Gun Control, Profit, and Public Safety: The Exploitation of Regulatory Loopholes in the Firearms Industry

In a startling revelation, court records indicate that when federal agents apprehended Garret Miller for his involvement in storming the U.S. Capitol, they stumbled upon an illicit assault rifle concealed within his Richardson residence.

Miller, already serving a federal prison sentence of slightly over three years for offenses related to the Capitol insurrection in January, now faces an additional charge of possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle. If convicted on the gun charge, he could confront a sentence of up to ten years behind bars.

Curiously, while Miller’s firearm bears a striking resemblance in appearance and functionality to numerous legally owned unregistered firearms possessed by hundreds of thousands of individuals, it falls under a different classification—pistols.

The weapon in question, commonly known as an AR-style pistol, mirrors the design of popular semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47, featuring a “stabilizing brace” attachment at the rear. Originally intended to assist individuals with limited arm mobility to shoot single-handedly by affixing the gun to their forearm, these braces have evolved over the last decade. Authorities assert that they have transformed pistols into assault rifles primarily fired from the shoulder, even by those without physical disabilities. Many of these modified firearms are capable of firing high-velocity rounds that can penetrate law enforcement body armor.

As a consequence, in January, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reclassified such firearm configurations as short-barreled rifles, mandating registration to maintain legal status.

Advocates for gun control argue that the gun industry seized the opportunity to capitalize on stabilizing braces by facilitating the conversion of pistols into easily concealed assault rifles with shorter barrels. Unlike AR-15s and AK-47s, these modified firearms can fit discreetly inside regular-sized backpacks.

According to Lindsay Nichols, policy director for the Giffords Law Center To Prevent Gun Violence, knowledgeable gun owners should have recognized that the newer generation of pistol braces aimed to “circumvent the law.” The Giffords Law Center, led by former Democratic Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a survivor of a 2011 mass shooting, emphasizes that the majority of customers purchasing these accessories do not have disabilities.

Nichols claims that gun companies knowingly exploited this loophole to maximize profits from such devices, alleging that they were fully aware of the intentions of their clientele.

Although the ATF’s new rule aimed to close this alleged loophole by the end of the month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals partially blocked its implementation on May 23 in response to numerous lawsuits filed by gun groups and owners. It is important to note that the court’s temporary injunction pending appeal solely applies to the plaintiffs involved and is not expected to impede the ATF from enforcing the rule nationwide.

Although the ATF’s new rule aimed to close this alleged loophole by the end of the month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals partially blocked its implementation on May 23 in response to numerous lawsuits filed by gun groups and owners. It is important to note that the court’s temporary injunction pending appeal solely applies to the plaintiffs involved and is not expected to impede the ATF from enforcing the rule nationwide.

ATF’s rule change has ignited strong opposition from gun enthusiasts and the firearms industry, leading to legal challenges and the introduction of a Texas bill seeking to legalize short-barreled rifles under Texas law. The bill advanced beyond the committee stage but failed to progress further.

The ongoing controversy surrounding short-barreled rifles underscores the inherent difficulty in applying long-standing federal laws to rapidly evolving firearm technology. The National Firearms Act, which regulates short-barreled rifles, was enacted in 1934, leaving the ATF with the challenging task of interpreting its applicability to modern products like pistol braces and bump stocks—attachments enabling rifles to discharge multiple rounds akin to machine guns.

A similar legal battle regarding bump stocks has unfolded over the past few years. In 2017, the ATF classified bump stocks as illegal machine guns, thereby banning their possession. This move, supported by then-Republican President Donald Trump, followed the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, where a gunman in Las Vegas utilized bump stocks to perpetrate an attack resulting in the deaths of 60 individuals and the injury of over 400 others.

The contentious issue surrounding short-barreled rifles underscores the ongoing struggle to reconcile antiquated federal regulations with advancements in firearm technology. As the debate rages on, the ATF faces the daunting task of navigating the intricacies of emerging products such as pistol braces and bump stocks.

The legal dispute over bump stocks, which allow rifles to mimic the rapid-fire capabilities of machine guns, has been ongoing for years. In response to the tragic mass shooting in Las Vegas, where a lone gunman employed bump stocks to carry out his heinous act, the ATF prohibited their possession in 2017, classifying them as illegal under the category of machine guns. The ban garnered support from then-President Donald Trump, signaling a rare instance of bipartisan agreement on gun control measures.

However, the tumultuous landscape surrounding firearms regulations persists, as demonstrated by the recent legal battles concerning stabilizing braces and their impact on the classification of firearms. The ability of these braces to transform pistols into shoulder-fired assault rifles has raised concerns about their potential misuse and the need for increased oversight and accountability.

Gun control advocates argue that the gun industry exploited regulatory loopholes, enabling the proliferation of modified firearms with enhanced firepower and concealability. By capitalizing on the evolving design of pistol braces, manufacturers found a lucrative market by catering to customers seeking to skirt legal restrictions.

Lindsay Nichols, policy director for the Giffords Law Center, expressed frustration at the gun industry’s complicity in exploiting these legal gray areas. She contends that their profit-driven approach undermines public safety and perpetuates the cycle of gun violence.

While ATF’s rule change aimed to close the alleged loophole and address the growing concerns surrounding these modified firearms, legal challenges have impeded its full implementation. The recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to temporarily block the ATF’s rule from taking effect underscores the complexity of the issue and the need for further legal deliberation.

As the nation grapples with the intersection of constitutional rights and public safety, the question of how best to regulate evolving firearm technology remains unanswered. The ongoing legal battles and the conflicting perspectives of gun enthusiasts, gun control advocates, and industry stakeholders illustrate the deep divisions that persist within the realm of firearms regulation.