New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[Yup!]

Exactly. So not only do you need to notify the ATF if you leave Indiana, you can’t go through MI or IL. If it’s a pistol you can.

I think this works in our favor to get this thing tossed. Some key states here need to file suit as well.

 

[JAL]

They apparently sued 2 years ago. As far as I can tell, it is still in the courts.

SAF RIPS ATF ‘FINAL RULE’ ON ARMBRACES, LAWSUIT WILL MOVE FORWARD - Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today accused the Biden administration of “once again trying to trample the rights of gun owners” by allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to adopt a “final rule” on arm braces for modern semiautomatic pistols. While the...

www.saf.org

That one had to do with BATFE short-circuiting the comment period on the first go-around for rule-making that BATFE withdrew . . . making the lawsuit moot.

 

[bwframe]

Where are "our people" on this?

Mr Young?

Mr Braun?

Mr Banks?

Ms Spartz?

etc, etc, etc...

We need some public commentary on this. It's their job. What we elected them for...


.

 

[JAL]

Watch the District Court for Northern Texas which leads to the 5th Circuity Court of Appeals . . . in which the District Court overturned the bump stock rule, and the 5th Circuit affirmed that unanimously en banc (all the 5th Ckt judges, not just a 3-judge panel). The other District Court to watch is in North Dakota. Then hope for temporary injunctions to stay enforcement. You won't necessarily get a 2nd Amendment showdown. It's more likely you'll get it tossed over BATFE procedural issues at the District Court levels. The 2nd Amendment issue will arise and become more important as parties appeal up the chain. BATFE shot themselves in the foot with the final rule supposedly bearing zero resemblance to the (last) proposed one released for comment. It's also allegedly an incomprehensible, nebulous, ambiguous word salad that defies anyone attempting to understand it.

 

[JAL]

Where are "our people" on this?

Mr Young?

Mr Braun?

Mr Banks?

Ms Spartz?

etc, etc, etc...

We need some public commentary on this. It's their job. What we elected them for...


.

Congress can dump an agency rule declaring it invalid with Joint Resolution, but they're powerless to actually make that happen. Unless you can get a 2/3 supermajority of both the House and Senate to do so in a presidential veto override, you're going nowhere. Biden would veto it within seconds of it hitting his desk, even if you could get a simple majority in the House and Senate. Congressional action of any kind is a waste of time beyond signaling their stance with their constituents. You can count the number of times such a Joint Resolution regarding an agency rule has succeeded on one hand . . . and have fingers left over. The success in getting it tossed will be in the Federal Courts.

 

[bwframe]

Congress can dump an agency rule declaring it invalid with Joint Resolution, but they're powerless to actually make that happen. Unless you can get a 2/3 supermajority of both the House and Senate to do so in a presidential veto override, you're going nowhere. Biden would veto it within seconds of it hitting his desk, even if you could get a simple majority in the House and Senate. Congressional action of any kind is a waste of time beyond signaling their stance with their constituents. You can count the number of times such a Joint Resolution regarding an agency rule has succeeded on one hand . . . and have fingers left over. The success in getting it tossed will be in the Federal Courts.

That's all understood, but this is as much about optics as legislation. We need to learn from our enemies on just how things get done. We need to understand the first try may not work, but still has to be done. Just because the outlook is failure, it is still needed for education to the public. Education to our own and fence sitters. We need to get out of this defeatist mentality of being too hard or "won't work." Sun Tzu, my friends, Sun Tzu,

Ten years ago the running joke in congress was the green new deal. What is it now? EV mandates and spending legislation with liberal environmental bragging points. And it sucked in the RINO vote.

The first step in any of this is to bring it to light. Talk about it, time and time and time again. As Senator Kennedy has begun.

We need more of this. Again, we need to question our own. They need to be vocal on this. It's what we pay them for.

It's up to us to act on this and put some foots in their asses.

Where are "our people" on this?

Mr Young?

Mr Braun?

Mr Banks?

Ms Spartz?

etc, etc, etc...

We need some public commentary on this. It's their job. What we elected them for...


.

 

[JAL]

First lawsuit dropped yesterday in the Northern District of Texas "Mock v Garland" . . . by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) seeking relief for not following APA procedurally, for engaging in "legislating" beyond NFA and GCA authority, and for violating 2nd Amendment. They covered numerous bases in a quick browse of it. As I mentioned earlier, success at District Court may be easier for seeking relief citing BATFE didn't follow APA or is legislating versus rule-making to implement law, as it avoids the 2A Constitutional Question -- which lower courts will nearly always do whenever possible. Appeal to 5th Circuit would undoubtedly raise constitutionality -- and most assuredly if it were granted Cert for SCOTUS. At this point, pray for temporary injunction preventing BATFE enforcement pending litigating it.

Attached a 66-page PDF of the filing.

 

[KLB]

That one had to do with BATFE short-circuiting the comment period on the first go-around for rule-making that BATFE withdrew . . . making the lawsuit moot.

Yet they said on the 13th it will move forward.

SAF RIPS ATF ‘FINAL RULE’ ON ARMBRACES, LAWSUIT WILL MOVE FORWARD - Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today accused the Biden administration of “once again trying to trample the rights of gun owners” by allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to adopt a “final rule” on arm braces for modern semiautomatic pistols. While the...

www.saf.org

 

[DadSmith]

Demand action to stop the ATF's pistol brace rule!

The ATF has released its new rule regarding pistol braces, impacting the 40 million+ braced firearms in circulation, crippling the braced pistol market, and potentially turning their owners into fe...

oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net

Fight for the 2A Right Now!

Fight for the 2A by making a contribution to the Firearms Policy Coalition right now!

secure.anedot.com

 

[Cameramonkey]

I suspect we arent seeing a deluge of lawsuits is because everyone ready is watching everyone else to see if they need to. After all, why spend YOUR money on a suit if somebody else is willing to spend theirs?

 

[JAL]

Yet they said on the 13th it will move forward.

SAF RIPS ATF ‘FINAL RULE’ ON ARMBRACES, LAWSUIT WILL MOVE FORWARD - Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today accused the Biden administration of “once again trying to trample the rights of gun owners” by allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to adopt a “final rule” on arm braces for modern semiautomatic pistols. While the...

www.saf.org

Read 2nd paragraph and then the 3rd paragraph . . . it was filed in the Northern District of Texas in 2021 and was stayed by that court pending the new rule . . . and that stay hasn't been lifted yet. I predict it will be combined with FPC lawsuit which was just filed in the same district court.

 

[bobzilla]

maybe we can do a class action against the AFT for irreparable harm to the populace and for being a rack of dicks.

 

[tackdriver]

I still firmly believe that the Best way to deal wit this is in the Legislative rather than Judicial branch. The problem originated in the legislative branch, it should get solved there too.

The Judicial solutions that narrowly address this, will be complex at best, favor the ATF at worst. Unlike bump stocks - that mechanicaly function different than the definition of a machinegun - braces can/do mechanicaly function as a stock - whatever the manufacturers and consumers 'intentions' were. I can foresee judges ruling that a brace is a stock. Then we're left with battles over the law, what the ATF has said and done, authority to legislate via rules, blah, blah, blah. It's going to be messy, and take a long time.

The courts could rule against the NFA etc. on constitutional grounds, and I would love this; but they haven't done it for over 80 years, so I don't see why they would start now. I'll be happy to be suprized. and a lot of money.

OR...

The Congress can immediately reject the ATF rule. If I understood correctly, this only requires the house, and can be done in days. This would deal with the Brace issue now. It's efficient, authoritative, saves a BUNCH of money, and... it's the right thing to do.

(Uh Oh, I found the problem as I typed... that's a BUNCH of money that won't be going into attorney pockets. Never mind. )

Next, They can take a meat cleaver to the NFA etc., legalizing SBR, SBS, and "Silencers". This will take more time and I guess need to get through the Senate, but I'm happy to wait. Unfortunately, it will also take political will (balls). I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on this one.

TD

 

[tackdriver]

"Banning these braces because they were 'an accessory used in a mass shooting', is like outlawing air fresheners because some drunk drivers had them on their mirror. It's just STUPID." should be a Sen. Kennedy quote

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I still firmly believe that the Best way to deal wit this is in the Legislative rather than Judicial branch. The problem originated in the legislative branch, it should get solved there too.

The Judicial solutions that narrowly address this, will be complex at best, favor the ATF at worst. Unlike bump stocks - that mechanicaly function different than the definition of a machinegun - braces can/do mechanicaly function as a stock - whatever the manufacturers and consumers 'intentions' were. I can foresee judges ruling that a brace is a stock. Then we're left with battles over the law, what the ATF has said and done, authority to legislate via rules, blah, blah, blah. It's going to be messy, and take a long time.

The courts could rule against the NFA etc. on constitutional grounds, and I would love this; but they haven't done it for over 80 years, so I don't see why they would start now. I'll be happy to be suprized. and a lot of money.

OR...

The Congress can immediately reject the ATF rule. If I understood correctly, this only requires the house, and can be done in days. This would deal with the Brace issue now. It's efficient, authoritative, saves a BUNCH of money, and... it's the right thing to do.

(Uh Oh, I found the problem as I typed... that's a BUNCH of money that won't be going into attorney pockets. Never mind. )

Next, They can take a meat cleaver to the NFA etc., legalizing SBR, SBS, and "Silencers". This will take more time and I guess need to get through the Senate, but I'm happy to wait. Unfortunately, it will also take political will (balls). I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on this one.

TD

That all sounds great, but right now the Democrats control the Senate and presidency, and even when Republicans have held both plus the house in recent memory, they've shown no interest in moving anything forward that helps protect our 2A rights.

The courts, on the other hand, have been more favorable to protecting our 2A rights in the last few years than they were for a LONG time before that. Plus, with how obviously capricious and nebulous this new "rule" is, it's hardly even a 2A issue (well it is, but it's much more than that at the same time) and has less to do with whether or not the NFA violates the 2nd Amendment, and more to do with the fact that the ATF already drew a line with what they said constituted a stock or didn't, and now they want to change it on a whim, so it should be a case that just about can't be lost in court.

 

[Ark]

Where are "our people" on this?

Mr Young?

Mr Braun?

Mr Banks?

Ms Spartz?

etc, etc, etc...

We need some public commentary on this. It's their job. What we elected them for...


.

You mean all those people who haven't repealed one piece of gun control legislation in their entire careers?

 

[manifest destiny]

All this for a ****ing brace. You can have the gun but you can't shoulder it. Maybe next they can outlaw bag rest. After all, they make rifle more dangerous. I might have put this in purple but given the ATF this remains as an actual possibility. Brace = felony. Ridiculous.

 

[tv1217]

Not gonna hold my breath but it would be pretty damn funny if this whole brace issue ends up getting SBRs removed from the NFA or the whole NFA dismantled entirely.

Nobody could write a joke funnier than potentially the most anti gun president in our history accidentally getting one of if not the biggest anti gun laws overturned.

 

[bobzilla]

All this for a ****ing brace. You can have the gun but you can't shoulder it. Maybe next they can outlaw bag rest. After all, they make rifle more dangerous. I might have put this in purple but given the ATF this remains as an actual possibility. Brace = felony. Ridiculous.

in the words of Big Red: **** those ****ing ********.

 

[Paul30]

I'm sure it will not be signed into law yet, but this bill would make all SBRs or SBS no different than any other gun.

SHORT Act introduced to counter ATF pistol brace ban

The SHORT Act would end short-barreled long guns on the NFA registry, which would put an end to pistol brace shenanigans for good.

bearingarms.com