New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[Trigger Time]

If they want someone they'll track your internet history, bank history, phone records or whatever.

With all of these traitorous big tech companieses in uncle feds back pocket or payroll, they probably have access to all of it without a warrant and if they see anything they want to pursue they'll get the warrant.

 

[JAL]

At this point in the game if a brace is illegal why would people use them. If a person wants to pay a huge fine and spend some time in the federal lockup wouldn't they just use a rifle stock instead? Same time and fine for the crime?

A brace on its own isn't illegal, nor is using one on a pistol automatically illegal. BATFE technicians must evaluate the actual pistol build to determine if it's a legal unregulated pistol or a regulated Short Barrel Rifle. That said, BATFE has yet to provide an example of a LEGAL pistol with a pistol brace since publishing the Final Rule. They've only provided examples of Short Barrel Rifles with braces attached, ILLEGAL unless you have their tax stamp. This is one of the things cited in a number of the lawsuits . . . that the BATFE has engineered and word-smithed the Final Rule such that they haven't outright banned pistols with pistol braces, but have de facto done so with how their 300 pages are worded with deliberate vagueness and ambiguities.

 

[bwframe]

WIBC to air "The Gun Guy with Guy Relford" every Saturday

:cool:

www.indianagunowners.com

Talking braces now. Rokita coming up in second segment.

WIBC, 93.1 FM, Indianapolis, IN | Free Internet Radio | TuneIn

WIBC - WIBC News is Indianapolis’ leading source for news, weather, sports, and engaging discussions—available for free on TuneIn! To listen to WIBC Radio, click the button to get your daily WIBC Radio news and talk. In addition to regular WIBC content,...

tunein.com

 

[BigRed]

atf demonstrates time and time again that the best solution for atf is dissolution of atf.

For those atf folks on here, let me ask.

What is it like to take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the States, and work every day shredding?

 

[BigRed]

Some guy called in and asked about the 2A Project.

Support the effort, folks.

 

[BigRed]

WIBC to air "The Gun Guy with Guy Relford" every Saturday

:cool:

www.indianagunowners.com

Talking braces now. Rokita coming up in second segment.

WIBC, 93.1 FM, Indianapolis, IN | Free Internet Radio | TuneIn

WIBC - WIBC News is Indianapolis’ leading source for news, weather, sports, and engaging discussions—available for free on TuneIn! To listen to WIBC Radio, click the button to get your daily WIBC Radio news and talk. In addition to regular WIBC content,...

tunein.com

Note to Rokita:

The Second Amendment does not "give" rights.

 

[JAL]

I keep reading and re-reading the 1992 SCOTUS United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. and their "Contender" pistol, which included a 21 inch (or 16 inch) barrel with shoulder stock for it, in addition to a 10 inch barrel. BATFE took them to court claiming the kit contained all the parts that could be assembled in a manner that would make a short barrel rifle. That it contained the legal length barrel for use with the shoulder stock didn't matter, only that someone could assemble it differently. SCOTUS sided with Thompson-Center Arms Co. citing the common law Rule of Lenity (Antonin Scalia) applicable to ambiguous criminal statutes, which always gives deference to the defendant. This is in contrast to "Chevron Deference" which goes back to the SCOTUS Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. decision which was a civil, not a criminal case that also involved the EPA, the Clean Air Act, and EPA rules.

Thompson-Center Arms still makes the Contender (Gen 2) and now has an Encore Pro Hunter with various caliber barrels in various lengths, shoulder stocks, and pistol grips. It's very important to note the pistol configuration on all of them uses traditional pistol grips. There is no "pistol brace" or anything that resembles one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Thompson-Center_Arms_Co.

SCOTUS opinion can be read here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/505/

Food for thought . . . regarding having a 16" upper on hand for every pistol lower. I am not a lawyer . . . your mileage could easily vary wildly regarding BATFE.

 

[Magyars]

More good news! Hope GOA and Texas AG hand them their hat.

GOA files suit against draconian ATF gun ban | GOA

Thanks to GOA members’ support! GOA Takes ATF to Court over Draconian Gun Ban Thanks to overwhelming support from GOA members, we filed suit yesterday against the ATF’s pistol brace rule. Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) jointly filed a lawsuit with Texas Attorney...

www.gunowners.org

 

[JAL]

A Washington State lawsuit from the Second Amendment Foundation and Rainier Arms has been delayed and repeatedly stayed since January 15th, 2021, over two years go. It was filed in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division:

3:21-cv-00116; Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Rainier Arms LLC v. BATFE; The Second Amendment Foundation Lawsuit
Case assigned to: Judge Jane J. Boyle
This case has been percolating since it was filed on Jan 15th, 2021, with countless stays and status updates provided by all parties to the court since then. Shouldn't be surprising as BATFE kept changing the proposed rule and the court justifiably wanted to wait until a final rule was actually published to the Federal Register when that became imminent. Following the Jan 30th, 2023 Status Report, the judge ordered the current stay lifted effective Feb 17th, 2023 and the following schedule:

• Feb 17th 2023: Amended Complaint due from Plaintiffs (filed on Feb 17th)
• Mar 3rd 2023: Motion for Preliminary Injunction (if any) due from Plaintiffs
• Mar 24th 2023: Responses to Preliminary Injunction (if any) due
• Apr 4th 2023: Replies to any/all of the above due

Answer to amended complaint extended until either
(i) 21 days after the Court resolves any motion for a preliminary injunction (no date seen for that yet); or
(ii) March 24, 2023, in the event that plaintiffs do not file a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Links to latest Second Amendment Foundation and Court Listener with numerous docs that can be downloaded including the February 17th Amended Complaint (26 page PDF):
https://www.saf.org/saf-rips-atf-final-rule-on-armbraces-lawsuit-will-move-forward/
https://www.saf.org/saf-files-federal-challenge-of-arm-brace-rule-seeks-injunction/

https://www.courtlistener.com/docke...u-of-alcohol-tabacco-firearms-and-explosives/

It appears the Second Amendment Foundation is taking a lead now in this case with Rainier Arms taking a secondary role, plus the two individuals needed as those who are being "damaged" by BATFE. We should see some action with it over the next four to six weeks. Add this posting and lawsuit to the other three already in this thread with similar links. Bookmark the Court Listener link and check it about once per week to stay up on case status. The wheels turn slowly. This adds to the growing dog pile of Pistol Brace lawsuits. I'm left wondering if Biden, Garland, and Dettelbach expected this. Note that Regina Lombardo was the Acting BATFE Director when the suit was originally filed two years ago . . . prior to Dettelbach's confirmation as BATFE Director. Anywhere Lombardo's name appears in the older court filings is now Dettelbach.

 

[bwframe]

 

[JAL]

An Amicus Curiae Brief by 21 House members and 13 Senators was filed four days ago (27 February) supporting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the FRAC v Garland lawsuit in the District Court of North Dakota, Western Division, the same lawsuit with 26 States having joined as Plaintiffs.

The Court Listener Page for this lawsuit is here and numerous filings in it are PDFs that can be downloaded (it's in one of my earlier postings regarding the various lawsuits):
https://www.courtlistener.com/docke...atory-accountability-coalition-inc-v-garland/

William Kirk of Washington Gun Law's YouTube Channel has a decent description and discussion of the Brief here:




William Kirk is a prominent gun law attorney in Washington State. His focus is usually on the draconian gun laws in his home state, but he also comments on Federal gun laws and Federal BATFE rule-making. Remember his practice is in Washington State and their state courts . . . not in the Federal Courts. Calling him from Indiana won't do much. You'd be better to call The Gun Guy who practices in Indiana.

"Amicus Curiae" is Latin legalese for "Friend of the Court" and such briefs are frequently filed, not as a Plaintiff or Defendant, but as party that wishes to support one or the other with specific facts relevant to the case. The Brief is 25 pages long and the PDF can be read here on Court Listener:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ndd.57801/gov.uscourts.ndd.57801.59.1.pdf

Sadly, not a single Indiana Congressman or Congresswoman, or either Senator (Young or Braun) is a signatory. I sent the following to my Representative and both Senators and I urge everyone to communicate with their congressman and both senators to ask them to sign on to this Amicus Curiae Brief. It's very easy to do online.

Dear [Honorable for House member; Senator for a Senator; legislator's name],
I learned today that an Amicus Curiae Brief by members of the House and Senate was filed on February 27th, 2023, with the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Western Division in Case No. 1:23-cv-24-DLH-CRH; Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. v. Garland (four days ago). This brief supports the plaintiffs (FRAC, et al) in their motion for a Preliminary Injunction preventing DoJ and BATFE (Garland & Dettelbach) from enforcing its new, illegally created, illegally published to the Federal Register, and unconstitutional Pistol Brace Rule.

I urge you to add your name to your 21 fellow house members, and 13 fellow Senators, as a signatory to this Amicus Curiae Brief. President Biden, Attorney General Garland, and BATFE Director Dettelbach are attempting to rule by illegal Executive Fiat, usurping the expressly sole powers of Congress to make law under Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It would add to the significance that Congress has never intended, and does not now intend, to abnegate and cede its lawmaking authority to the Executive Branch, which is not empowered to engage in any lawmaking whatsoever under Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The Pistol Brace Rule unquestionably *changes* the legal definition of a "Rifle" in the 1934 NFA (as amended), which is, by definition, lawmaking. There are other procedural aspects of BATFE's rulemaking that were patently illegal. It would be much too long here to recite 25 pages of the Amicus Curiae Brief filed by your fellow members of Congress.

Following is a link to the 25 page Amicus Curiae Brief in "Court Listener":
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ndd.57801/gov.uscourts.ndd.57801.59.1.pdf

To go further, there is no justifiable reason for the Short Barrel Rifle, Short Barrel Shotgun, Any Other Weapon, and Silencer provisions in the 1934 NFA and companion 1968 GCA. They date back to a knee-jerk reaction to the "Gangster" movies in the early 1930's that followed in the wake of Prohibition Era organized crime engaged in widespread bootlegging. SBRs and SBSs in particular are an orphaned vestige that should have been amended out of the final NFA bill when its handgun provisions were removed by amendment before it was passed and signed into law. Overturning the BATFE Pistol Brace Rule is an incremental step in that direction. BATFE touted the Pistol Brace as a lawful accessory for a decade, and has now reversed course completely under direct orders from President Biden to make a **minimum** of 10 Million formerly lawful Pistol Brace owners into instant felons, punishable by 10 years in prison and $250,000 for every braced pistol they own. The real number is undoubtedly much, much larger. It is President Biden's goal to completely disarm America and completely gut the Second Amendment, effectively repealing it. The message must be clear that we will not tolerate it.

Thanks and Best Wishes,
[My full name]

I've also uploaded a PDF of the 25 page Amicus Curiae Brief. It tells the court clearly that a significant portion of Congress opposes BATFE's illegal lawmaking, and the Pistol Brace Rule.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Looks like this step by lawmakers may be the best chance so far to put this to rest. Let's hope it will fly.

 

[drillsgt]

An Amicus Curiae Brief by 21 House members and 13 Senators was filed four days ago (27 February) supporting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the FRAC v Garland lawsuit in the District Court of North Dakota, Western Division, the same lawsuit with 26 States having joined as Plaintiffs.

The Court Listener Page for this lawsuit is here and numerous filings in it are PDFs that can be downloaded (it's in one of my earlier postings regarding the various lawsuits):
https://www.courtlistener.com/docke...atory-accountability-coalition-inc-v-garland/

William Kirk of Washington Gun Law's YouTube Channel has a decent description and discussion of the Brief here:




William Kirk is a prominent gun law attorney in Washington State. His focus is usually on the draconian gun laws in his home state, but he also comments on Federal gun laws and Federal BATFE rule-making. Remember his practice is in Washington State and their state courts . . . not in the Federal Courts. Calling him from Indiana won't do much. You'd be better to call The Gun Guy who practices in Indiana.

"Amicus Curiae" is Latin legalese for "Friend of the Court" and such briefs are frequently filed, not as a Plaintiff or Defendant, but as party that wishes to support one or the other with specific facts relevant to the case. The Brief is 25 pages long and the PDF can be read here on Court Listener:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ndd.57801/gov.uscourts.ndd.57801.59.1.pdf

Sadly, not a single Indiana Congressman or Congresswoman, or either Senator (Young or Braun) is a signatory. I sent the following to my Representative and both Senators and I urge everyone to communicate with their congressman and both senators to ask them to sign on to this Amicus Curiae Brief. It's very easy to do online.


I've also uploaded a PDF of the 25 page Amicus Curiae Brief. It tells the court clearly that a significant portion of Congress opposes BATFE's illegal lawmaking, and the Pistol Brace Rule.

Both my SD Senators were on there but hardly any Representatives at all.

 

[tsilveus]

An Amicus Curiae Brief by 21 House members and 13 Senators was filed four days ago (27 February) supporting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the FRAC v Garland lawsuit in the District Court of North Dakota, Western Division, the same lawsuit with 26 States having joined as Plaintiffs.

The Court Listener Page for this lawsuit is here and numerous filings in it are PDFs that can be downloaded (it's in one of my earlier postings regarding the various lawsuits):
https://www.courtlistener.com/docke...atory-accountability-coalition-inc-v-garland/

William Kirk of Washington Gun Law's YouTube Channel has a decent description and discussion of the Brief here:




William Kirk is a prominent gun law attorney in Washington State. His focus is usually on the draconian gun laws in his home state, but he also comments on Federal gun laws and Federal BATFE rule-making. Remember his practice is in Washington State and their state courts . . . not in the Federal Courts. Calling him from Indiana won't do much. You'd be better to call The Gun Guy who practices in Indiana.

"Amicus Curiae" is Latin legalese for "Friend of the Court" and such briefs are frequently filed, not as a Plaintiff or Defendant, but as party that wishes to support one or the other with specific facts relevant to the case. The Brief is 25 pages long and the PDF can be read here on Court Listener:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ndd.57801/gov.uscourts.ndd.57801.59.1.pdf

Sadly, not a single Indiana Congressman or Congresswoman, or either Senator (Young or Braun) is a signatory. I sent the following to my Representative and both Senators and I urge everyone to communicate with their congressman and both senators to ask them to sign on to this Amicus Curiae Brief. It's very easy to do online.


I've also uploaded a PDF of the 25 page Amicus Curiae Brief. It tells the court clearly that a significant portion of Congress opposes BATFE's illegal lawmaking, and the Pistol Brace Rule.

Thanks for this. 2 senators and a HOR sent to. I still (naively) believe writing to my reps may do some good. Hard to trust the process these days.

 

[ed1838]

Thanks for this. 2 senators and a HOR sent to. I still (naively) believe writing to my reps may do some good. Hard to trust the process these days.

If large sums of money are inculded it may help.

 

[bwframe]

How the new ATF pistol brace ruling will impact gun owners

Gun owners listen up.

www.wsls.com

 

[Alamo]

The House Judiciary Committee wants the ATF to come testify about why they think their brace rule is legal.

 

[actaeon277]

My guess will be, "because we said so"

 

[nonobaddog]

Since congress is the sole source of what actions and powers the AFT has - why doesn't congress just ask itself if this crap is legal?

 

[Trigger Time]

Since congress is the sole source of what actions and powers the AFT has - why doesn't congress just ask itself if this crap is legal?

Greed, power hungry, corruption, evil, tyranny