ATF and pistol braces ?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by MarkCO

I hate cats, but cattongue is awesome!

I thank you for the link. I was wondering what catton even was, and if "gue" was a marketing variation of "goo".

[MTT TL]

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.....

In all fairness when most people shoot a double barrel shotgun in the air, the police often do come....

[44 AMP]

In all fairness when most people shoot a double barrel shotgun in the air, the police often do come....

And, generally arrive well after the issue is decided, one way or the other....

Also what works well enough for someone with a Secret Service detail assigned to them for their protection doesn't apply well to the rest of us.

[armoredman]

Still waiting for Judge Benitez...

[rickyrick]

Here’s what the President had to say about pistol braces.

“[The brace] makes it where you can have a higher caliber bullet coming out of that gun.”

[44 AMP]

Here’s what the President had to say.....

"God Save The Queen, man!"

[44 AMP]

In recent "mainstream" news I've seen reports of the House passing a bill that would stop the rule change, and the Senate killing it (by ONE vote), completely along partisan lines in both chambers.

When our rights and the proper interpretation and enforcement of the law become political "footballs" kicked around and voted on solely on the basis of party alignment, WE ALL LOSE.

Right now, the options for those people who have such things (braces now defined as stocks) seem to be, register them with the ATF under all their requirements, or remove them from your gun(s), or risk becoming a convicted felon if you get caught having one on a gun.

Until/unless we get enough people in office and positions of authority who recognize that THINGS aren't the problem OR the solution, we're pretty well stuck in this seemingly endless cycle of banning any THING that someone else decides we don't "need" when it is deliberately misused.

[rickyrick]

It’s a pretty dumb thing to ban that really makes very little difference.
If the AR had no buffer tube that protrudes out of the back we wouldn’t even be having this problem.
Seems like the government is trying to play a game of Gotcha with its law abiding citizens. Pretty nefarious for a republic that is supposed to serve the people.
The bill of rights is supposed to be human freedoms that the government must stay out of.
All political parties should be in agreement on human rights in an ideal situation. Lol.

I feel as though we are going to be spending our last days together at the Chestnut Tree Cafe.

[Hellcat1]

A big day in court coming up next week (the 29th), especially with regard to the pistol brace:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCN5KDM_-t4


Frank

[armoredman]

Looking forward to this.

[MTT TL]

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Has ruled that the ban exceeded the authority of the ATF and remanded it back to District Court.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1690919131

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the order denying a prelim-
inary injunction and REMAND with instruction to consider that motion
expeditiously. To ensure relative stability, we MAINTAIN the preliminary
injunction pending appeal that the motions panel issued on May 23, 2023, as
clarified by this merits panel on May 26, 2023.63 This court’s injunction will
expire 60 days from the date of this decision, or once the district court rules
on a preliminary injunction, whichever occurs first. We direct the district
court to rule within 60 days.

So we might know sooner rather than later.

Throughout the ruling they comment a bit about how imperfect and confusing ATF rulings, procedures and process are.

Under the Final Rule, it is nigh impossible for a regular citizen to
determine what constitutes a braced pistol, and outside of the sixty contem-
poraneous adjudications that the ATF released, whether a specified braced
pistol requires NFA registration.53 Various AR pistols without a recognizable
“brace” may fall into the strictures of the Final Rule.54 Such an owner may
not be on notice that his firearm is subject to criminal penalties without
registration.

Nor does the ATF bother to clarify the matter.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

So we might know sooner rather than later.

But whatever we learn from this case will be valid only in the 5th Circuit jurisdiction. Courts in other Circuit areas could rule quite differently.

[MTT TL]

But whatever we learn from this case will be valid only in the 5th Circuit jurisdiction.

Not exactly. It was remanded to the District Court which is only a small portion of the 5th's Circuit. However a District Court can issue a national injunction which can then go to the appeals court or even the SCOTUS. It turns into a game of hot potato that can go for a while.

[MTT TL]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/federa...cond-amendment

Another ruling against the ATF

[raimius]

There are now reported cases of the ATF violating court injunctions and confiscating braced pistols and FRTs. Hopefully, this will lead to contempt charges or some other legal smackdown, but until then, be careful and ready to record any interactions with ATF/DOJ agents (if they are willing to violate court orders, filing false reports about interviews wouldn't be a stretch...)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=29CxsoUwsFg

[Nathan]

Is there now a nationwide injunction?

[Sharkbite]

Is there now a nationwide injunction?

No. The injunction only applies to the named parties (as stupid as that sounds).

So, 2 people that live nextdoor to each other, both have identical braced pistols, one is a member of FPC and the other is not. One is a felon in possession of an unregistered SBR and the other is legal.

There is no way that stands up long term. Equal protection under the law or some such has to come into play….right?������

[44 AMP]

One is a felon in possession of an unregistered SBR and the other is legal.

When discussing the fine points of laws, particularly stupid laws (and ATF rulings are regulations, NOT law) it is important to be clear in the terms used.

One is not a felon, until convicted of a felony. A person might well be in criminal violation of the law (or just the ruling), but until they are arrested, charged, tried, and convicted, they are not felons.

[Sharkbite]

Fair point.

One is committing an act deemed to be a felony, the other is not.

[zeke]

Looks like a nation wide injunction?

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...72602.68.0.pdf

[Nathan]

https://youtu.be/tF9M8_Smmeg?si=hBl_o8V-6hi5cKlj

That’s how he sees it.

[zeke]

While this link is about "ghost guns", it exemplifies changing an existing definition without going through congress and the use of "plain language"

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1699567052

[zukiphile]

The district court in Mock v. Garland voided the rule.

As the Plaintiff noted in its brief in support of SJ

Furthermore, there is a such a radical discrepancy between the Proposed Rule’s worksheet based system and the Final Rule’s indeterminate test that the public (including Plaintiffs) were not given adequate notice or the ability to comment on the substance of the Final Rule. The Fifth Circuit correctly held that “because the Final Rule bears almost no resemblance in manner or kind to the Proposed Rule, the Final Rule fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA.” Mock, 75 F.4th at 578. In short:

Nothing in the Proposed Rule put the public on notice that the Worksheet would be replaced with a six-factor test based on almost entirely subjective criteria. Nor was the public, which criticized the subjective nature of the purportedly objective criteria of Worksheet 4999 and its overbreadth, see, e.g., Final Rule at 6513–14, 6521–22, 6527, 6529–30, put on notice that not only would the ATF change the criteria, but it also would make the criteria so expansive as to subject an estimated 99% of stabilizing braces on the market to enhanced regulations and increase the economic effect of the Rule by over $100 million.
Id. at 583–84 (footnote omitted).

The Court's opinion and order: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ock-v-garland/

[Swifty Morgan]

Well, that's great. A lot of people can now get out their snorkels and do a little diving in the areas where they had boating accidents after the rule was adopted.

This is a nice break for people who like to defend their homes with long-barreled pistols (LBP's). Of course, the frequency of school shootings will skyrocket, and sea levels will rise at least a foot.

I'm looking around trying to get a feel for the Fifth Circuit's respect for the Constitution.

I can't imagine any basis for ordering a stay pending appeal.

[armoredman]

“Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!”