New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[Creedmoor]

On a Federal level? Yes. FOPA didn’t exist 50 years ago, for one. The AWB was at the Federal level, and the ATF has clearly steeped it into overdrive since the AWB sunset. So yes, absolutely IMO.

At the state level? No, I think many states have made positive moves towards greater 2A freedom.

You forget Reagan.

But I am a firm believer we have more rights now than when I was a kid.

 

[Ingomike]

I usually skip over your (muted) comments, but chew on this:

Do you really believe that Trump is the ONLY candidate on the face of God’s Green Earth who can make that happen? Why do I have to vote for The Clown if the answer is no? This is why the two party system sucks. “We only have two choices, both suck ass, but my guy sucks it less.” Yeah, that sounds like a grand plan to me…

I do not know of any other candidate that has proven they can deliver for the people. Please share just who else has delivered…

 

[drillsgt]

Here is your guy. View attachment 301611

They look so enthused lol

 

[DragonGunner]

Maybe Basher will run for POTUS, seems to have all the answers, believes anyone voting for Trump is in a cult. I’m sure he could get support and bring in around a million votes. 80 million more and he’s there.

 

[DragonGunner]

They look so enthused lol

Man I noticed that also, you can tell who was told you have to be here, and they didn’t like it.

 

[foszoe]

I can’t help it if a large portion of the population has bought in to Trump’s cult of personality. How so many can worship at his feet while he literally sold us down the river on numerous 2A measures is beyond me, but here we are, people trying to get him back in for a second shot at screwing more stuff up. Sure, he did some good, but he also laid the groundwork for a LOT of bad. No better than Biden or many others in that regard.

I don’t want another Biden, and I don’t want another Trump. How does my distaste for the two “popular” options make me a bad guy, when all I want is a sane human who isn’t a deranged, senile, one man circus???

If he is elected, he doesn't have to worry about reelection either.

 

[bwframe]

Maybe Basher will run for POTUS, seems to have all the answers, believes anyone voting for Trump is in a cult. I’m sure he could get support and bring in around a million votes. 80 million more and he’s there.

Doesn't matter what he thinks. Or you or I or any other one of us. There will be two choices in 2024. One of them is the reason for this thread.

We can either waste time, effort (and the election,) whining about the choices or attempt to better our horse.

 

[Expat]

We can either waste time, effort (and the election,) whining about the choices or attempt to better our horse.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. And no, I am not saying Trump is a pig, just saying, he is what he is. He is almost 80, you aren't changing him now.

 

[Basher]

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. And no, I am not saying Trump is a pig, just saying, he is what he is. He is almost 80, you aren't changing him now.

Bingo. We’re not “bettering” anything. They are what they are, and we have to decide if we want to vote for the less sh*tty of the two sh*ts, or if we want to bypass the two party. Honestly, with a four-year election cycle we could have a chance if we played the long game, but I think too many on both sides are dug in and stuck in the old ways noted above (voting for the less sh*tty option, which is still pretty sh*tty)…

 

[INPatriot]

We must overwhelm them to a point they cannot even cheat enough to win…

That's exactly what happened in 2016.

 

[HoosierLife]

Bump stocks came to mind. Either way, my statement stands. He wasnt man enough to stand up to the ATF then, he wont now.

I think Trump will try to burn the whole thing down if he wins.

He may be pandering and he made many missteps the first go around.

But now he’s gonna combine shock and awe with scorched earth.

 

[JAL]

Now that this thread has all but derailed . . .

Stay tuned for a ruling to drop from the District Court on Friday (tomorrow, Sept 29th). The 60 Day clock is running out on Reed O'Connor to comply with the mandate from the 5th Circuit 3 Judge Panel. That clock started ticking on August 1st.

 

[DadSmith]

Now that this thread has all but derailed . . .

Stay tuned for a ruling to drop from the District Court on Friday (tomorrow, Sept 29th). The 60 Day clock is running out on Reed O'Connor to comply with the mandate from the 5th Circuit 3 Judge Panel. That clock started ticking on August 1st.

Thanks JAL for keeping us informed on this.
I really appreciate it

 

[Mgderf]

Now that this thread has all but derailed . . .

Stay tuned for a ruling to drop from the District Court on Friday (tomorrow, Sept 29th). The 60 Day clock is running out on Reed O'Connor to comply with the mandate from the 5th Circuit 3 Judge Panel. That clock started ticking on August 1st.

So, any ruling released?

 

[JAL]

So, any ruling released?

Nope. No new entries on the District Court's Minute Entries. After counting days on the calendar, I believe the 60 day clock runs out over this weekend (today, Sept 30th) . . . which would give Reed O'Connor until Monday. That's how court deadlines work when they fall on a weekend or government holiday. I had expected it to be issued on Friday, as that is the most common day of the week for decisions.

 

[JAL]

I've scoured all the possible sources . . . nothing announced from Reed O'Connor's District Court as of posting this. Sometimes there's a lag. Stay tuned.

 

[Mgderf]

I've scoured all the possible sources . . . nothing announced from Reed O'Connor's District Court as of posting this. Sometimes there's a lag. Stay tuned.

 

[JAL]

Reed O'Connor issues (as was predictable), a Temporary Injunction covering all named parties, against ATF enforcement of its Pistol Brace Rule. That includes all FPC members, plus all Maxim Defense "downstream customers" (without conditions on geographic location, membership or purchase dates). Judge O'Connor declined to issue a "nationwide" injunction beyond named parties (and members/customers). The 38 page decision is interesting reading, and typical of O'Connor, it's thorough.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.372609/gov.uscourts.txnd.372609.92.0.pdf

This must have been posted very late last night as I kept checking, even after midnight EDT, as Texas is an hour earlier in the MDT zone. O'Connor and his clerks were burning the midnight oil on this -- to make it before midnight. I may edit this later this morning after I get a chance to read more of the 38 pages.

For the TL/DR crowd, the order portion itself enjoining BATFE starts on page 37, plus some interesting discussion on page 36 regarding a blanket national injunction. O'Connor specifically states his injunction is a direct parallel of the 5th Circuit's, plus its clarification order. IOW, he got the message from 5th Circuit. Needed to ensure he responded thoroughly to all the filings that avalanched onto his court clerks. Named parties are Mock and Lewis, two individuals who own braced pistols, FPC and all its members, plus Maxim Defense and all their downstream customers. IMHO, not issuing a blanket injunction for anyone with a pistol brace nationwide takes some wind out of the government's sails in what will undoubtedly be Garland and Dettlelbach's attempt to get the injunction stayed. Next stop will be 5th Circuit in which the result is predictable considering the injunction it issued that expired at midnight MDT, Oct. 2nd. Stay tuned also for the other parallel cases in the Texas District Courts to issue injunctions.

This all hit and was posted publicly in the wee hours of this morning (EDT). All the Usual Suspects 2A GunTubers have yet to catch up with it, but they undoubtedly will this morning (Oct. 3rd) as the sun rises. Unlike most Temporary Injunctions which are stayed for a week to 10 days to allow for emergency appeals, this one was effective as soon as Reed O'Connor signed it.

Additional Info (8:15 AM Oct 3rd):

• Regarding the "hundreds of thousands" of FPC members, discussion of it begins about 2/3 way down page 25 and it's clear O'Connor is addressing their nationwide membership (similarly situated FPC members -- i.e. the same as Mock and Lewis discussed in the many pages preceding).
• Regarding the plaintiff brace manufacturer, Maxim Defense, and their downstream distributors and end customers, discussion of them begins on page 28. As with FPC members, it's clear O'Connor is addressing them nationwide.
• The "Balance of Equities" discussion begins on page 34 and cites that the cost of compliance with the BATFE rule by anyone, or any organization, or any company, is inherently non-recoverable if they ultimately prevail in the lawsuit. In other words, there is (by case law) no legal means for any Tort Claim financial remedy. They're just S**t Outta Luck (aka SOL).
• Scope of injunctive relief begins on page 35. O'Connor clearly states it parallels exactly what the 5th Circuit did in its injunction plus its clarification order and applies to all FPC members (to prevent confusion and avoid multiplicity of lawsuits across many courts). Similarly with Maxim Defense and all of its downstream customers. What the court declined to do, as with the 5th Circuit, was to issue a blanket nationwide injunction beyond named plaintiffs, i.e. everyone with a braced pistol that isn't an FPC member, and all brace manufacturers (and their customers) other than Maxim Defense. It's important to note that neither FPC, nor Maxim Defense are Northern District Texas, or 5th Circuit entities. FPC is headquartered in Nevada, and Maxim Defense is headquartered in Minnesota.

Whew, that required was some careful reading and rereading to understand the different sections of his dicta and who he was referring to leading up to the order itself at the end.

 

[JAL]

Tim Grieve has an excellent discussion about Reed O'Connor's decision, its dicta and the conclusory Temporary Injunction Order. Very important to note is Reed O'Connor gets into 2nd Amendment infringement issues which is very unusual given the clear and blatant violation of the APA (Administrative Procedure Act). Under the Constitutional Avoidance Principle, most judges would have stopped with the Plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits with BATFE violation of he APA without getting into a Constitutional Issue. Tom Grieve gives some discussion about O'Connor's remarks about the Pistol Brace Rule 2nd Amendment issues including braced pistols being clearly in "common use" for "lawful purposes". Worth watching and he's more succinct than Mark of Four Boxes Diner is.

 

[Alamo]

JAL, Thanks for again summarizing rather lengthy legal document and issue.

ETA: here’s the conclusion to the order:

=========================================

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court holds that each Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief against the Government Defendants’ enforcement of the Final Rule that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined to be invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Government Defendants—the Attorney General of the United States; the United States Department of Justice; the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—and each of their respective officers, agents, servants, and employees—are hereby:

1) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and all of its members the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful;

2) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against Maxim Defense Industries, LLC and any downstream customers of Maxim Defense Industries, LLC (including all direct consumer purchasers and all intermediary distributors, dealers, retailers, and OEM purchasers of Maxim Defense products, and any of their respective customers) the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful;

3) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against William T. Mock and any of his family members the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful; and

4) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against Christopher Lewis and any of his family members the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful.

The injunctive relief shall not extend to any individual prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g). The injunctive relief shall take effect immediately and remain in effect pending the conclusion and final disposition of all claims and causes of action before the Court in these review proceedings. 5 U.S.C. § 705.