While a series of preliminary injunctions for certain plaintiffs have been issued, for most owners of stabilizing pistol braces, June 1 hits a little differently. 

The Biden Administration’s controversial and arbitrary rule on pistol stabilizing braces set a May 31 deadline for owners of upward of 40 million large-format pistols equipped with such long-legal devices to comply with the new regulations as enforced by the ATF. 

Acceptable options included removing the brace (which was explained by the ATF director to Congress, although many legal scholars contend that may not be enough when taking constructive possession into account), destroying the firearm altogether, surrendering the firearm to ATF, reconfiguring the pistol as a Title I rifle with a barrel at least 16 inches long, or registering the intact braced pistol as a "tax-free" NFA-regulated short-barreled rifle with the ATF. 

Other than that, those found with a pistol fitted with a stabilizing brace installed – currently seen as an unregistered SBR by the federal government – starting June 1, could face felony charges that carry up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. 

When it comes to legal challenges, there was no 11th-hour "Hail Mary" style nationwide injunction of the rule, although there are several cases filed in federal court as to the constitutionality of the ATF's final brace rule. 

There are some pro-gun member organizations, however, that have secured more limited preliminary injunctions while their cases are being litigated – with courts signaling the challenges are likely to prevail in the end. 

These injunctions cover some members of the Firearm Policy Coalition via Mock v. Garland, members of the Second Amendment Foundation via SAF v. Garland, and those of Gun Owners of America via Texas v. ATF. Likewise, the latter order, which the State of Texas signed on to as a plaintiff, may also exempt some Texas state employees. We say "some" because this is all very gray legally, and some 2A attorneys caution that not all members of all groups may have legal protection due to the wording of the various orders and how courts may interpret them, especially when state law is taken into account. 

"SAF has received numerous inquiries from individuals as to whether the injunction covered our members,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in an email to Guns.com. "Our attorney had attempted to reach an understanding with the government as to the scope of the injunction and coverage of our members. When it became apparent that the parties were not seeing eye to eye on the matter, despite the 5th Circuit’s clarification in another case [Mock v Garland] on this exact point, we asked the court for clarification. We are pleased to see that Judge Boyle agrees with our interpretation and that our members are indeed protected under this injunction."

In short, the pistol brace rule is now chugging along for better or worse, and lots of legal miles are still to be covered before it is all said and done. 

revolver barrel loading graphic