DOJ Drops Controversial NFA Charge Against Pardoned Jan. 6 Protestor

Opinion

SBA3 Pistol Brace
SBA3 Pistol Brace

Last February, NRA-ILA’s reporting exposed the case of Taylor Taranto, a pardoned January 6 protestor separately arrested on firearm charges in Washington, D.C.

One of those charges alleged possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle (SBR) under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The firearm in question was a CZ Scorpion EVO 3 S1 with an attached SB Tactical stabilizing brace, which would not have been considered an SBR until a 2023 rulemaking by the Biden-Harris administration reclassified potentially millions of braced pistols as SBRs. By the time of Taranto’s prosecution, that rule had been vacated by a federal judge in Texas. Yet the same Biden-era U.S. attorney who had charged Taranto for his presence at the January 6 protest insisted that the government could continue to prosecute Taranto under the rule’s terms as “ATF’s best understanding of the [underlying] statute.” On April 16, however, that U.S. attorney’s successor, Edward Martin, moved for dismissal of the NFA count against Taranto “in the interest of justice.”

What this move portends for the government’s position on braced pistols generally is not immediately clear. The Biden-Harris rule, Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces,” remains on the books, although its enforcement is still enjoined. The government’s former position in the Taranto case, however, tried to circumvent the court rulings prohibiting enforcement of the rule by claiming ATF still had the authority and mandate to enforce the NFA itself. And if the agency’s enforcement decisions “tend[ed] to look substantially like the determinations that would follow from applying the clear framework outline in the rule,” then so be it, the government argued in a brief.

Taranto’s attorney had characterized this position in a court filing as “truly astonishing,” as well as “contradictory, unfair, and most importantly not legally sound.”

The arguments supporting the NFA charge had been raised by former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves, also known for aggressive pursuit of January 6 protestors, including those – like Taranto – charged with misdemeanors. Graves resigned on January 16, 2025, shortly before President Trump took office in his second term.

Although President Trump pardoned the January 6 protestors, Taranto remained in D.C. jail on the firearm-related charges.

His tribulations in confinement have been extensively documented online, including his description of being confined to a cell with water seeping through the walls, resulting in continual mold growth and water on the floor. The obvious unhealthiness of these conditions, according to Taranto, is exacerbated by lack of light, long periods of confinement to the cell, lack of basic sanitation, and poor nutrition. It is unclear if Taranto will be released, as he still faces a pending felony count of carrying the CZ Scorpion in D.C. without a license, as required by District of Columbia law.

Ironically, although the NFA charge had required the government to argue the braced CZ Scorpion was a rifle, the charge under D.C. law simultaneously required it to argue the same firearm is a handgun.

The dismissal of Taranto’s NFA charge follows an April 7 announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice and ATF of a “comprehensive review of [the] stabilizing brace regulations.” This will involve “consultations with stakeholders, including gun rights organizations, industry leaders and legal experts,” with the goal of ensuring the resulting policies are “constitutional and protective of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

The position former U.S. attorney Graves had taken in Taranto’s case with respect to the NFA charge obviously would not have survived this kind of scrutiny, and it is commendable the government appears to have recognized as much. NRA-ILA’s original reporting, and subsequent efforts by other pro-gun groups, including Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Council, undoubtedly contributed to this outcome.

We will report on further developments of the government’s ongoing review of the braced pistol rule, as well as on Taranto’s remaining charge, as they become available.

NFA Charges Dropped Against Man with a Braced Pistol

NFA Prosecution Shows ATF Still Determined to Imprison Americans for Braced Pistols


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

21 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
swmft

nfa is unconstitutional, it is same as a pole tax

Deplorable Bill

What part of, “Shall not be infringed” is difficult for someone who is sworn to uphold the constitution to understand?

Any person who has sworn to uphold the constitution and then opposes it should be arrested, tried and convicted of treason and tyranny with the proper, legal, capitol penalty applied. Add a hot bucket of tar and a bag of feathers to be used as prison clothing while waiting for sentence to be carried out.

Arm up and carry on

RetNav

What about Adamiak? Is he not deserving of at least a review of his case by DOJ?

Montana454Casull

Defund and disband this bunch of clowns that think they can make up rules and laws when ever they want to justify persecuting innocent Americans . Time for these murdering idiots to be put out of a job .

Dialogike

I would like to see all of the prosecutors who changed the Jan 6th protestors fired and be disbarred for life.

Matt in Oklahoma

As far as the brace case going away that’s great. On the other stuff he’s facing well some folks just keep poking the bear till they disappear a while.

StLPro2A

A braced pistol cannot be a SBR by government’s own definition. Among other attributes, a rifle is INTENDED to be fired from the shoulder. Pistols are not intended to be shoulder fired. Attaching a brace does not change the design intention. Also, the brace patent defines the brace is designed to be attached to the shooter’s forearm, Esquire statement in the mail…terms: net 10.

StLPro2A

Had Taranto had a good lawyer that could read statutes he would have been acquitted of SBR charges. Among other attributes, a rifle by definition is INTENDED to be fired from the shoulder. A braced pistol is not intended to be fired from the shoulder as referenced in the brace patent…..an SBR…NOT!!! The fact that one might mis-use the braced pistol, firing from the shoulder, does not constitute a crime.

Stag

Hey, NRA, we see what you’re doing. Just a few years ago you were supporting increased regulation of firearms accessories such as stocks.

You also supported the very anti-2A law that was being used against this guy.

Now you want to act like you support his charges being dropped?

I think it’s hilarious you had to include the X post from a real pro-2a organization!

Nick2.0

NRA, 2awhiterook.com