New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[Ingomike]

Honestly, if I was a plantiff in one of these brace lawsuits, I would not want the NRA also named. They are too much a magnet for the left media but I'd be happy to take their money and counsel...

This sounds plausible…

 

[BigRed]

I've little doubt there are Glowies on this forum.

Yep.

If you install the "digitized aromatic generator" you can smell them. You can use a pile of cow dung to calibrate it.

 

[nonobaddog]

Yep.

If you install the "digitized aromatic generator" you can smell them. You can use a pile of cow dung to calibrate it.

They should be identified so we could all make fun of them and call them names.

 

[Alamo]

Saf.org gateway crashing. Think they're getting a lot of business.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Saf.org gateway crashing. Think they're getting a lot of business.

And lots of folks throwing good money after bad thinking they will get grandfathered in. Suckers.

I guess the extra money will help them file more lawsuits, so I guess there is a little good news there.

Lets just hope THEIR CEO doesnt start buying a bunch of suits too. LOL

 

[BigRed]

They should be identified so we could all make fun of them and call them names.

I tried.

The names were all replaced with asterisks.

 

[nonobaddog]

I tried.

The names were all replaced with asterisks.

Naughty words - as in unconstitutional traitor *************.

 

[BigRed]

The centra state is a robber and a thief, yet folks continue to advocate and vote to keep it around.

 

[Cldedhnds]

Looks like more injunctions dropping. This one in favor of individuals employed by the state of Texas, the GOA, and Gun Owners Foundation.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1905516/gov.uscourts.txsd.1905516.51.0.pdf

 

[Mgderf]

Looks like more injunctions dropping. This one in favor of individuals employed by the state of Texas, the GOA, and Gun Owners Foundation.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1905516/gov.uscourts.txsd.1905516.51.0.pdf

The very definition of a fuster cluck.

 

[nonobaddog]

FPC released a statement about memberships.

"On Sunday, May 28, 2023, the Board of Directors of Firearms Policy Coalition made a number of formal changes to the membership structure of the organization.​

First, the Board granted an Individual Membership to all individual monetary donors of FPC who have supported FPC’s activities through financial contribution(s) of twenty U.S. Dollars ($20) or more from June 1, 2022, through May 31, 2023, inclusive. Those memberships will have an effective date of June 1, 2022, and an expiration date of December 31, 2023, unless the Individual Member renews the granted membership on or before the end of 2023."

 

[JAL]

Looks like more injunctions dropping. This one in favor of individuals employed by the state of Texas, the GOA, and Gun Owners Foundation.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1905516/gov.uscourts.txsd.1905516.51.0.pdf

Looked to see if this had been posted here.

Cutting to the chase scene, this is the last paragraph in the order [bold highlight is mine]:

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, (Dkt. No. 16). Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule
against (1) the private Plaintiffs in this case, including its current members and their
resident family members, and (2) individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or
its agencies. [footnote 9 reference]
The preliminary injunction will remain in effect pending resolution of the
expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland.
It is SO ORDERED.

Glowies should take careful note of this! The "private Plaintiffs" are GOA, GOF, and Brady Brown. Conversely, by process of elimination, the "non-private Plaintiff" is the State of Texas. Legal Geeks should read the PDF. Has interesting discussion with the opinion of the court regarding Texas' standing. That should have some very positive influence in the North Dakota FRAC lawsuit with 25 state Att'y Gen'l named as plaintiffs in addition to FRAC. ATF has been arguing the state AGs and the states they represent have no standing before the courts. Note that just because this court has limited the current Preliminary Injunction to only Texas employees, it doesn't mean any final one will when the case proceeds to a final judgement and order. It does bode well that ATF is being thoroughly thrashed in preliminary injunctions, which are considered an extraordinary remedy pending final adjudication with a high bar to clear in justifying it.

These injunctions, as they are not narrowly limited to the 5th Circuit regarding current organization members, are going to make ATF enforcement of the rule extremely difficult without deeply entangling them in false arrest, false imprisonment, property damage, and canine murder animal abuse tort claims if they raid someone's domicile that belongs to an organization member.

I am a current member of GOA, FPC and SAF. Attached PDF of the Preliminary Injunction Order entered by the court.

Thanks Cldedhnds!

 

[JAL]

. . .
This morning I called NRA, transferred over to NRA-ILA and asked the person answering to explain specifically how NRA is participating in the lawsuit as they're not a named plaintiff and haven't filed an amicus brief. The individual didn't know the answer but has emailed the NRA legal team for specifics. He's hoping to get an answer back today.
. . .

Received telephone call from NRA with a reply to my inquiry. It was the same gentleman I had talked to earlier and he had received a reply to his email to the NRA legal team. Following are my notes from the second phone call:

• NRA is funding a separate lawsuit
• NRA and NRA-ILA do not join as plaintiffs for a number of reasons including
  • Discovery Avoidance - NRA/NRA-ILA would be inundated with subpoenas and interrogatories for all their email communications, related documents, etc.
  • Optics Avoidance - NRA has a giant target on them, put there by the anti-gun organizations, anti-gun media and anti-gun politicians. It would only serve to put a bigger target on the lawsuit(s) with these organizations, media and politicians.

I'm left wondering what the "separate lawsuit" is. It may be the FRAC lawsuit in North Dakota. I'm now inquiring with FRAC. Take the other bullet points for what they are. Could be valid on their face or could be an excuse for ducking being an active participant. For me, the jury is still out. I'm skeptical regarding NRA. In reviewing their IRS 990's, the amount of compensation going to the paid NRA Director was beyond shocking at over $6 Million per year. Money spent on actual gun rights activism paled by comparison. Given what I've seen in mainstream media and on social media platforms (especially Twitter), they're not achieving much "Optics Avoidance". Just the opposite. Every time NRA makes a press release about the FRAC lawsuit, it attracts thousands of arrows from all the anti-gun orgs: David Hogg/March for Our Lives, Giffords, Moms Demand Action, etc. Told the gentleman on the phone that and he replied he would pass that on.

As an aside, given what I saw in NRA IRS 990 financial statements, and reviewing the "balance sheet" in them showing revenue and expenditures, I'm not giving a single dime to them given the ratio of what they're spending on salaries, donation and membership drives, and internal operations versus what they're spending on gun owner training, gun rights advocacy, etc. The 990's for all 501(c)(#) non-profits are publicly available by Federal Law. Purpose of that is enabling people to determine if a non-profit is doing what it says it's doing, and its financial efficiency in ratio of money being used to run it and pay its employees versus money being spent on its stated mission proper (Google is your friend). Many 501's are primarily revenue generators for the Directors running them as a source of income, barely passing IRS non-profit scrutiny (what there is of it). My opine of NRA and its general overall value to gun owners.

I'm digging now with FRAC to see what they say.
To be continued . . .

 

[Expat]

So GOA is now on the injunctive relief list. So pretty much everyone but the NRA, but they may or may not be working on it. This will be a real black eye for them if they don’t get their members protected soon.

 

[JAL]

In related news as I didn't see it posted yet . . .

Second Amendment Foundation also received clarification about its injunction similar to FPC's late May 31st (also attached as PDF):

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209/gov.uscourts.txnd.343209.65.0.pdf

Cutting the chase scene in the SAF Clarification Order for the TL/DR folks [bold emphasis mine]:

Here, the Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order likewise limited the injunctive relief to
“Plaintiffs in this case only, pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock.” Doc. 62, Prelim.
Inj. Order, 2–3. Thus, consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s order on clarification, the Court clarifies
its Order to confirm that the preliminary injunction entered in this case provides relief to both
SAF and its members. Here, SAF is suing “on behalf of itself . . . . [and] its members.” Doc. 50,
First Am. Compl., ¶ 8. Accordingly, SAF’s members are reasonably within the scope of the Court’s
preliminary injunction pending the Mock appeal. See Order at 2, Mock v. Garland, No. 23-10319
(5th Cir. May 26, 2023), Doc. 78-2. A preliminary injunction to the contrary would fail to afford
complete relief. See id. (granting the motion for clarification “essentially for the reasons concisely
set forth in the [Plaintiffs’ Reply]”); see also Pls.’ Reply at 1–5, Mock v. Garland, No. 23-10319 (5th
Cir. May 25, 2023), Doc. 75 (arguing a narrower interpretation of the injunction would fail to
provide “complete relief” to the plaintiffs).

Accordingly, the Motion for Clarification is GRANTED, and the Court confirms that its Preliminary Injunction Order (Doc. 62) applies to both SAF and its members. SO ORDERED. SIGNED: May 31, 2023.

I'm triple-vaxed by GOA, FPC and SAF membership.

 

[Cavman]

Any word on Todd Rokita's lawsuit? I've emailed Rep Houchin several times. Gotten one response where she said she was gonna fight it. When asked for updates, nothing

 

[JAL]

Any word on Todd Rokita's lawsuit? I've emailed Rep Houchin several times. Gotten one response where she said she was gonna fight it. When asked for updates, nothing

If this is regarding the FRAC lawsuit in North Dakota in which Indiana is a named plaintiff, there's nothing . . . yet.

Keep in mind a preliminary injunction from that court it could end up being quite narrow regarding the named states, just as the GOA lawsuit which included Texas only covers Texas state employees, not all Texas' residents (read the opinion in that injunction to see why it was narrowed). A state seeking standing before a Federal Court representing all its residents is exceedingly difficult with narrow conditions under which it can legitimately do so. It's still percolating. I anticipate anything significant forthcoming will receive substantial publicity in Indiana, and would be quickly posted here by someone.

---

In reviewing the status of that lawsuit I discovered an 8th one challenging the Pistol Brace Rule in the Eastern District of Virginia:

Miller v. Garland (1:23-cv-00195-RDA-JFA) District Court, E.D. Virginia (Alexandria Division)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67405711/miller-v-garland/

Discovered it as one of the most recent filings made by ATF in the North Dakota FRAC lawsuit referenced this one. Very little of its filings and orders is publicly available (for free). The plaintiff is a singular individual, Robert M. Miller, a firearm owner and dealer. Of note is Miller's motion for a nationwide Temporary Restraining Order was denied as his arguments did not rise to what is needed for such an extremely extraordinary relief. That order (TRO denial) is the only one available (for free). This does not affect any of the other Preliminary Injunctions. I skimmed through the court's rationale in that order, and IMHO the court's rationale is flawed. Nevertheless, that lawsuit will continue to plod onward in the Eastern District of Virginia. I presume it has been under the radar as it involves only one private party individual plaintiff. I don't plan on following this one unless it explodes with something dramatic as I believe it will be overtaken by events in other jurisdictions.

 

[Cavman]

If this is regarding the FRAC lawsuit in North Dakota in which Indiana is a named plaintiff, there's nothing . . . yet.

Keep in mind a preliminary injunction from that court it could end up being quite narrow regarding the named states, just as the GOA lawsuit which included Texas only covers Texas state employees, not all Texas' residents (read the opinion in that injunction to see why it was narrowed). A state seeking standing before a Federal Court representing all its residents is exceedingly difficult with narrow conditions under which it can legitimately do so. It's still percolating.

In reviewing the status of that lawsuit I discovered an 8th one challenging the Pistol Brace Rule in the Eastern District of Virginia:

Miller v. Garland (1:23-cv-00195-RDA-JFA) District Court, E.D. Virginia (Alexandria Division)
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67405711/miller-v-garland/

Very little of its filings and orders is publicly available (for free). The plaintiff is a singular individual, Robert M. Miller, a firearm owner and dealer. Of note is Miller's motion for a nationwide Temporary Restraining Order was denied as his arguments did not rise to what is needed for such an extremely extraordinary relief. That order (TRO denial) is the only one available (for free). This does not affect any of the other Preliminary Injunctions. I skimmed through the court's rationale in that order, and IMHO the court's rationale is flawed. Nevertheless, that lawsuit will continue to plod onward in the Eastern District of Virginia. I presume it has been under the radar as it involves only one private party individual plaintiff. I don't plan on following this one unless it explodes with something dramatic as I believe it will be overtaken by events in other jurisdictions.

Thanks for all the information. Thats alot of leg work

 

[Cameramonkey]

FPC released a statement about memberships.

I don’t care what they say. Nor would a judge. If you weren’t a member you weren’t a member. No amount of backdating would make you a party to the lawsuit.

I seriously hope nobody needs to rely on this.

 

[bobzilla]

Good morning my fellow felons!