Ok, I spent some time today reading up on the O’Connor ruling in Mock v. Garland, and I have to take back what I said about the Judge being unfavorable toward 2A. In his ruling granting the plaintiffs the requested preliminary injunction against ATF enforcing the pistol brace rule where the plaintiffs and their members are concerned, O’Connor actually did something not done before in the pistol brace arena. Instead of basing his decision on ATF violations of administrative procedures, O’Connor cited 2A as his reason - that’s a first. He said that, based on the common use test, braced pistols were, by ATF’S own numbers, not dangerous and unusual, despite the agency’s contention to the contrary. With some 5 million braced pistols in use, again based on ATF’s calculations, and with semiautomatic pistols being in common use by any standard, O’Connor said ATF failed to demonstrate how braces made pistols more dangerous and unusual. So by invoking 2A, O’Connor has given pistol brace supporters a critical advantage; where before ATF could just go back and redo their pistol brace rule, adhering to all administrative rules, now ATF has to deal with their rule being viewed as unconstitutional no matter how they restructure it. This is a big deal!
