Florida Attorney General Challenges ATF On Pistol Braces!

The online programs at SDI cover armorist courses, gunsmithing, ballistics, woodworking and finishes, shooting, sports management and more. Plus all the tools and materials you need are shipped directly to your door for hands on practice. It’s never been a better time to get an education that you can actually use on the job. So what are you waiting for? Visit sdi. edu slash GND to learn more. Link is down below and in the pinned comment.

Oh, and let me tell you this too, real quick. Whoopies. The Whoobies are back in wooby wobby, depending on how you say it. TriStar Trading has restocked. Not only do they have the classic woodland camo, they also have black multicam and this, the tiger stripe, it is finally here. I love this. It is super warm. They’re very, very thin. They pack down easy, like literally. You could pack this in a bag, a range bag, no problem.

Also smoky. The hoodies are back in. Shirts have been restocked up to six x guys. They’re not going to last long, nor will you see this design long. You’ll learn more about that soon. And watch list has been restocked. So all of my favorite gear, all of your favorite gear has been restocked. Check them out. Link is down below. Thanks to TriStar for being phenomenal. And I needed these today because it’s really, really cool.

Check out this sunrise I got to watch this morning drinking a coffee. Welcome to East Tennessee. I love it guys. My name is Jared. This is Guns and Gadgets. And on this channel, I bring you Second Amendment news. Good, bad, ugly, or indifferent. If you want to stay in the know, subscribe to the channel. Let’s check this one out. So Monday, Florida’s Attorney General Ashley Moody released a legal opinion regarding the use of stabilizing braces for handguns in Florida.

Now this comes in response to a request from State Representative Shane Abbot to provide clarity on Florida’s law following the recent ruling by Judge Reed O’Connor in Firearms Policy Coalition’s case Mock v. Garland. I did a huge breakdown on that case. Link is above. If you have not watched that, you need to because Judge O’Connor said some things in there that has set up future actions to destroy the NFA, specifically around SBRs.

It was a phenomenal decision. Now Florida is one of the 25 states joining Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition in their case Frack v. Garland, which is also challenging ATF’s final rule on pistol braces. Now regarding her clarification, Attorney General Ashley Moody said, quote, the Second Amendment is alive and well in Florida, and our state laws protect the gun rights of law abiding citizens. We issued this important legal opinion to provide clarity about our state law as the federal government continues to overreach in an effort to over regulate certain firearms accessories.

It’s pretty cool. Check this letter out. The letter says Dear Representative Abbot, this office received your letter dated March 21, 2023, requesting a legal opinion pursuant to section 16 one three of Florida statutes. You asked substantially the following question does the definition of short barreled rifle, codified at section 790 111 in Florida statutes, include a pistol with a stabilizing brace? In sum, unless and until judicially or legislatively clarified, I conclude that the definition of short barreled rifle, which the legislature enacted in 1969, does not include a handgun, such as a pistol to which a person attaches a stabilizing brace, because the use of such an optional accessory does not change the fundamental characteristics of the handgun.

Background in a letter, you describe a recent rule, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, proposed, in which it set forth factoring criteria to clarify how it intends to determine whether a firearm configuration would be subject to certain regulations. You state that ATF estimates that under the new rule, 99% of pistols equipped with stabilizing braces will now be deemed subject to National Firearm Act controls. You raise both policy and legal concerns regarding the ATF’s rule.

Although the ATF’s proposed rule and other statements of federal government concerning specific firearms prompted your request, I understand that your request specifically seeks an opinion concerning the definition of short barreled rifle as codified in Florida statutes. As such, this opinion does not address the federal government’s rule or the policy on which it based the rule, but instead analyzes the meaning of short barreled rifle under Florida law. Analysis, the legislature based the various provisions of chapter 790, weapons and firearms on article one, section Eight A of the Florida constitution which states in part that the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves.

And the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. Which is why Florida has no open carry. Based on this provision, the legislature defines short barreled rifle as a rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

The Legislature then declared it unlawful for any person to own or have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short barreled rifle which is or may readily be made operable. When interpreting the statute, courts first consider the entire text of the statute and analyze its plain meaning. Courts consider statutory provisions together when such provisions are part of the same statutory scheme. When necessary, the plain and ordinary meaning of words can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary.

Both the plain language of the terms short barreled rifle and handgun and consideration of the terms in pari materia with other terms and provisions of chapter 790 lead to a conclusion that chapter 790 regards a rifle as fundamentally distinct from a handgun, such as a pistol or revolver. A rifle refers to a firearm that has a rifled bore and is intended to be fired from the shoulder. In contrast, the legislature recently defined handgun to mean a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver.

The definition of short barreled rifle includes a measurement for the maximum length of the barrel and overall length of the firearm. However, the legislature broadly defined handgun as any firearm that can be carried or used with one hand, regardless of the length of its barrel. The distinction between the two definitions, one of which contains specific measurements and the other which describes the manner of use, indicates the legislature regards the term as mutually exclusive.

Analysis on the provisions of chapter 790 verifies that the two terms are not interchangeable. Section 792 two one, as noted above, prohibits the care, custody, possession, or control of any short barreled rifle. In contrast, a handgun is not prohibited, but the legislature has established various provisions acceptable to its use. A stabilizing brace is an attachment that, when added as designed to the rear of a firearm, enables a person to fire the firearm from his or her shoulder.

Attaching a stabilizing brace to a handgun only affects the manner of use in which the person using the firearm will engage. It does not affect the structural characteristics or integral nature of the handgun as commonly understood. Concluding that the addition of a stabilizing brace to a handgun would alter the fundamental characteristics of a handgun to the extent that it must be recategorized would ignore the purpose for the use of the brace.

As a brace can only be used with a handgun because it exists to enable a person to continue to use the handgun. As the definition contemplates with one hand. A person’s choice to use a brace does not change the fundamental nature of the firearm with which the person uses it. Rather, using a brace simply enables a person to hold the handgun with one hand. Furthermore, concluding that the attachment of a brace results in recategorizing the firearm would disregard the legislature’s clear intent to define short barreled rifle in a specific manner.

The Second District Court of Appeals emphasized the specificity of the definition of short barreled rifle and the narrow nature of considering a type of firearm as such a rifle. By holding that the definition does not contemplate another type of weapon, such as a common handgun made from rifle parts, the court stated that the definition refers to a weapon which is in essence, is an integral operable rifle, as the term rifle is commonly understood, whether from the shoulder or as a common handgun.

Concluding that a handgun could become a short barrel rifle by attaching a stabilizing brace would cause us to disregard the essence a rifle, which in its integral operable form, means a firearm with a rifle bore that is generally fired from a person’s shoulder. This analysis is also consistent with the Supreme Court of Florida’s analytical model in Florida v. Weeks, in which the Court concluded that determining whether a firearm was a replica of an antique firearm under Section 791 depends on the characteristics and functioning of the type of firing system.

The Court emphasized that understanding the firing system was critical because the system is the distinctive feature of the firearm. In this regard, the Court’s analysis is consistent with the Second District Court of Appeals focus on the integral operable nature of the firearm as being critical to determining its essence. Here, the distinctive features of the essence of a handgun and a short barrel rifle are simple. A handgun, by definition, can be fired with only one hand, and in contrast, a rifle is designed with the intention that a person will fire it from his or her shoulder due to the length of its stock.

Opting to use a stabilizing brace with a handgun does not change its fundamental characteristics. Conclusion based on the foregoing, unless and until judicially or legislative or legislatively clarified, I conclude that neither Section 791 or two two one of the Florida statutes prohibit a person from using a handgun with a stabilizing brace. The various definitions of distinct types of firearms codified in the Florida statutes are based on the fundamental design and operational characteristics of each firearm.

Therefore, attaching such a brace does not result in a redesign of the firearm and does not result in a different type of functionality of the firearm. Instead, it only assists with the use of the firearm. So, a little wordy, but very pointed. Florida, your Attorney General has just said that the Florida laws as written, unless they’re changed legislatively or changed judicially, the attachment of a pistol stabilizing brace does not turn a pistol into a short barreled rifle.

Now, while phenomenal, it is important to note that Moody’s opinion deals solely with Florida state law and has no bearing on ATF’s action or the NFA for now. So while Florida says that attaching a pistol brace to your pistol does not turn it into anything other than a pistol that has an attached stabilizing brace, ATF and the NFA, the GCA supersede Florida law. So while you’re not going to get jammed up by a Florida cop, you could still get jammed up by the feds.

Just know that. And hopefully that’ll be changing soon based off of what Judge Reed O’Connor said in that ruling that I’ve already pinned above, watch that video. It’s a little long, but I show you exactly what he says and what it means, and it’s phenomenal. It’s a huge decision, and I don’t think it’s getting the attention that it deserves. Guys and gals, thank you so much for your time.

Check out SDI. Check out TriStar Trading. Get those woobies while you can, because once they’re gone, they are gone. And I appreciate y’all subscribe to the channel. Hit that that bell notification. Turn on all the notifications so that you’re notified of when I put out new content or go live and I’ll see you on the next one. Take care. .