New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[JAL]

Effing carpetbaggers.
Lies by omission. The judge clarified his ruling to say that ONLY those who were members before the lawsuit was filed are covered. If you join today you WILL NOT be covered by the ruling.

That is NOT what he said. Read it again.

 

[JAL]

I'll see your quote by those who stand to make LOTS of money by lying, and raise you a quote from the judge:

Per the Fifth Circuit’s Order:


(my emphasis added)

So as to your quote: I would call those "trans members".
Just because the company that wants to rake in more dollars SAYS I was a member 2 years ago when in fact my credit card was charged just 2 hours ago, doesnt hold water. It doesnt change the fact that I wasnt really a member back then. While it might work for internal benefits, it wouldnt affect anything OUTSIDE the organization. Like being a party to a lawsuit.

As I said in the other thread, If the judge doesn smack their hands I'll be shocked. Evidence tampering? I mean they are changing their database to put more litigants in the case than there really are.

This is purely a money grab.

Edit:

Honest Mrs Cleaver. Wally was with me all night at the Library! We dont know anything about a party.

Since Day One: means that FPC has been representing its membership from the outset, that it did not represent only its staff at the outset and suddenly add or attempt to add its "membership" as a "named plaintiff" later, a roster of which would very obviously be changing over time as memberships are renewed. Adding a specifically named plaintiff, as single private individual, or as an entire organization later, requires a motion to do so, and leave (permission) from the court to be added with an order from the court adding said plaintiff(s). This has been clarified by many, including numerous attorneys as to what the judge meant. You are misinterpreting what "since day one" means. Had the judge not specified that, ATF would have argued FPC was trying to slip one in under the door and that it should only cover their paid staff, not its membership since they were never added later. ATF in filings spread across the three cases attempting to prevent injunctions has tried to argue they're not representing their members, only the organization's staff, particularly in the GOA case, claiming the GOA/GOF don't have members, and therefore what they claim as "members" have no "standing" before the court.

I'll take the word of individuals like Mark W. Smith and Tom Grieve on the matter.
1. In a full week since then, nothing further has been filed in the FPC case by ATF.
2. In the GOA case, ATF requested a transcript of the May 25th "Status Conference" that occurred just before that court's injunction on May 31st (there were also a number of subsequent briefs filed by both sides between the 25th and 31st).
3. In the SAF case, only action since its injunction and clarification is one of the attorneys representing SAF & Rainier Arms withdrawing, not a rare event.

 

[JAL]

View attachment 279591

This is the email I've received twice now from FPC. Once on May 26th, and again on June 2nd.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Since Day One: means that FPC has been representing its membership from the outset, that it did not represent only its staff at the outset and suddenly add or attempt to add its membership as a "named plaintiff" later. Adding a plaintiff later requires a motion to do so, and leave (permission) from the court to be added with an order from the court adding said plaintiff(s). This has been clarified by many, including numerous attorneys as to what the judge meant. You are misinterpreting what "since day one" means. Had he not specified that, ATF would have argued FPC was trying to slip one in under the door and that it should only cover their paid staff, not its membership since they were never added later.

I'll take the word of individuals like Mark W. Smith and Tom Grieve on the matter.

I guess this is a case where you want it to say what you want it to say. The judge's clarification is pretty clear. I don't care either way because we aren't even in the right circus for it to matter to us as Hoosiers whether we become members or not.

 

[bobzilla]

I guess this is a case where you want it to say what you want it to say. The judge's clarification is pretty clear. I don't care either way because we aren't even in the right circus for it to matter to us as Hoosiers whether we become members or not.

I’m sorry but I’m not seeing it say what YOU want it it say. The clarification has no mention of when the members had to have joined.

 

[JAL]

I guess this is a case where you want it to say what you want it to say. The judge's clarification is pretty clear. I don't care either way because we aren't even in the right circus for it to matter to us as Hoosiers whether we become members or not.

Injunctions apply to their organization memberships nationally, not just in the 5th Circuit, and this has been done in the past by Circuit and District Courts. Effectively blocks a different court, other than 5th Circuit for GOA and SAF, or SCOTUS, from vacating the injunctions, i.e. a higher court in the hierarchy, versus a sister district or circuit court. The sleeper case in the Eastern District of Virginia lost its bid for a preliminary injunction in its District Court. It has a single plaintiff, a private individual, and that only affects that plaintiff as an individual in that lawsuit. The order there simply stated he hadn't sufficiently convinced the court for extraordinary relief at this time, and the case would plod onward. It wasn't dismissed. He could be a member of GOA, FPC or SAF and it wouldn't affect that standing in another court.

Took me a while to see the logic in what the three courts were doing by keeping it to their plaintiffs (as clarified) -- versus a blanket, sweeping nationwide injunction applying to 330 million people, which is what many wanted, but don't understand the hazards in attempting that. Preliminary injunctions pending "trial" are extraordinary and usually denied. The injunctions out of three courts thus far is very extraordinary. I had not expected it and was predicting an appeal to SCOTUS for a preliminary injunction which would be Samuel Alito for 5th Circuit.

FRAC is still pending one on a decision by its North Dakota court . . . most likely carefully mulling over how it will deal with state standings before the court as represented by the state attorney generals, and who specifically among the 25 states' residents they can represent . . . which ATF is desperately claiming have zero standing whatsoever. Wording in that one, should a prelim injunction be ordered, would be interesting, just as it was regarding Texas in the GOA injunction. I read the filing ATF made in North Dakota attempting to limit who an injunction would apply to regarding 25 states.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I’m sorry but I’m not seeing it say what YOU want it it say. The clarification has no mention of when the members had to have joined.

I'm going to take one more stab at this and then I'm done.

It's a simple question. Were you a member at the time the suit was filed like the judge clarified? If the answer is no, you cannot be a party. No matter how much back dating is done to your membership. You were not a party on day one so it doesnt apply to you.

Lets look at it another way. I have a range on property that is difficult to access. You grant me permission to cross your property to access it since it is easier. Including my 10 member shooting team. I start having large open shoots with lots of guests and the traffic on your property gets out of hand so you sue. And the judge says "While we sort this out, only members of CM's shooting team at the time of this ruling may use the easement. Nobody else can use it. "

So I start signing up more people onto my team. So its cool that there are now 100 people on my "team" that you can't stop from using your property? Its OK, Because I backdated their memberships, right? Because that is what is happening here.

 

[Salty]

I'm going to take one more stab at this and then I'm done.

It's a simple question. Were you a member at the time the suit was filed like the judge clarified? If the answer is no, you cannot be a party. No matter how much back dating is done to your membership. You were not a party on day one so it doesnt apply to you.

Lets look at it another way. I have a range on property that is difficult to access. You grant me permission to cross your property to access it since it is easier. Including my 10 member shooting team. I start having large open shoots with lots of guests and the traffic on your property gets out of hand so you sue. And the judge says "While we sort this out, only members of CM's shooting team at the time of this ruling may use the easement. Nobody else can use it. "

So I start signing up more people onto my team. So its cool that there are now 100 people on my "team" that you can't stop from using your property? Its OK, Because I backdated their memberships, right? Because that is what is happening here.

That's not apples to apples. The land owner owned the land before. ATF did not have the rule before.

 

[JAL]

I’m sorry but I’m not seeing it say what YOU want it it say. The clarification has no mention of when the members had to have joined.

I'm with you on this . . . my take on it coming from these two attorneys and their discussions on it . . .

---------------------------------- Mark W. Smith ----------------------------------

Regarding Maxim Defense Customers - link starts in mid-video where he talks about Maxim Defense (see my discussion below):




Video produced after additional injunctions.




----------------------------------- Tom Grieve -----------------------------------

Watch ALL THREE to take in the totality of what he discusses over time as events unfolded. DO NOT take just ONE alone. They're listed in the order in which he quickly uploaded them streaming live. Third one also mentions info he got from ATF about how many registered SBRs with them.

---

My Comments and Analysis Regarding when one must be a member and customer . . .
Two of the injunctions cover customers of Maxim Defense, and Rainier Arms LLC nationwide. These companies wouldn't be plaintiffs just to cover past customers. Their standing is predicated on the financial damage they are already suffering as a consequence of the rule, as they cannot legally sell their braced pistols to NEW customers and NEW sales. They get zero revenue from PAST customer purchases. The two injunctions, one for each of them (as named plaintiffs), allows them to sell their products again. All well and good. Who can buy them? Makes no sense whatsoever to give the two companies injunctive relief to sell their braced pistol products if nobody can become a NEW or returning customer to buy one in a NEW sale, as they would get zero revenue with zero sales. Thus, "customers", by necessity, must include not only past customers, but new ones, and new sales. It's a "living" set of people. Otherwise, Maxim Defense and Rainier Arms as entities would not have any effective injunctive relief for their revenue loss, and it would be worthless to them. See Footnote #1 in the Fifth Circuit's Merits Panel Injunction Clarification (FPC and Maxim Defense). It's the dissent from the one judge in the minority, which gives a strong sense of what the two judges in the majority intended in the clarification . . . because he disagreed and dissented to them.

Thus, the same concept for an organization's "membership" which, by necessity, as it's a "living" organization, has changes in its membership roster, with non-renewed membership expirations, renewals, and new members. The organization "members" are an analogue to a company's "customers". They join to reap the direct benefits of being a member that other non-members may or may not indirectly benefit from. Third injunction covers Texas State employees, and employees of their agencies, another "living" entity with employees quitting, being fired, and being hired. The same concept applies with them. Compound this with ATF in its final Hail Mary, trying to argue GOA/GOF don't have "members" and therefore no "membership" to have any standing before the court, with nothing being argued about when said "members" joined. Southern District of Texas didn't buy it. ATF was throwing pasta on the kitchen wall, any pasta they can get their hands on, to see if it sticks.

---

This as my last one on the topic unless or until something significant occurs in the Federal Courts.
Waiting specifically on FRAC injunction motion in District of North Dakota.
I believe ATF is going to have an absolute nightmare attempting any enforcement until the end of June AFTER orders are forthcoming from Fifth Circuit Appeal.

 

[JAL]

Compliance Numbers for Amnesty Period Free SBR Registration as of Midnight, May 31st:

Compliance numbers are being posted about how many used the Amnesty Free SBR NFA registration with ATF

Jared Yanis (Guns and Gadgets): 255,162




Tom Grieve (live stream video citing this posted above at link provided): ~250,000
See Tom's third video . . . the last one posted . . . where he gives the number who registered.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/th...-stabilizing-braces-today.530629/post-9579380

Various Government Estimates about number of pistol braces "in the wild" with the percentage of them registered as Free SBRs 31 January - 31 May using Jared's 255,162 cited above:

• ATF Lower Bound cited during rule-making: 3 Million; 8.4%
• ATF Upper Bound cited during rule-making: 7 Million; 3.6%
• Congressional Research Service Lower Bound: 10 Million; 2.5%
• Congressional Research Service Upper Bound: 40 Million; 0.63%

Yanis used the 40 Million for his percentage. There's a distinct difference between the number of pistol braces, and the number of braced pistols (firearms with a brace), which will be fewer, even before the ATF rule was created. The number of braces is not relevant, except as possibly a starting point to arrive at the number of pistols with braces. My lower and upper bound is a bit different, as it considers how many braced pistols there currently are (or were) as of 31 January, and not the population of pistol braces, which would be higher, probably much higher. I believe the total number of pistol braces created and sold over a decade is represented well by the 40 Million number above. The population of pistols with one attached in existence today would have shrunk from the following causes:

1. Brace breaks, is discarded as non-repairable, and replaced with new one; these casualties are unaccounted in the 40 Million
2. Brace is upgraded or replaced with new one as owner is seeking a "better", more usable brace resulting in more than one brace per pistol
3. Pistol converted to SBR with owner paying $200 and registering it PRIOR to 31 Jan - 31 May Amnesty
4. Pistol converted to "rifle" configuration with 16" barrel
5. Pistol brace removed and well separated from firearm (stored in shed, buried in yard, etc.) or outright destroyed
6. Pistol actually destroyed (versus an alleged "boating accident")
7. Pistol turned in to ATF and relinquished (to be destroyed by ATF)

Considerations:

• #1 & #2 reduce the brace population prior to Jan 31st, the beginning of the amnesty period and would be the most significant prior to January 31st.
• #3 would also have occurred prior to Jan 31st but would be much lower than the first two.
• #4 would have occurred at any time prior to May 31st, the end of the amnesty period to avoid registering an SBR while remaining legal and would be smaller than #1 or #2.
• #5 would have occurred during the amnesty period to also remain legal without SBR registration. Much cheaper than #4 and undoubtedly larger.
• #6 & #7 would be very nearly zero (if not zero) as it would have no rational reason to justify it

It's my belief the ATF boundary numbers are much too low, and that the Congressional Research is more accurate as boundaries for the number of braces manufactured over ten years. Many millions of braced pistol owners either do not know about the Brace Rule, likely the overwhelming majority, or don't care and are willful "Will Not Comply Scofflaws". I put the range of braced pistols and felons currently in the wild (versus just pistol braces) at about 15 Million to 25 Million. It's nothing more than a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Assed Guess) after thinking about #1 through #7 above.

• My Lower Bound SWAG: 15 Million; 1.7%
• My Upper Bound SWAG: 25 Million: 1.0%

That's very low "compliance" with the Pistol Brace Rule using any of the options it offered. My issue with Jared Yanis' "compliance" percentage calculated for dramatic purposes is using the upper bound of all brace sold over the past decade, and not considering the number of braced pistol owner who used a different option offered by ATF's Rule than registering an SBR.

Some stuff chew on mentally.

EDIT to Add:
By comparison the number of Bump Stocks when its ban went into effect was estimated at ~520,000, a drop in the bucket compared to Pistol Braces.

 

[nonobaddog]

Compliance Numbers for Amnesty Period Free SBR Registration as of Midnight, May 31st:

Compliance numbers are being posted about how many used the Amnesty Free SBR NFA registration with ATF

Jared Yanis (Guns and Gadgets): 255,162




Tom Grieve (live stream video citing this posted above): ~250,000

Various Government Estimates about number of pistol braces "in the wild" with the percentage of them registered as Free SBRs 31 January - 31 May using Jared's 255,162 cited above:

• ATF Lower Bound cited during rule-making: 3 Million; 8.4%
• ATF Upper Bound cited during rule-making: 7 Million; 3.6%
• Congressional Research Service Lower Bound: 10 Million; 2.5%
• Congressional Research Service Upper Bound: 40 Million; 0.63%

Yanis used the 40 Million for his percentage. My lower and upper bound is a bit different, as it considers how many braced pistols there currently are (or were) as of 31 January, and not the population of pistol braces, which would be higher, probably much higher.
The number of pistol braces created and sold over a decade, which I believe is the 40 Million number above. The population of pistols with one attached in existence today, would have shrunk from the following causes:

1. Brace breaks, is discarded as non-repairable, and replaced with new one; these casualties are unaccounted in the 40 Million
2. Brace is upgraded or replaced with new one as owner is seeking a "better", more usable brace resulting in more than one brace per pistol
3. Pistol converted to SBR with owner paying $200 and registering it PRIOR to 31 Jan - 31 May Amnesty
4. Pistol converted to "rifle" configuration with 16" barrel
5. Pistol brace removed and well separated from firearm (stored in shed, buried in yard, etc.) or outright destroyed
6. Pistol actually destroyed (versus an alleged "boating accident")
7. Pistol turned in to ATF and relinquished (to be destroyed by ATF)

Considerations:

• #1 & #2 reduce the brace population prior to Jan 31st, the beginning of the amnesty period and would be the most significant prior to January 31st.
• #3 would also have occurred prior to Jan 31st but would be much lower than the first two.
• #4 would have occurred at any time prior to May 31st, the end of the amnesty period to avoid registering an SBR while remaining legal and would be smaller than #1 or #2.
• #5 would have occurred during the amnesty period to also remain legal without SBR registration. Much cheaper than #4 and undoubtedly larger.
• #6 & #7 would be very nearly zero (if not zero) as it would have no rational reason to justify it

It's my belief the ATF boundary numbers are much too low, and that the Congressional Research is more accurate as boundaries. Many millions of braced pistol owners either do not know about the Brace Rule, likely the overwhelming majority, or don't care and willful "Will Not Comply Scofflaws". I put the range of braced pistols and felons currently in the wild (versus just pistol braces) at about 15 Million to 25 Million. It's nothing more than a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Assed Guess) after thinking about #1 through #7 above.

• My Lower Bound SWAG: 15 Million; 1.7%
• My Upper Bound SWAG: 25 Million: 1.0%

That's very low "compliance" with the Pistol Brace Rule using any of the options it offered. My issue with Jared Yanis' "compliance" percentage calculated for dramatic purposes is using the upper bound of all brace sold over the past decade, and not considering the number of braced pistol owner who used a different option offered by ATF's Rule than registering an SBR.

Some stuff chew on mentally.

They will need many, many new prisons to store all those Americans.

 

[BigRed]

Does the 255K include applications submitted but not yet processed or is that all applications submitted?

 

[JAL]

Does the 255K include applications submitted but not yet processed or is that all applications submitted?

The 255k includes all applications submitted between Jan 31st and May 3st, including those that have been processed and those not yet processed. So it would include submissions at 111:59:59 PM on May 31st which couldn't possibly be processed yet.

 

[BigRed]

The 255k includes all applications submitted between Jan 31st and May 3st, including those not yet processed. So it would include submissions at 111:59:59 PM on May 31st which couldn't possibly be processed yet.

Thank you for clarifying!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Mgderf]

Listening to Armed American Radio program tonight and Mark Walters is all over the pistol brace rule injunction (s), 3 of them, all in the 5th circuit.
The direct question was asked for clarification, regard current vs new members of the enjoined.
Alan Gottlieb of the S.A.F. said they posed the question to A.T.F. and received confirmation that ALL members of the enjoined, including G.O.A., S.A.F., and F.P.C. are covered by the injunction.
This includes members who join AFTER the suit was filed.
Yes, if you join today, or tomorrow, you will be covered by this/these injunctions.

This by no means says that the A.T.F. is going to drop this, but it does put a pretty serious kink into their ability to enforce.

 

[PRasko]

Confirmation from the ATF? I’m sure thats worth the toilet paper its written on.

 

[cbhausen]

Listening to Armed American Radio program tonight and Mark Walters is all over the pistol brace rule injunction (s), 3 of them, all in the 5th circuit.
The direct question was asked for clarification, regard current vs new members of the enjoined.
Alan Gottlieb of the S.A.F. said they posed the question to A.T.F. and received confirmation that ALL members of the enjoined, including G.O.A., S.A.F., and F.P.C. are covered by the injunction.
This includes members who join AFTER the suit was filed.
Yes, if you join today, or tomorrow, you will be covered by this/these injunctions.

This by no means says that the A.T.F. is going to drop this, but it does put a pretty serious kink into their ability to enforce.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Confirmation from the ATF? I’m sure thats worth the toilet paper its written on.

I mean, the head of the damn thing said one thing and within 24 hours it was walked back. They have no idea what is going on.

 

[Mgderf]

Confirmation from the ATF? I’m sure thats worth the toilet paper its written on.

Just like the fact that the braces were o.k.'d before they became verboten.