The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 25, 2023, 10:07 AM   #426
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,779
Was there ever any clarification on who the court order applies to? It appears to apply only to the plaintiffs.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old May 25, 2023, 11:25 AM   #427
zeke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT TL View Post
Was there ever any clarification on who the court order applies to? It appears to apply only to the plaintiffs.
Internet rumor, as opposed to an actual published ruling, has it a clarification is scheduled for June 4. And i can find no actual documentation for the rumor.
zeke is offline  
Old May 26, 2023, 06:49 AM   #428
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,439
MSSA reported that it applies to planiffs only. They indicate this as their own research and assessment by a non-attorney, but long time firearms law expert.
Nathan is offline  
Old May 26, 2023, 06:56 AM   #429
zeke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,696
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-rule-blocked/

another more seemingly expansion of the explanation
zeke is offline  
Old May 26, 2023, 01:45 PM   #430
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 29,267
I think every case, including SCOTUS cases only apply to the specific case being ruled on. After the case is closed, the ruling(s) may be used as precedent for future cases, and cases in other courts, and laws and practices may be changed due to the expectation of precedents being used.

If I've got that wrong, please let me know.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 26, 2023, 02:46 PM   #431
zeke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
I think every case, including SCOTUS cases only apply to the specific case being ruled on. After the case is closed, the ruling(s) may be used as precedent for future cases, and cases in other courts, and laws and practices may be changed due to the expectation of precedents being used.

If I've got that wrong, please let me know.
That is likely true for preliminary injunctions. A supreme court ruling on the other hand may have a much wider application depending on how it is written, and don't think everyone would have to have a similar case go to the supreme court. However am not a lawyer and certainly not knowledgeable enough to say anyone's opinion is wrong.

In the state, we used published precedent cases to determine our actions in application of State codes/statutes. That may just be how we were told to operate, a certain lawyers opinion or just our state and have no clue past that.
zeke is offline  
Old May 26, 2023, 05:21 PM   #432
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,343
Unelected bureaucrat agencies have been pushing their regulations with force of law for some years now,
The EPA is getting a "tune up" over getting crazy with the wetlands rules.
And the BATF has gone too far.
Congress has gone lazy. They like that system.

The pendulum swings. I'm encouraged that SCOTUS may have recognized that the Constitution was not written with that intent.

MAYBE? We can hope SCOTUS is trending toward deciding the unelected bureaucrats and their enforcers are obligated to OBEY the law. Not build their Empire, Micromanage and Persecute the Citizen,

Remember in large part the Constitution was written to protect Freedom and limit Government.
HiBC is offline  
Old May 26, 2023, 07:15 PM   #433
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 29,267
Quote:
Remember in large part the Constitution was written to protect Freedom and limit Government.
Included in the idea of limiting govt is the fact that the SCOTUS is not required to "micro manage" the rest of the legal system. Nor does it "assist" Congress in writing laws. That's simply not their job.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 27, 2023, 10:32 AM   #434
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,439
So anybody with a Maxim Defense brace is currently free to operate under that injunction?
Nathan is offline  
Old June 1, 2023, 10:49 AM   #435
zeke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 1999
Location: NW Wi
Posts: 1,696
Texas gets a partial temporary, but still only applies to specific people.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...gister-weapons
zeke is offline  
Old June 1, 2023, 05:38 PM   #436
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeke
Texas gets a partial temporary, but still only applies to specific people.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...gister-weapons
I'm glad the federal government is enjoined from enforcing this quasi-law against these people.

I regret the lack of uniformity and the frequency with which the wind changes. Laws with serious criminal penalties shouldn't require a lot of attention to the daily function of government.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 2, 2023, 07:08 AM   #437
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,779
I find it curious that no State AG's jumped on the band wagon.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old June 3, 2023, 02:55 AM   #438
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,941
I read somewhere that it does only cover plaintiffs . However the firearms policy coalition is suing on behalf of all it's members . Maybe it will be clarified on the 4th but it's been said joining the FPC as a member now makes you a Plaintiff ?? There is some push back out there on that and some are saying you needed to be a member before the original filing . Maybe that will be what will be discussed on the 4th . Wait .... as I write this I realize the 4th is a Sunday ??? so that can't be the day the court plans to clarify anything. Haha now we need a clarification on that ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old June 3, 2023, 11:12 AM   #439
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,608
In general, a United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is binding only within the geographic region covered by that circuit. So if a circuit rules that the ban doesn't apply to FPC members, aside from the question of people who joined after the ruling (or after the case was filed) there is also the question of whether or not it applies to FPC members who live outside of the area covered by that circuit. I am not a lwyer, but my guess would be, "Probably not."

IMHO, it's still a huge can of worms that I want no part of.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 3, 2023, 11:26 AM   #440
Hellcat1
Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2022
Posts: 93
According to a lot of experts out there, this ruling should apply to ALL FPC members (although it isn't clear when you would have to have joined). Likewise, similar rulings have come down in favor of 2nd Amendment Coalition members, as well as GOA members. Here's just one video summarizing all three:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y7-jNmep2c


Frank
Hellcat1 is offline  
Old June 3, 2023, 01:20 PM   #441
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,941
AB , that’s an interesting idea , needing to be a member in the jurisdiction of the court seems like a reasonable possibility.
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old June 3, 2023, 05:03 PM   #442
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellcat1
According to a lot of experts out there, this ruling should apply to ALL FPC members (although it isn't clear when you would have to have joined). Likewise, similar rulings have come down in favor of 2nd Amendment Coalition members, as well as GOA members. Here's just one video summarizing all three:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y7-jNmep2c
What makes that old man an expert? Is he a practicing attorney? Why should I risk my future freedom on what he says?

By the way: "... this ruling should apply ..." is a far cry from "... this ruling applies ..." Should is wishful thinking. I'm not financially or psycologically prepared to risk the rest of my life based on somebody's [probably overly enthusiastic] opinion of "should."
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 3, 2023, 06:03 PM   #443
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,941
Here you go AB , this is a real practicing lawyer quoting some of the current clarifications in multiple cases .

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHgty...RvbiBndW4gbGF3
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old June 3, 2023, 09:08 PM   #444
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
Here you go AB , this is a real practicing lawyer quoting some of the current clarifications in multiple cases .
Interesting but, for people like me who are inherently averse to risk, hardly conclusive. Note that he says that this "probably" means FPC and SAF members are covered. Who wants to volunteer to be the test case?

Now let's look at two other statements from the video. At 04:40:

Quote:
The court order further indicated that the purpose of this clarification was simply to preserve the status quo ante for the parties and persons within the reasonable scope of the motion panels's injunction pending appeal.
"Ante" is a Latin word that means "before." So if the purpose of the injunctions is to preserve the status quo as it was BEFORE the suits were filed, then the injunctions would apply to people who were members of the FPC and SAF BEFORE the suits were filed, but very well might not apply to people who only joined after the injunctions were handed down.

Next, at 06:24:

Quote:
So ... whether or not these injunctions extend beyond the scope of the state of Texas or the Fifth Circuit is a whole nother video that we will need to do.
So even this practicing attorney isn't saying that these injunctions apply anywhere outside of the state of Texas (for the SAF) or the Fifth Circuit (for the FPC). He's not saying they don't -- he's saying that's a question that needs a separate video -- which to me suggests that it's not a clear-cut yes-or-no answer.

So, while it is good news that two courts have put the new rules on hold pending appeal, I don't think it's time to uncork the Champaign just yet.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 3, 2023, 09:10 PM   #445
Hellcat1
Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2022
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god View Post
Here you go AB , this is a real practicing lawyer quoting some of the current clarifications in multiple cases .

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TGHgty...RvbiBndW4gbGF3
Thanks for the link, MG. That's actually one of the videos I was originally looking for when I posted the above link. After not finding it, I posted the above video of the "old man" because I thought he did a good job of summarizing all three cases, including the GOA case.


Frank
Hellcat1 is offline  
Old June 3, 2023, 09:16 PM   #446
Hellcat1
Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2022
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
Interesting but, for people like me who are inherently averse to risk, hardly conclusive. Note that he says that this "probably" means FPC and SAF members are covered. Who wants to volunteer to be the test case?

Now let's look at two other statements from the video. At 04:40:



"Ante" is a Latin word that means "before." So if the purpose of the injunctions is to preserve the status quo as it was BEFORE the suits were filed, then the injunctions would apply to people who were members of the FPC and SAF BEFORE the suits were filed, but very well might not apply to people who only joined after the injunctions were handed down.

Next, at 06:24:



So even this practicing attorney isn't saying that these injunctions apply anywhere outside of the state of Texas (for the SAF) or the Fifth Circuit (for the FPC). He's not saying they don't -- he's saying that's a question that needs a separate video -- which to me suggests that it's not a clear-cut yes-or-no answer.

So, while it is good news that two courts have put the new rules on hold pending appeal, I don't think it's time to uncork the Champaign just yet.
Agreed, no reason for celebration quite yet, but it is looking promising.

And FYI, it is official now that a third injunction has been issued against the pistol brace ban, with GOA members being the beneficiaries of this one. Here's a summary of that case: https://thereload.com/third-injuncti...f-enforcement/


Frank
Hellcat1 is offline  
Old June 14, 2023, 03:19 PM   #447
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 29,267
A Congressional bill and the various lawsuits to block the rule change implementation are internet news the past couple days, (and probably be out of the headlines very soon).

Of course, the "net news" is leaving out some of the pertinent information, and treating it as D/R power struggle, and not the legal and civil rights issue it actually is.

Since I gave up on the idea of braced/stocked pistols when the ATF changed its mind and screwed me over on the status of my Broomhandle Mauser stock many years ago, I've just been watching this from the sidelines, as a matter of principle.

As I see it, regulation is to provide a framework for enforcement of law, not to define or redefine what the law covers. We'll see where this goes....and I hope the actual principles don't get trampled or ignored in the political power struggle of "popular opinion" over which party supports what.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 14, 2023, 09:00 PM   #448
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,779
Biden has already stated he will veto the bill.
Quote:
"The rationale is clear: short-barreled rifles are more concealable than long guns, yet more dangerous and accurate at a distance than traditional pistols," the White House said in a Monday statement. "As a result of this industry innovation, in the past few years we have witnessed mass shooters – including those in Dayton, Ohio, and Boulder, Colorado – use these ‘brace’ devices on heavy pistols in order to inflict mass carnage."
They certainly have been used in mass shootings. The only thing is I can't think of any time that one was used where either:

A- Concealment played a role or
B- A rifle wouldn't have been more effective.

The whole point was to make AR pistols more accurate, so I guess they want us to have less accurate guns?
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war.
MTT TL is offline  
Old June 15, 2023, 12:13 AM   #449
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 29,267
Quote:
The whole point was to make AR pistols more accurate, so I guess they want us to have less accurate guns?
did you miss this part??

Quote:
... more dangerous and accurate at a distance than traditional pistols,...
seemed like a pretty obvious statement to me. The more accurately one can shoot, the more dangerous "the weapon" is.

The problem here is that the people with this mindset never let reality get in the way of their preconceived notions.

Do remember that it was VP Biden who told us all one needed for defense was a double barrel shotgun, and we should just shoot it in the air and the police will come.....

among other things of dubious truth...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 15, 2023, 07:37 AM   #450
MarkCO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,330
I pulled the braces off the pistol buffer tubes. Went to the range last week and shot them with a sling and Cattongue on the tubes. I hate cats, but cattongue is awesome! Just wrapped at the point of the cheek weld. If you are looking for an alternative, might be worth a look.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08CS3Q3Y4...roduct_details
__________________
Good Shooting, MarkCO
www.CarbonArms.us
MarkCO is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09465 seconds with 8 queries