ATF and pistol braces ?

[MTT TL]

Was there ever any clarification on who the court order applies to? It appears to apply only to the plaintiffs.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

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.

[Nathan]

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.

[zeke]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-rule-blocked/

another more seemingly expansion of the explanation

[44 AMP]

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.

[zeke]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

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.

[HiBC]

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.

[44 AMP]

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.

[Nathan]

So anybody with a Maxim Defense brace is currently free to operate under that injunction?

[zeke]

Texas gets a partial temporary, but still only applies to specific people.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...gister-weapons

[zukiphile]

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.

[MTT TL]

I find it curious that no State AG's jumped on the band wagon.

[Metal god]

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 ?

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

[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


Frank

[Metal god]

AB , that’s an interesting idea , needing to be a member in the jurisdiction of the court seems like a reasonable possibility.

[Aguila Blanca]

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."

[Metal god]

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

[Aguila Blanca]

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:

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:

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.

[Hellcat1]

Originally Posted by Metal god

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]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

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

[44 AMP]

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.

[MTT TL]

Biden has already stated he will veto the bill.

"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?

[44 AMP]

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??

... 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...

[MarkCO]

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