Fact check: The ATF is ignoring court rulings in regards to pistol braces.

1. Summary of the results

The situation is more complex than the original statement suggests. Multiple courts have indeed ruled against the ATF's pistol brace regulations:

• The US District Court in Texas (Mock v. Garland case) ruled the ATF's rule was "arbitrary and capricious" and violated the Administrative Procedure Act ^[1]
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit similarly found the rule deficient and lacking clear standards ^[2]
• Judge Reed O'Connor specifically vacated the final rule, effectively making pistol braces legal nationwide ^[1]

However, rather than simply "ignoring" court rulings, the ATF has taken specific actions:

• Filed an appeal in August 2024 ^[3]
• The Firearms Industry Programs Branch issued a letter maintaining that braced pistols must be registered as short-barreled rifles ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are missing from the original statement:

• The legal battle is actively ongoing, not concluded ^[3]
• The ATF's response has been through official channels (appeal and formal communications) rather than simply ignoring rulings ^[5]
• There's uncertainty about whether some communications represent official agency policy, as evidenced by an unsigned email from the Firearms Industry Programs Branch ^[5]
• The core issue involves the ATF's lack of clear standards and subjective evaluation criteria, rather than outright defiance ^[2]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement oversimplifies a complex legal situation:

• It characterizes the ATF's actions as "ignoring" court rulings, when in fact the agency is pursuing legal appeals and maintaining its position through official channels ^{[4] [3]}
• It fails to acknowledge that while courts have ruled against the ATF's implementation, the agency retains the right to appeal and continue pursuing its regulatory goals through legal means ^[3]
• The statement may benefit gun rights advocates and manufacturers who oppose ATF regulation, while potentially undermining legitimate administrative processes for appealing court decisions

The situation appears to be more accurately described as an ongoing legal dispute rather than an agency ignoring court rulings.