Congress enacts. If Congress writes those statutes poorly, “it is never our job to rewrite . . . statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done.”
And speaking of ‘rewriting’ or ‘reinterpreting’ statutes, we can only hope that there will soon be a ruling that reduces the amount of deference the courts grant to administrative agencies such as the ATF when they use their regulatory rulemaking authority to do that very thing.
As you may remember, this was a suit challenging the ATF regulatory rulemaking that turned tens of thousands of arm-brace equipped pistols into NFA items virtually overnight.
In its ruling, the court pulled no punches when discussing the significant deficiencies in the ATF rulemaking process.
For close to a decade, the ATF concluded that “attaching the brace to a firearm does not alter the classification of the firearm or subject the firearm to NFA control.” The ATF changed course on this position for the first time in 2023, when it issued the Final Rule reversing the agency’s otherwise long-standing policy. “When an agency changes course, as [the ATF] did here, it must ‘be cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.’”
“It would be arbitrary and capricious to ignore such matters” But this is exactly what Defendants did when they inexplicably and fundamentally switched their position on stabilizing braces without providing sufficient explanations and notice.
Under the Final Rule, the ATF estimated about 99% of pistols with stabilizing braces would be reclassified as NFA rifles. The ATF contemporaneously issued approximately sixty adjudications pursuant to the Final Rule that reclassified different configurations of firearms with stabilizing braces as NFA rifles. The ATF provided no explanations for how the agency came to these classifications and there is no “meaningful clarity about what constitutes an impermissible stabilizing brace.”
In fact, the Fifth Circuit “[could not] find a single given example of a pistol with a stabilizing brace that would constitute an NFA-exempt braced pistol.” Such “‘unexplained’ and ‘inconsistent’ positions” are arbitrary and capricious.
The Defendants’ disregard for the principles of fair notice and consideration of reliance interests is further exacerbated by its failure to follow the APA’s procedural requirements for public notice and comment. As discussed above, Defendants failed to follow proper notice-and-comment procedures because the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule differed in immense ways.
The entire ruling, which is embedded below, makes for quite enjoyable reading. And while the ATF will almost certainly appeal this ruling, they will be fighting an uphill battle given the glaring issues the District Court identified.
I had written about this in my previous article, but I think it bears repeating … the process changes recently made by the ATF and the FBI provide equal benefits to trust and individual applicants, especially when the trust is a ‘standardized’ trust that is seen frequently by the ATF, such as the one I provide to my clients.
A few key takeaways from the SilencerShop article:
“Are Trusts Approvals as Fast as Individual? Yes, both trust and individual applications are coming back very fast, we have seen single-day approvals for both types of applications.”
“If you’re looking at the NFA Wait Time Tracker, it will appear that trusts are taking longer than individuals, but this is due to how ATF implemented these changes.”
“While we consistently see trust applications approved in a few days, the average appears higher as all of the older applications are being approved. Trust applications submitted after this process change, around March 15th, 2024, seem to be processing very quickly.”
SilencerShop also discussed a point that I have brought up repeatedly when discussing the issue with my clients. The NFA Branch is prioritizing ‘standardized’ trusts which are those trusts, such as my own, that they see frequently and do not require research to validate.
They also reiterated that those that have a single responsible person are being processed more quickly since only a single ‘proceed’ is needed to complete the process.
The $100 Virginia trust I provide meets all these requirements and includes lifetime free updates, changes, and questions. But regardless of which trust you use, do not forego the significant benefits offered by using a trust based upon a mistaken belief that only individual applications are seeing rapid turnaround times.
In Nguyen v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s one-gun-a-month (OGM) law, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has ruled that the OGM law is unconstitutional and must be enjoined under the historical analog test laid out in N.Y. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
In the opinion, the District Court held that “[Buying more than one firearm in a specific period of time] is presumptively protected because it is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment”. They went on to note that the State failed to satisfy its burden of “producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law,” as required by Bruen.
While it is too soon to make predictions, this case may well be the beginning of the end for these types of unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens acquiring arms during the time period of their choosing.
“John represented me at my hearing in Fairfax County Circuit Court for my Petition for Restoration of Firearms Rights. My case was a bit complex and it incorporated some new legislation that John was very educated on. The legislation was so new that the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Judge did not have any knowledge of it. John’s actions in the courtroom to bring the new legislation to the attention of the court were astonishing and brilliant; even bringing a smile to the Judge and pat on the back from a fellow attorney after the hearing.
John’s flat rate pricing for representation is amazingly affordable. He is true to his word, communicates through out the entire process and works diligently to represent you. I highly recommend John Pierce.” - Shawn
Outstanding Service
“I contacted John via email regarding trust and estate work that I needed and questions that I had. He called me that same day, walked me through the process, took adequate time and was very patient in responding to my questions. He is very down to earth and professional. I was astounded as I found he was on travel, yet he took the time to personally contact me. He was very responsive in following up with the documents that I needed. I am extremely pleased and appreciative of the time he took with me and his outstanding level of service. I've worked with a number of attorneys in my profession and John exceeds the standards that I am accustomed to. I highly recommend him.” - Ron
I have written twice over the last several weeks about how the new ATF approval process is benefitting trust applicants as well as individuals, but I still have clients who want to see concrete examples.
In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court has dealt yet another blow to the ATF’s rampant administrative overreach.
Today the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas 
I had written about this in 
In 
