Smith Sights banner ad

New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    Tyler-The-Piker

    Tyler-The-Piker

    Boondock Saint
    Rating - 100%
    101   0   0
    Jun 24, 2013
    4,756
    77
    ><(((((*>
    actaeon277 said:
    A - Alcohol
    T- Tobacco
    F - Firearms


    ALL LEGAL.

    Why is there an ATF?
    Click to expand...
    19482438_0.jpg
     
    JAL

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,164
    113
    Indiana
    GodFearinGunTotin said:
    I need to watch the video as it must be a separate suit than the WV suit I read about the other day. (I don’t think the NRA was listed as a plaintiff(?) in that one). FWIW, Rokita seems to be aligned with the WV suit.

    events.in.gov

    Attorney General Todd Rokita sues ATF to protect Hoosiers’ gun rights

    Attorney General Todd Rokita today sued the Biden administration to challenge a recent rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that infringes on Hoosiers’ gun rights. Specifically, the new ATF rule treats pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as short-barreled...
    events.in.gov events.in.gov
    Click to expand...
    It's the same lawsuit filed in North Dakota. FRAC is a plaintiff and some sources got it wrong about the NRA . . . which is not a plaintiff, but they are providing considerable funding in the background to help pay for it.
     
    JAL

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,164
    113
    Indiana
    bwframe said:
    I'd like to hear more details on the lawsuits. Updates, upcoming court dates, locations, etc.

    Video for us to promote all over the web would be wonderful. :yesway:


    .
    Click to expand...
    You can access Federal Court dockets online and get rudimentary information about current cases. The four major lawsuits:
    Note that "courtlistener.com" is a magnificent resource for finding cases and their status in the Federal Courts. Has a bit of a learning curve to using its search capabilities, but unlike PACER which is "operated" by the Feds with fee payment to use it, and geared completely for attorneys who will pay for it, Court Listener is free. Save those links as you can continue to use them to check current status as the cases progress. Helps to know how to search for stuff on the Internet. :)
     
    Last edited:
    JAL

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,164
    113
    Indiana
    JAL said:
    You can access Federal Court dockets online and get rudimentary information about current cases. The four major lawsuits:
    Note that "courtlistener.com" is a magnificent resource for finding cases and their status in the Federal Courts. Has a bit of a learning curve to using its search capabilities, but unlike PACER which is "operated" by the Feds with fee payment to use it, and geared completely for attorneys who will pay for it, Court Listener is free. Save those links as you can continue to use them to check current status as the cases progress. Helps to know how to search for stuff on the Internet. :)
    Click to expand...
    You'll see a lot of "Notice of Appearance" entries on them in Court Listener. For those who haven't been a party to litigation and followed a case's "minute entries", a "Notice of Appearance" is a filing that tells the court and all other parties who the attorney is that's representing one of the litigants. It's also a notice to everyone that all communication for the party they're representing is to be sent to them, not to the litigant they're representing. The opposite is a "Notice of Withdrawal" that is made when an attorney stops representing a litigant party. I saw firsthand an attorney come completely unhinged when an opposing counsel communicated directly with his client, completely bypassing him, and not even sending a "courtesy copy" or any other notice or phone call. That's a Big Time no-no that can get an attorney in trouble with the court and the Bar Association.
     
    Last edited:
    bwframe

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,172
    113
    Btown Rural
    JAL said:
    You'll see a lot of "Notice of Appearance" entries on them in Court Listener. For those who haven't been a party to litigation and followed a case "minute entries", a "Notice of Appearance" is a filing that tells the court and all other parties who the attorney is that's representing one of the litigants. It's also a notice to everyone that all communication for the party they're representing is to be sent to them, not to the litigant they're representing. The opposite is a "Notice of Withdrawal" that is made when an attorney stops representing a litigant party. I saw firsthand an attorney come completely unhinged when an opposing counsel communicated directly with his client, completely bypassing him, and not even sending a "courtesy copy" or any other notice or phone call. That's a Big Time no-no that can get an attorney in trouble with the court and the Bar Association.
    Click to expand...

    Thanks so much for your information!

    I'm likely not to delve very far into lawyer stuff. Hopefully we'll have some interpreters that will sort the wheat from the chaff and report back to us regularly in english? Maybe there will be some YouTubers on this?


    .
     
    JAL

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,164
    113
    Indiana
    Yet another lawsuit emerges . . . that was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on Jan 31st . . . and this one is receiving an expedited consideration for either a Summary Judgement or a Preliminary Injunction pending adjudication. The judge has signed an order with a schedule for filings and that the court will issue an order regarding plaintiff's motion for relief or for a preliminary injunction on or before March 24th.

    The judge, Amos L. Mazzant, gave the following filing schedule in the order he issued:
    • Defendant response [to complaint] due Feb 23rd, 2023
    • Plaintiff reply [to Defendant response] due Feb 27th, 2023
    • Defendant sur-reply [to Plaintiff reply] due Mar 3rd, 2023
    • Court will issue order on Plaintiff Motion for Relief, or a Preliminary Injunction on or before Mar 24th, 2023
    4:2023cv00080; Eastern District of Texas, Watterson v. BATFE; The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) lawsuit
    TPPF website has a press release which includes a link to a PDF copy of the complaint filed with the District Court
    https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/t...ule-violates-federal-law-and-the-constitution
    https://www.texaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Complaint.pdf
    https://www.courtlistener.com/docke...u-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/

    This is one to watch as it will be progressing much faster than the others. It doesn't have the depth of legal horsepower behind it the others have, but could be a harbinger about what to expect with the other four. Notice of appearance by some of the attorneys representing DoJ and BATF are "Pro Hac Vice" which means they're not admitted to the bar for that particular court and will be appearing for that one case; don't read anything into that as it's relatively common in cases like this. I'm not betting on a final judgement on/before Mar 24th. BATFE and DoJ will do its best to drag this out as long as possible. I believe it's a toss-up between the two and a preliminary injunction, if that's issued may have limited application or jurisdiction; i.e. it may not be applicable nationally.

    "Armed Scholar" published a video on the case's current status and judge's order setting the accelerated schedule:
     
    Last edited:
    JAL

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,164
    113
    Indiana
    A Florida lawsuit that was flying under the radar, filed in the Middle District of Florida:

    8:23-cv-00223; Middle District of Florida, Colon v. BATFE; 2nd Amendment Armory (a gun Florida store)
    Case assigned to: Judge Mary S. Scriven and Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy
    Not much on this lawsuit as the summons to BATFE was just issued less than a week ago. Law firm representing the plaintiffs is Zermay Law, which handles a range of litigation, including "Firearms Rights Protection". Based out of the Miami, FL area, they don't appear to be a huge firm. Lead attorney for this action is located in Tampa area. The law firm has made no announcement or press release and they are in the initial stage of sending the summons to "USA" which includes BATFE and all the other Usual Suspects, who have yet to respond. The information readily available . . . unless you have a (costly) PACER account is here:

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

    Side Notes:
    A sweeping gutting of BATFE and wiping out the 1934 NFA is a pipe dream. It will have to be chipped away one small piece at a time. The "pistol brace" litigation could eventually wipe out NFA SBR regulation, and with it the companion SBS. I expect the first victories will be BATFE having procedurally violated the APA, which avoids 2nd Amendment rulings. That would only put BATFE back to square one regarding "Pistol Brace" rulemaking, perhaps with some limitations on them. The filings thus far have been correct that Chevron Deference doesn't apply to the "Pistol Brace" rule as the SCOTUS Chevron case on which it's based was a civil lawsuit between Chevron, Inc. and a non-profit organization, not a criminal trial with criminal liabilities and penalties. Chevron Deference does not apply to rulemaking with criminal consequences. Rule of Lenity overrides it -- that any ambiguity in law always favors a criminal defendant, not the government (to wit: 1992 SCOTUS decision and opinion in U.S. v. Thompson Center Arms). There is also a general principle at the District (trial) Court level to avoid constitutional questions if it can be fully resolved otherwise, such as an agency violating the APA in its rulemaking. The constitutional questions would then emerge with greater prominence on appeal at the Circuit Court of Appeals level, and most certainly if a Writ of Certiorari is granted by SCOTUS to take it up there. Thus I believe BATFE may be initially pushed back into a Pistol Brace rule do-over, which under Biden, Garland and Dettelbach, they would tenaciously start over, just as they have twice now. It's worth watching all these cases to see how they progress . . . and have patience. The wheels turn slowly -- except for the Watterson v. BATFE working under an accelerated schedule -- but don't put all your eggs in one basket with that one.
     
    Last edited:
    JAL

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,164
    113
    Indiana
    More Sordid SBR History:
    The video posted has some basics, but it's more involved. The 1934 NFA did indeed start out with including all handguns as "NFA" regulated and taxed items, and that was amended out before the it was passed and signed into law. Also correct was the inclusion of SBR and SBS to block people from hacking down unregulated rifles and shotguns to make pistols out of them, however unwieldy they might be -- which wasn't removed when the handgun provisions were amended out. Spin forward two years to 1936 after gun manufacturers making .22 caliber rimfire rifles with barrels shorter than 18 inches vociferously complained they had been making them for plinking and even carnival attractions for many years, and the NFA was unfairly killing their legitimate business unrelated to organized crime. The NFA was amended to allow for .22 rimfire caliber rifles with 16 inch barrels. Then spin forward to 1963, when the Federal Government surpluses the huge stockpile of semi-auto M1 Carbines out to civilians. After hundreds if not thousands are in the hands of civilians, someone finally notices their barrels are a tad shorter than 18 inches, making all of them NFA regulated SBRs. OOPSIE! Some back room deal is cut that BATFE will ignore this and not attempt to enforce the NFA SBR provisions regarding the M1 Carbines as it would be a huge embarrassment to Uncle Sam, having allowed that to occur. Now spin forward to the 1968 GCA, which set the SBR barrel length to 16 inches for all rimfire and centerfire rifle calibers. And that is how we got to 16 inches for rifles, while 18 inches remains for shotguns.

    Related Side Notes:
    Ultimately I believe this history, and the debates with testimony in Congress going back to the 1934 NFA regarding at least SBRs, will be the undoing and striking down of the SBR from the NFA and GCA, if not also the SBS. The SBR and SBS are silly and completely illogical in light of handguns, including rifle caliber pistols (which are still legal), and shotguns such as the "Shockwave". I'm making popcorn to see what happens over the upcoming months.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Latest posts

    Members online

    ... and 167 more.
    Total: 1,575 (members: 217, guests: 1,358)

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    525,270
    Messages
    9,812,392
    Members
    53,818
    Latest member
    SRTrail
    Bear Creek Arsenal Ad
    Top Bottom