SAF Welcomes NRA Motion To Join in its Lawsuit v. ATF

SB Tactical SBPDW and SBM4 Braces IMG SB Tactical gallery
SB Tactical SBPDW and SBM4 Braces IMG SB Tactical gallery

U.S.A. — The Second Amendment Foundation today said it welcomes the National Rifle Association’s request to join in a federal lawsuit filed by SAF and its associates in a challenge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ new “arm brace rule.”

NRA announced the effort Wednesday on its website, explaining the move was to obtain injunctive relief for its members to stop the ATF from enforcing its new rule – which totally reversed the agency’s previous position that pistol braces did not convert pistols into short-barreled rifles, making them subject to regulation under the 1934 National Firearms Act. The case is known as SAF, v. ATF, et. al.

On May 31, U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, confirmed the scope of a preliminary injunction she had issued in the case applied not only to SAF, but its members as well. “The Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order applies to both the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. and its members.”

The NRA announcement confirmed the organization “is going to court to obtain preliminary, and ultimately permanent, injunctive relief restraining Defendants from enforcing the ‘Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’ (the “Final Rule”) against law-abiding NRA members.”

“We welcome the NRA’s motion to join in our lawsuit,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “If their motion is granted—and we certainly have no objection—it will mean more American gun owners will enjoy the same protection SAF members were granted under Judge Boyle’s preliminary injunction order. It only makes sense NRA would want the same protection for its members.”

SAF is joined in the case by Rainier Arms, LLC, and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas.

“We’re in this for the long haul, and we intend to win,” Gottlieb said. “SAF has become a recognized leader in Second Amendment litigation since our 2010 Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago. We’re serious in our intent to win back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

SAF offers several different tiers of memberships which are available at Annual membership is $15, a five-year membership is $50, and a life membership is $150. Membership is effective upon the date of receipt.

About the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Second Amendment Foundation

Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There it is. Rather than doing the right thing to begin with which was to lead the way for unconstitutional overreach, it follows as a REMF. Beyond obvious to those awake.


The train already left the station, but the NRA manages to jump on the caboose as it goes by. I guess that’s one way to get their name along for the ride and in lights without having to buy the ticket. WLP’s suits are outdated and he needs the money for replacement.


The NRA rushes to wait, take a reading on which way the case is going to break, let SAF do all the heavy lifting, and sign on in the nick of time for the outcome. Great work, LaPeeair. Not.


I judge them on accomplishments in the battles to protect our rights. In this case they set the stage, but can use more resources to continue the fight – after all, all they have achieved in this case (so far) is a preliminary injunction. Their goal was universal-nationwide injunction instead of members-only, adding NRA will drastically increase number of people covered and will likely add considerably to resources available for the coming legal battles. In case like this think of NRA as the neighborhoods big-bruiser who’s a “bit slow”. He needs a leader to show him the way and explain… Read more »

Xaun Loc

SAF is making a serious mistake by trying to play nice with the largest and most successful anti-gun organization in the United States. The NRA has only three interests in joining this lawsuit 1) They see the money that SAF, GOA, and FPC are making from new memberships due to the injunctions covering members and they want to grab a piece of that. 2) They want to reduce the number of NRA members who join SAF, GOA or FPC in the hope of being covered by the injunctions 3) As usual, NRA wants to take credit if SAF, GOA, and… Read more »


Oh! Look who’s gonna jump in at the end and then try to claim victory once we win! I’m sure they’ll be sending us all mail talking about how they saved our rights at the last minute and we need to give them more money.


So,the sleeping giant awakes, AFTER the rest of the community is bloody and battered from trying to same what few “rights” we have left.

Alan in NH

Better late than never.


Keep the cancerous Negotiating Rights Away aka NRA out. Their lawyers will agree to compromise to settle, selling out everyone else. Then they will pat themselves on the back publicly. The rest of us get the shaft.


NEA join in on the lawsuits (funding only) personally I don’t trust their lawyers.


What? Are you referencing the National Education Association or the National Endowment for the Arts, or something else? Do you have a link to a news article on this?

Deplorable Bill

Well, maybe the NRA finally realized that the constitution is important after all. Several days late and many dollars short but, at least they are finally in the game and we can use all the help we can get because it’s better than going to war. Make no mistake, war it will be if the atfe gets their way against the constitution. I’ll not be pushed another inch, I’ve got nothing better to do than save my country from those trying to destroy the U.S.A.

Arm up and carry on


IDC, as finally my Life membership I paid go a long time ago will be worth it, if I’m protected too.
Passes me off that there’s no Equal Protection Under the Law thanks to F**king Lawyers and Representatives F**king the country over exempting Civil Suits from the same protections as Criminal Law.
That was No what our Founders intended.

Xaun Loc

Sorry, Chuck, YOU are part of the problem. You make excuses for supporting the largest and most successful anti-RKBA organization in America with your “I paid go a long time ago” as if you didn’t know the NRA’s record or as if it was once a pro-gun organization that only turned bad under WLP. You are one of the parasites that wants the benefits gained by SAF, GOA, and FPC but isn’t willing to support any of them — Instead you hide behind your “NRA Life Member” decal while whining about the gun control measures that your organization supported. The… Read more »


and all you know is derp. the NRA never supported the Hughes amendment, they never supported the 94 AWB. the AWB only passed because of too many idiots who sat on the hands while the media continually showed full autos as the weapons affected.
the fact is, once WLP assumed control in the late 1980’s he radically changed NRA’s focus in opposing unjust legislation and grew membership to over 5 million because his actions.


Supporting FOPA (Hughes Amendment), import bans, NICS, bumpstock ban, red flag laws, and FixNICS doesn’t look much like “opposing unjust legislation”.