State vs Federal Gun Law: What Can We Learn from Taylor Taranto’s Case
The recent case involving Taylor Taranto and his CZ Scorpion firearm has gained nationwide attention due to conflicting enforcement by the District of Columbia (D.C.) in combination with federal enforcement. Today, we’ll take a short look at this situation, how it’s being handled by the District and DOJ, and add some speculation as to what might happen down the road, whether that means the DOJ dropping one of the conflicting charges, or hopefully, dropping the case altogether. Let’s take a look at what’s happened so far.
More Firearms News @ TFB:
The Legal Battle Over Taylor Taranto’s CZ Scorpion Charges
To get some context for this case and how it has gotten to this point, we have to go back to 2001. Back in 2001, D.C. updated its laws with Section 4504(a)(1), making it crystal clear to its citizens that you can’t carry a pistol—whether openly or concealed—outside your home or business without a license from the District. D.C. doesn’t mess around with gun laws; they’re super strict, and every firearm has to be registered, or you’re in big trouble. Even if you can get a firearm, getting a concealed carry license is notoriously difficult, with classes hovering around $350 in the area and fees costing you an additional $150 or so in addition to the 90-day processing time.
Meanwhile, the NFA, under Title 26, U.S. Code, Sections 5861(d) and 5845(a)(3), covers federal laws surrounding the registration of SBRs—failure to register one is a violation of federal law.
Fast forward to June 29, 2023—Taylor Taranto was caught in D.C. with a braced CZ Scorpion, and things went south for him very quickly. He faced two charges on the same day: The feds say it’s an unregistered SBR because the brace on it might make it fit the SBR definition, and D.C. law says he’s carrying a pistol without a license, even though it’s the same gun, which doesn’t make sense since it can’t legally be both at once.
Sometime before March 2025, the first SBR charge was filed, and gun rights groups like Gun Owners of America (GOA) step in, asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop it. But by early March 2025, the DOJ doubled down, adding the pistol charge to the mix, making the whole thing even messier since the two charges contradict each other.
Finally, on April 13, 2025, @mrgunsngear posted on X about the whole ordeal, pointing out again that the CZ Scorpion can’t be both an SBR and a pistol, calling it a legal mess, and asking folks to spread the word to get someone to fix it for the sake of Second Amendment rights and of course, Taranto himself. The situation highlights the general frustration that gun owners often have with the implementation of both federal and state-level firearms laws, and as new laws get added to both the federal and state legislatures, the chances of things like this happening only increase.
Looking ahead, this case could go a few different ways. If public pressure from gun rights advocates increases, the DOJ might drop one of the charges against Taylor Taranto to address the contradiction, especially since the dual classification of the CZ Scorpion as both an SBR and a pistol doesn’t hold up legally. It’s clear to most people with a basic education that enforcing two conflicting laws in this way doesn’t make sense and is unreasonable. Taranto’s defense could argue that the charges undermine each other, creating reasonable doubt.
Alternatively, the case might proceed to court, where a judge could set a precedent by ruling on whether a braced CZ Scorpion should be treated as a pistol or an SBR, potentially clarifying the murky rules around stabilizing braces. If the charges stick, it could embolden the ATF once again to crack down harder on braced firearms. On the other hand, if the case is dismissed, it might encourage more challenges to similar regulations, strengthening the argument that such laws not only infringe on constitutional rights but also create more rules and procedures for people to follow that ultimately do nothing to increase public safety. Either way, the outcome could significantly impact how braced firearms are regulated and, once again, revive this dead horse that we’ve been beating to death for over a decade now.
