Why is Bondi’s DOJ Still Prosecuting a Pistol Brace Owner?
I’m ready for heads to roll, figuratively of course, because I find it unacceptable that the Department of Justice, under the direction of Pam Bondi, is still prosecuting an American citizen over the defunct “pistol brace rule” signed by Merrick Garland and enacted under the Biden ATF—the rule has since been enjoined by numerous courts, and even vacated by one.
“Okay, so the courts have said that our pistol brace rule is illegal and they’ve prohibited it from taking effect, but there’s no reason we can’t still spend American tax dollars on harassing and prosecuting individuals for violating our illegal rule while we appeal it!”
Here’s the backstory: Defendant Taylor Taranto, who was hit with charges over his presence at the Capitol on January 6, 201l (which have since been dropped), was also hit with firearms charges in 2023 when he was allegedly found in Obama’s D.C. neighborhood with firearms and ammunition in his vehicle. Big whoop—I almost always have firearms and ammunition in my personal vehicle, and I don’t intend to gun down anyone.
Ever heard of something called the Second Amendment? The right to keep and bear arms? We don’t need to explain ourselves to the federal government—which has a legitimate history of murdering innocent people with firearms—why and where we’re exercising the 2A.
Now, according to an article at ZeroHedge, Taranto’s firearms trial is set to begin in about a month, and here’s why:
[I]nterestingly, according to his inditement [sic], Taranto’s pistol is charged as both a handgun, in violation of Washington DC’s licensing provisions, and also a short-barreled rifle, in violation of the National Firearms Act.
How can a firearm be both a rifle and a handgun at the same time?
The answer is, of course, that it isn’t, and the DOJ’s internally conflicting position shows that the government is using the NFA charge for a sinister reason and may be a sign of a larger problem.
In a brief filed by the DOJ lawyers opposing Taranto’s motion to dismiss, the U.S. Attorneys had this to say:
‘ATF is not barred from continuing to enforce the underlying statute as it always has: by making case-by-case determinations about whether particular braced firearms constitute ‘rifles’ under the statute.
And of course, because the rule reflects ATF’s best understanding of the statute, those determinations will naturally tend to look substantially like the determinations that would follow from applying the clear framework outlined in the rule.’
Translation?
Even though ATF is currently barred from enforcing the pistol brace rule, it claims that nothing stops it from enforcing the statute—using, of course, the same legal theories on which the rule is based. If this sort of logic — that appeals only to bureaucrats — makes your eyes burn, you’re not alone.
This is undoubtedly a bad sign for the direction of ATF. Even though the pistol brace rule has been enjoined and vacated, ATF insists it can still charge pistol brace crimes, using the very same theories from its repudiated rule.
This does not inspire confidence in the Trump/Bondi DOJ—on top of all the other things at which they’ve miserably failed. (If you missed it, Bondi continues to evade FOIA requests, thus violating the law, for the release of certain Epstein documents.) Bondi is “reviewing” Garland’s rule, all while continuing Garland’s lawsuits against citizens for having pistol braces attached to pistols.
Seriously, how hard is it to file a motion to dismiss? It’s one legal document.
Lawyers know better than anyone that the process is the punishment, so there’s really no excuse. Bondi must go.